|
Chapter Three
Perfection of Apostolic Tradition
In the first place,
the writings of the Church Fathers, through the first 150 years, teach the
necessity of following the Faith brought by Christ. This Faith is composed
of certain beliefs and practices, which have been passed down from Christ,
to the Apostles, to their successors, and so on. The unity and the authority
of the Church are connected through this Faith, because those who hold the
Faith passed down, hold, in actuality the Faith of Christ, and those who
follow the leaders established by Christ, submit, in actuality, to Christ
Himself. According to this teaching, doctrine can be none other than that
which has always been taught. The composition of the Faith cannot change,
because the words of Christ have already been spoken, and His commands have
already been carried out by the Apostles. According to these Early Church
Fathers, if anyone should deviate from the "tradition" passed down, they
would, necessarily, deviate from Christ Himself, and would, therefore, be
removed from the unity of the Church. If any leader should deviate from the
"tradition" passed down, he would also, necessarily, deviate from Christ
Himself, and would, therefore, separate himself from the source of his own
authority.
This seems far different than the common conception of the Faith among Catholics
today. In the view of many, the doctrine of the Faith is an organic entity.
It slowly evolves and develops, continually shedding its old skin for a
progressively more radiant one. Some, while holding this position, claim
that such an organic development is not so much a change, or rather, not
at all a change, but instead a fulfillment of the truth contained in the
pre-existing teachings of the Church. Such a conception, however, is not
only completely absent in the words of Fathers like Clement, Ignatius, and
Irenaeus, but is, indeed, antithetical to their prescriptions. How could
the beliefs and practices of Christ need to be changed or explicated in a
different sense? How could these beliefs and practices be both kept "in one
and the same" manner in accord with the sacred "tradition" of those who came
before, while at the same time be fulfilled by different ways of understanding
or expression? The leaders of the Church immediately following the Apostolic
age did not believe such to be possible. Neither did the succeeding generations
of Early Church Fathers offer the possibility for a development to different
beliefs or a fulfillment of the same beliefs in a different sense.
Since the last chapter left off with the Against Heresies of St. Irenaeus,
let us continue on with that great exposition of the Catholic Faith. Irenaeus
writes: "It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish
to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles, and their
successors to our own times. . . . [I]f the Apostles had known hidden mysteries
. . . , they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to
whom they were committing the selfsame Churches."1 Here, Irenaeus has exhorted
all Catholics, "everyone in every Church," if they "wish to know the truth,"
to examine and learn the "tradition of the Apostles" passed on to the current
time. It is only in these beliefs of "tradition" that the Truth resides,
for it is only these beliefs that the Apostles taught, and which were set
forth only in the manner the Apostles deemed correct to do so. To those who
might claim that the whole Truth of Christ had not been revealed, Irenaeus
pointedly asks why the Apostles would behave in such a manner.
This is certainly an excellent question. Were the Apostles fools? Were they
jealous of revealing the full Truth granted to them by Christ? Perhaps the
Apostles did not judge that the people were prepared to accept the fullest
expression of the Truth? The first of these options, that the Apostles were
fools, and did not themselves possess the full Truth of Christ, is inconsistent
with the occasion of Pentecost. If the Apostles were filled completely with
the Holy Ghost, how is it that they could have been ignorant of the fullness
of the Faith of Christ? Is God, likewise, ignorant of the Faith of Christ?
There is no need to even entertain the second option: that the Apostles,
through greed or malice, refused to reveal the full Truth to the young Church.
The final possibility - that the world was not prepared for the fullest
presentation of the Truth of Christ, has gained a great deal of prominence
in today's academic circles. One must ask, however, why God would not have
simply waited to reveal His full Truth until mankind was able to receive
it? He had already waited several thousands of years. From a different angle,
one could ask why He would not have simply enlightened the faithful to the
degree necessary for them to appreciate the fullness of the Faith, considering
that He had already enlightened them, by divine miracle, in order to receive
what Truth they had already been given. From a third perspective, one could
point out that throughout much of the world that the Gospel was initially
preached, that is, the Roman, Alexandrian, and Greek spheres of influence,
the philosophical and psychological ideas en vogue at the time were almost
identical to those in fashion today. Why would God have withheld a fullness
of Faith from those who were equally capable of appreciating it as the people
of today, if not more so?
It should be added also that none should make the argument that the Apostles
revealed the full Truth, but in a sense that people of their era could
understand, while the authorities of today must reveal the Truth in a different
sense, one allegedly better suited to the people of the modern world. Aside
from the fact that, philosophically and psychologically speaking, a great
deal of the Classical World's inhabitants, both in terms of advancement among
the intellectual classes, and in terms of savagery among the lower classes,
had much of the same sensibilities as the their modern counterparts and so
would have been well-capable of appreciating any sense of the Faith currently
being expressed, the further fact remains that, according to the Early Fathers,
such an alteration in sense over time is prohibited, and, furthermore, that
this prohibition is Apostolic in origin. In the face of such a prohibition,
persisting in the assertion of a relative sense of revealed Truth over time
is nothing short of questioning the veracity of the Apostles and the Early
Church Fathers.
Apparently, Irenaeus found none of the aforementioned options very convincing,
for he continues on in his strict description of the unchanging, perfect
Faith:
It is not necessary
to seek among others the truth which is easily obtained from the Church.
For the Apostles, like a rich man in a bank, deposited with her most copiously
everything which pertains to the truth; and everyone whosoever wishes draws
from her the drink of life. For she is the entrance to life, while all the
rest are thieves and robbers. That is why it is surely necessary to avoid
them, while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to
the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. What then? If there
should be a dispute over some kind of question, ought we not have recourse
to the most ancient Churches in which the Apostles were familiar, and draw
from them what is clear and certain in regard to that question? What if the
Apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to
follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they
entrusted the Churches?2
In the words of
Irenaeus, the Apostles "deposited" with the Church "most copiously everything
which pertains to the truth." He did not say "somewhat copiously," or "what
would become at some future date most copious," or even "what is copious
now but which must be tinkered with in order to be copious in the future,"
but "most copiously everything which pertains to the truth." Further, he
proposes a litmus test for the correctness of any teachings, which is consistency
with "tradition." In the view of Irenaeus, if two men claimed to teach the
same truth but in different senses, one in the sense understood by the Apostles
and the other in his own innovated sense, the former could rightfully challenge
the latter and, because the former possessed the exact teaching of the Apostles,
he would necessarily be the victor. This is perfectly consistent with the
previously mentioned quote from Irenaeus: "For the faith is one and the same,
and cannot be amplified by one who is able to say much about it."
It would be inaccurate, however, to deny any sense of "renewal" in the theology
of St. Irenaeus for, he uses this exact term shortly thereafter in the previously
cited work:
The preaching of
the Church truly continues without change and is everywhere the same, and
has the testimony of the Prophets and the Apostles and all their disciples.
. . . That in which we have faith is a firm system directed to the salvation
of men; and, since it has been received by the Church, we guard it. Constantly
it has its youth renewed by the Spirit of God, as if it were some precious
deposit in an excellent vessel; and it causes the vessel containing it also
to be rejuvenated."3
Ironically, Irenaeus'
use of the term "renewal" is in direct contrast to the modern concept of
"renewal." Today, many people define "renewal" not as a rebirth and resurrection
of exactly what had been, but instead as an evolution, the birth of the same
creature in a more resplendent form, or at least in a form more fitted for
the current day. There is a reason that this "evolution" is not consistent
with the term "renewal": namely, that it is not a "renewal" but an "evolution";
it is not to "renew," but simply to be "new," albeit with the same components.
The mythical phoenix was not held to rise from its ashes as a different version
of its original form, but as the exact image of its original form, as Lanctantius
muses, "And when she has now accomplished the thousand years of her life,
and length of days has rendered her burdensome, in order that she may renew
the age which has glided by, the fates pressing her, she flees from the beloved
couch of the accustomed grove." 4 Similarly, when we "renew" books from the
library, we have not turned in our copy for a new, updated edition.
According to St. Irenaeus, the "renewal" of the Church consists strictly
in returning to that preaching which "truly continues without change and
is everywhere the same." The "Spirit of God," safeguarding the Church, acts
each and every day to continue this perpetual doctrine of the faith by "renewing"
it. In fact, by the intrinsic virtue of containing the Spirit of God, the
Church, in the view of Irenaeus, cannot do other than hold always to the
Faith that it held at its birth. It is in a constant state of being reborn,
just as if it were an infant who failed to age past his first day, maintaining
his completely uncontaminated cellular structure. This doctrine, passed from
the Apostles on to Early Fathers like Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Irenaeus,
was, consistent with its own precepts, held equally assiduously throughout
the burgeoning Church through the end of the second century. Tertullian (ca.
A.D. 200), before his unfortunate lapse into the heresy of Montanism5, wrote
in regard to the perpetual perfection of the Church in its adherence to the
Faith of Christ: "The Apostles . . . founded Churches in cities one after
another, from which other Churches borrow the sprout of faith and seeds of
doctrine, and are daily borrowing them, so that they may become Churches.
. . . Therefore although the Churches are so many and so great, there is
but one primitive Church of the Apostles. . . . Thus, all are primitive,
all are apostolic, because all are one."6
Again, the guiding principle for admission into the unity of the Catholic
Church is the identical faith. As the Catholic missionaries spread the Truth
of the Church of Christ throughout the world over time, it did not apply
its doctrine to the sensibilities of its new converts, seeking to extract
from their conception of the world a means of more fully expressing the Catholic
Truth. Instead, it appealed to that which is "primitive." It is precisely
this "primitive" Faith, derived from the single, holy, Catholic, Apostolic,
and "primitive" Church that provides the "sprouts of faith" by which new
Churches might be established. The "seeds of doctrine" to which Tertullian
refers are not the fruit of a fermenting and evolving understanding of the
primitive, but instead are the same seeds from which the "primitive" Church
itself sprouted. Where the "modern mind" defines "primitive" as valuable
but antiquated, Tertullian, in accord with his predecessors in the Faith,
uses that which is "primitive" to separate Truth from falsehood, tradition
from evolution, "seeds" of the doctrine of life from barren evolution. He
writes:
But what (the Apostles)
preached, that is, what Christ had revealed to them . . . can be proved in
no other way except through the same Churches which the Apostles founded.
. . . If these things are so, then it follows that all doctrine which agrees
with the apostolic Churches, those nurseries and original depositories of
the faith, must be regarded as truth, and as undoubtedly constituting what
the Churches received from the Apostles, what the Apostles received from
Christ, and what Christ received from (the Father). And indeed, every doctrine
must be prejudged as false, if it smells of anything contrary to the truth
of the Churches.7
The identification
of that which is "contrary to the truth of the Churches," that which is contrary
to the truth that the "Apostles received from Christ, and what Christ received
from the Father," is not, according to Tertullian, a loose fitting term with
room for maneuvering. As he says, if even anything "smells of anything contrary,"
it must be "prejudged as false." There is no freedom for debate, nor for
careful reasoning. If a teaching can be said to "seem" different than that
which has been constantly preached throughout the Church, it must be immediately
consigned to the flames.
Footnotes:
1 St. Irenaeus Against Heresies (ca. A.D. 190) 3.3.1
2 St. Irenaeus Against Heresies (ca. A.D. 190) 3.4.1
3 St. Irenaeus Against Heresies (ca. A.D. 190) 3.24.1
4 Lactantius The Phoenix (ca. A.D. 300)
5 Although an articulate defender of the faith throughout the
first two decades after his conversion to Christianity, Tertullian fell into
the heresy of Montanism around A.D. 215. Such a corruption of faith was
especially surprising considering that Montanism, which became little more
than a Gnostic sect based on the alleged inspirations of its 'prophets' and
'prophetesses', was diametrically opposed to the particular focus of Tertullian's
earlier Faith, that is, the loyal adherence to only what was passed on through
the Apostolic tradition.
6 Tertullian Demurrer Against the Heretics (ca. A.D. 200) 20.4-8
7 Tertullian Demurrer Against the Heretics (ca. A.D. 200) 21
-1-
-2- -3- -4-
-5- -6-
-7- |
|
