So there I was, reading Jurgens on the Fathers, (pp.87-89, for those scoring at home) when I came across this breathtaking paragraph from (St.) Irenaeus:
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority.”
Yikes. Give me a moment. [Birthing a Reformation-era bovine with a tasty, er, um, disposition, God-willing.] OK. A few things to notice here: First, unless The Artist Formerly Known As Joseph Ratzinger has some mischievous buddies who erased his short-term memory, spirited him off in Bill and Ted's phone booth, (let the reader understand) took him back to the late second century and started calling him 'Irenaeus' just to mess with him, this kat sure sounds like a present-day Catholic apologist on this point. I've heard the phrase 'apostolic succession' almost as much as 'grace builds on nature' in the last year and a half. Ahem. Anyway, I eagerly await a Protestant/Reformed answer on two curious points: 1. What do we do with that word "bishop"? Or, more bluntly, who is it, in our system? Bonus question: What do we do if our more democratic approach to church government is not found anywhere in pre-Reformation church history? 2. The physical succession of bishops seems quite connected to doctrinal truth for many of these kats. Is this significant? Why would the magisterial Reformers (pardon the phrase) reject this after consenting to it without incident their whole adult lives until the split? 3. Would severe sin and corruption necessitate a whole new method for ascertaining truth for Christians? Or, could the sin be named and removed?
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority.”
Yikes. Give me a moment. [Birthing a Reformation-era bovine with a tasty, er, um, disposition, God-willing.] OK. A few things to notice here: First, unless The Artist Formerly Known As Joseph Ratzinger has some mischievous buddies who erased his short-term memory, spirited him off in Bill and Ted's phone booth, (let the reader understand) took him back to the late second century and started calling him 'Irenaeus' just to mess with him, this kat sure sounds like a present-day Catholic apologist on this point. I've heard the phrase 'apostolic succession' almost as much as 'grace builds on nature' in the last year and a half. Ahem. Anyway, I eagerly await a Protestant/Reformed answer on two curious points: 1. What do we do with that word "bishop"? Or, more bluntly, who is it, in our system? Bonus question: What do we do if our more democratic approach to church government is not found anywhere in pre-Reformation church history? 2. The physical succession of bishops seems quite connected to doctrinal truth for many of these kats. Is this significant? Why would the magisterial Reformers (pardon the phrase) reject this after consenting to it without incident their whole adult lives until the split? 3. Would severe sin and corruption necessitate a whole new method for ascertaining truth for Christians? Or, could the sin be named and removed?
Comments