Do Catholics and Orthodox rely on private interpretation?

But it is not possible conscientiously to study these facts from reliable documents without eliciting this truth: that the influence of the Bishop of' Rome did not arise in an universal authority-that it did not even have its source in an authority recognized by all the Western Churches, but was simply derived from the importance of his See.
Rome was the centre of all communications between different parts of the Empire. The faithful crowded thither from all quarters-for political business or private interests and thus her testimony as an Apostolic Church was strengthened by the faithful who came thither from all parts of the world, bringing the witness of all the Churches to which they severally belonged.
Such is the sense of a passage of St. Irenæus, of which the Roman theologians have made the strangest misuse.
This great theologian, attacking the heretics who sought to corrupt the faithful at Rome, establishes against them the Catholic rule of faith, preserved everywhere and always. "But," he adds, "as it would be very tedious to enumerate in such a work the succession of all the Churches, we will trace that of the very great and very ancient Church and known of all, which was founded and established at Rome by the two very glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul; which possesses a tradition that comes from the Apostles as much as the Faith declared to men, and which has transmitted it to us through the succession of her Bishops; by that, we confound all those who in any manner whatsoever, either through blindness or bad intention, do not gather where they should ; For. every Church, that is to say, the faithful who are from all places, are obliged to go toward that Church, because of the most powerful principality. In this Church, the tradition of the Apostles has been preserved by those who are of all countries."
The Romish theologians choose a bad translation of this passage, in order to find in it an argument in favor of the papal sovereignty. Instead of saying that the faithful of the whole world were obliged to go to Rome, because it was the Capital of the Empire, the seat of government, and the centre of all business, civil and political, they translate convenire ad by the words, to agree with-which is a misinterpretation; they make potentiorem principalitatem refer to the Church of Rome, and they see in this its primacy, whereas these words are only used in a general manner, and nothing indicates that they do not solely designate the capital and principal city of the Empire. Again, they translate, maximae, antiquissimae, by greatest and most ancient, without reflecting that they thus attribute to St. Irenæus an assertion manifestly false; for, granting that the Church of Rome was the greatest of her day, she could not certainly be called the most ancient-every one knew that a great number of churches had been founded in the East before that of Rome. Moreover, their translation does not make the author say in conclusion, that the Apostolic tradition has been preserved at Rome, by those who were of all countries-(ab his qui sunt undique,) as the text requires, but like Pius IX., in his Encyclical Letter to the Christians of the East, “In all that the faithful believe," not reflecting that this is a misconstruction, and that they are thus attributing nonsense to the good Father. In the text as we render it all things hang together. St. Irenæus after having established that only the universal Faith should be received, points out to the heretics of that city the Church of Rome, as offering to them an evidence the more convincing that Apostolic tradition had been there preserved by the faithful of the whole world.
How then could St. Irenæus, whose purpose it is to give the universal Faith as the rule for private belief, and who enlarges precisely upon this point in the chapter from which the text is taken, logically say what is attributed to him by the Popes and their theologians? He would then have argued thus: It is necessary to adopt as the rule the belief of all the churches; but it suffices to appeal to that of the Church of Rome, to which there must be uniformity and submission, because of her primacy. St. Irenæus never expressed so unreasonable an opinion. He lays down as a principle the universal Faith as a rule, and he points out the Faith of the Church of Rome as true--thanks to the concourse of the faithful who assembled there from all parts, and who thus preserved there the Apostolic tradition. How did they preserve it? Because they would have protested against any change in the traditions of their own churches, to which they were witnesses at Rome. St. Irenæus does not give the pretended Divine authority of the Bishop of Rome, as the principle of the preservation of tradition in the Church of that city--but logically, he attributes that preservation to the faithful of other Churches who controlled her traditions by those of their own Churches, and who thus formed an invincible obstacle to innovation.
It was natural that the Bishop of the Capital of the Empire, precisely because of the faithful who there gathered from all parts, should acquire a great influence in religious matters, and even occasionally take the lead. But all the monuments, as also the circumstances attending, those transactions in which he took part, show that he enjoyed no authority superior to that of the other Bishops.
It is clear that all discussion relative to this text of St. Irenæus turns upon the sense to be given to the word convenire. If this word signifies to agree with, we must conclude that the venerable writer thought it all must necessarily agree with the Church of Rome, and without that it is impossible to be in the unity. If the word means to go, all the Ultramontane scaffolding will fall of itself, for it can not reasonably be affirmed that all the faithful must of Necessity go to Rome, even though the Church established in that city should be the first and principal Church, the centre of Unity. It follows that the sense of this word should be determined in so evident a manner that there remain no doubt in respect to it.
We have already remarked that the preposition ad determined the sense of it--we can add many others to this already conclusive proof If we possessed the Greek text of the passage in question, there is no doubt there would not be the uncertainty resulting from the Latin word. But Eusebius and Nicephorus have preserved for us other fragments of the primitive text. Now it happens that in these fragments the good Father uses expressions which the Latin translator has rendered by the word convenire, and which have no meaning, except just this one of going--whether together or separately.
In the second book, chapter xxii., (Migne's edition, col. 785,) St, Irenæus says: "All the priests who have gone to Asia, to John, disciple of the Lord, bear witness to it.” Greek Text: ke pántes i presvíteri martiróvsin, i katá tin asían Ioánni to Tov Kiríon Mathití simvevlikótes.
Latin translation: “Omnes seniores testantur qui in Asia apud Joannem discipulum Domini convenerunt."
In the third book, 21st chapter, (Migne's edition, col. 947,) speaking of the Septuagint interpreters of Scripture, St. Irenæus says of them, “Being assembled at Ptolemy's house," etc.
In Greek: Sinelthónton de aftón epí to aftó pará to ptoleméo
The Latin translator renders this "Convenientibus autem ipsis in unum apud Ptolemaeum."
The Benedictine Massuet, editor of St. Irenæus's works, pretends that St. Irenæus must have used in the text in question, the words simvénin pros tín ton Roméon Eklisían. And he pretends that simvénin pros tiná is the same thing as simvénin tiní.
Although this opinion were unimpeachable, such erudition would be worth nothing, for we must content ourselves with supposing that the good father has used the word simvénin. It would seem to us more natural and logical to look for the unknown word among the known words, which the translator renders convenire. Now from that study, it should appear that St. Irenæus did not use simvénin, but simvevlikótes, which has the sense of a running together toward a place, or of sinelthóntes, which has an analogous signification, since, in the Greek texts that have been preserved, he has used these words to express the idea for which the translator used convenire.
In general, the translator of St. Irenæus gives to the word convenire the sense of to go, and not to agree with.. Why then give it this sense in the famous text in question, when in the text itself the preposition ad gives the idea of direction toward a place, and the adverb undique gives that of departure from all places other than Rome where the faithful were found?
Nothing is wanting to prove that it is impossible to give to the words of St. Irenæus the sense attributed to them by the Romish theologians. The good father then has simply said that, the concourse of Believers from all countries, drawn to Rome by the necessities of their business, because that city was the first and most powerful of the Empire, contributed to preserve there the Apostolic tradition, because those Believers carried there the Faith of the Churches to which they belonged.
.
.
When Constantinople had become the capital of the Roman Empire, St. Gregory Nazienzen said of that Church, what St. Irenæus had said of that of Rome, and with still more formal expressions. " This city," said he, " is the eye of the world. The most distant nations press toward her from all parts, and they draw from her as from a spring the principles of the Faith." (Greg. Naz. 42d dis., §10, col..470, Migne's edit.) The Latin translation of St. Gregory, like that of St. Irenæus, employs the word convenire to express the crowding Of people toward Constantinople. Must we give to it the sense of agreeing with, because this Father calls Constantinople not only a powerful and principal Church but the eye of the world, source of faith?
The ninth canon of the Council of Antioch held in 341, will of itself be sufficient to determine the sense of the text of St. Irenæus. The canon reads: "Let the bishops established in each province know that to the bishop of the metropolitan city is confided the care of the whole province, because all those who have business come to the metropolis from all parts. Therefore it has appeared advisable to grant a superior honor to him."
If the faithful were drawn to a mere metropolis to transact their business, how much more to the capital of the empire, which was for them a necessary centre, and in which they must meet from all parts of the empire. Such is the fact established by St. Irenæus, and from it he concludes that the witness of the Church of Rome should suffice to confound heretics.
Finally let us remark, that the chapter of the learned Father only relates to the heretics of Rome, for whom he destined the book; and that will convince us, that it is a strange abuse of the words to give them an absolute sense, making them relate to heretics in general, and to all ages; for he only affirmed that the Roman Church had preserved her apostolic tradition pure to his time, and not, that she would always so preserve it.​

I proceed to consider the famous passage in that same Father's treatise, "Against all heretics" which Roman Catholics are very fond of quoting, whereas, as I hope to show, it is in reality wholly irreconcilable with the papal claims. S. Irenaeus is exposing the fallaciousness of the arguments used by the Gnostics. They said that their heretical doctrines were derived from the apostles, who delivered them " not in writing but in speech." S. Irenaeus, in reply, appealed " to that tradition which comes from the apostles, and which is guarded by the successions of the presbyters in the churches." " It is," he says, " within the power of all, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the world in every church (in omni ecclesia) : and we are able to enumerate those whom the apostles appointed to be bishops in the churches, and their successors, quite down to our own time ; who neither taught nor knew anything like what these [heretics] rave about. Yet surely, if the apostles had known any hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of teaching to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have taken special care to deliver them to those, to whom they were also committing the churches themselves; … but because it would be too long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions of all the churches (omnium ecclesiarum), we point to the tradition of that very great and very ancient and universally known church which was founded and established at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul ;---” we point, I say, to the tradition which this church has from the apostles, and to her faith proclaimed to men, which comes down to our time through the succession of her bishops, and so we put to confusion all those who, in whatever sort, either on account of self-pleasing, or of vain glory, or of blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings. For to this church, on account of its more influential pre-eminence (propter potentiorem principalitatem), it is necessary that every church (omnem ecclesiam) should resort --- that is to say, the faithful, who are from all quarters ; and in this church (in qua) the tradition, which comes from the apostles, has ever been preserved by those who are from all quarters." Unfortunately, the original Greek of this last sentence has not been preserved, but only an ancient Latin translation, which I here subjoin: "Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem"(al. potiorem) principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua, semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio."

Before we proceed to investigate the exact meaning of this last sentence and of the various expressions which occur therein, it will be well to consider what is the pith and substance and scope of S. Irenaeus' argument. What he wishes to enforce is, that the teaching of the apostles may be learnt from the public witness of the various apostolic churches among which there was, at the time when S. Irenaeus wrote (circa 180), complete doctrinal agreement in regard to all the great fundamental points which had to be discussed in the controversy with the Gnostics. He gives reasons for supposing that the first bishops of the apostolic churches were fully instructed by the apostles, who appointed them, in the complete system of apostolic teaching. He further asserts that the catalogues of the names of the various bishops who had succeeded each other in the different apostolic sees, existed in his time, and that it was well known that no one of those bishops had ever taught the heresies maintained by the Gnostics. He argues from these premises that the original teaching, which the apostles were commissioned to promulgate, was not the teaching propagated by the Gnostic bodies. As the apostolic churches were many in number, he thinks it sufficient to make a selection from among them, because an exhaustive investigation of the episcopal catalogues in all of them would take too long.

He chooses as his first specimen the primatial Church of Rome, which not only ranked first among all the apostolic churches, but was also the nearest apostolic see to Lyons, and was the church in which in all probability S. Irenaeus had himself received his consecration to the episcopate. We shall see further on that S. Irenaeus points out that the Roman Church, on account of its special pre-eminence, was continually visited by representatives of other churches all over the world, and that this fact constituted an additional guarantee of the purity of its faith. In the section which follows that important statement, he proceeds to give the catalogue of the Roman bishops, from Linus, who received the episcopate from S. Peter and S. Paul, the apostolic founders of the Roman Church, to Eleutherus, who held the bishop's office in Rome at the time when he (S. Irenaeus) was writing.

He dwells specially on the witness of S. Clement, because it was manifest from his Epistle to the Corinthians, which was older than the rise of the various Gnostic sects, that the earlier teaching of the Roman Church agreed, not with the

Gnostics, but with the teaching of S. Irenaeus' contemporary, Eleutherus ; and, since S. Clement had personally known S. Peter and S. Paul, and was surrounded, when he wrote his epistle, by many Christians who had been instructed by them, there was every reason to believe that his teaching, which was, in fact, identical with the teaching of his successors, was also a faithful representation of the teaching of the apostles. Thus the argument against the Gnostics, derivable from the witness of the Roman Church, was very strong, and S. Irenaeus might well say in regard to it, "This is a very full proof {osteiisio) of the unity and sameness of the life-giving faith, which from the apostles even until now hath been preserved in the Church, and handed down in truth."

Having begun with the witness of the apostolic Church of Rome, S. Irenaeus refers next to the witness of the apostolic Church of Smyrna. He points out that its first bishop, S. Polycarp, had special opportunities of ascertaining the true apostolic tradition of the faith. He had been made a disciple by apostles, and had conversed with many who had seen Christ. It was by the apostles who were in Asia that he was appointed in due time bishop of the Church in Smyrna. All through his long life he had taught the things which he had learnt from the apostles, " which things alone are true." He had finally sealed his faithful teaching by his glorious martyrdom in extreme old age. He had learnt from S. John to have a special horror of holding any communications with heresiarchs. S. Polycarp's teaching may be studied in his Epistle to the Philippians ; and that same teaching is attested by his successors at Smyrna and by all the other churches in Asia. Such is, in brief, the substance of what S. Irenaeus says about the testimony of the Church in Smyrna.

Finally, he refers to the witness of the apostolic Church of Ephesus. That church had also two apostles to found it, viz. S. Paul and S. John. The latter remained at Ephesus until the times of Trajan, who reigned from 98 to 117. As a consequence, the privilege of being instructed by an apostle lasted on in Ephesus much longer than in any other church ; and S. Irenaeus assures us that in his own time the Church of Ephesus was a true witness of the apostles' tradition.

Having referred to the testimony of the three important apostolic churches of Rome, Smyrna, and Ephesus, S. Irenaeus goes on to say, "Since, therefore, we have proofs of such cogency {tantae ostensiones), we ought not to seek the truth among others, which it is easy to obtain from the Church."

It is important to notice that S. Irenaeus' appeal is primarily to the witness of all the apostolic churches. At the beginning of the whole argument, he speaks of " the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the world in every church," and he declares that he is " able to enumerate those whom the apostles appointed to be bishops in the churches, and their successors, quite down to his own time." And at the end of the argument he says, " For how stands the case ? Even though the dispute were but about some ordinary question, would it not be right to recur to the most ancient churches, in which the apostles lived, and to receive from those churches what is certain and clear in regard to the question in hand?" The chief reason which he gives for referring to the testimony of the Roman Church, is that it would take too long to enumerate the successions of the bishops in all the churches. His appeal to Rome is prompted by convenience rather than by any dogmatic reason. At any rate, the motive of convenience drives him to make a selection, and ultimately he in fact selects the churches of Rome, Smyrna, and Ephesus.

It is also very noticeable that in regard to all these three churches, S. Irenaeus takes care to point out all the circumstances of their early history, which would make it probable that the tradition of the faith had been transmitted pure and unaltered from the time of the apostles to the time in which he was writing. The apostolic training of S. Clement of Rome, and of S. Polycarp of Smyrna; the anti-Gnostic teaching of S. Clement's Epistle, which preceded the rise of the great Gnostic leaders ; the extreme old age to which S. Polycarp lived, and his hatred of heresy ; the length of S. John's sojourn at Ephesus ; --- these and many other similar details are used by S. Irenaeus to show how probable it is that the apostolic tradition has been faithfully transmitted in the three churches to whose witness he appeals. He knew well that the fact that a church could trace its succession of bishops back to the apostles would not be an absolute guarantee of the purity of its faith, although in the latter part of the second century it would imply a strong presumption of such purity. He therefore takes care to bring forward every corroborative circumstance, which could add strength to his argument. But is it possible to suppose that S. Irenaeus would have patiently enumerated all these corroborative circumstances in the history of the three churches to which he appeals --- nay, is it possible to suppose that he would have included in any way the Churches of Smyrna and Ephesus in his appeal, if he had supposed that all churches were bound of necessity to agree in doctrine with the Church of Rome, on the ground that the Bishops of Rome had been endowed with the gift of infallibility? Yet this is the theory which is attributed to S. Irenaeus by Ultramontane controversialists, and in proof of their thesis they triumphantly bring forward the celebrated sentence, beginning with the words, "ad hanc enim ecclesiam," which I have quoted on p. 20, and the meaning 'of which we must now proceed to investigate.​

continued from above