Adversarios anónimos de la "Salus carnis" (Iren., adv. haer. V, 2,2s)
To whom is St. Irenaeus referring in Adv. Haer. V,2,2-3? The saint presents them in a group analogous to the docetists or valentinians (of V, 1,2), the ebionites (of V, 1,3), and the marcionites (of V, 2,1). No one thinks spontaneously of ecclesiastics. Yet analysis has led us to the anonymous group...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | Italian |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Ed. Pontificia Univ. Gregoriana
1979
|
| In: |
Gregorianum
Year: 1979, Volume: 60, Issue: 1, Pages: 9-53 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Non-electronic
|
| Summary: | To whom is St. Irenaeus referring in Adv. Haer. V,2,2-3? The saint presents them in a group analogous to the docetists or valentinians (of V, 1,2), the ebionites (of V, 1,3), and the marcionites (of V, 2,1). No one thinks spontaneously of ecclesiastics. Yet analysis has led us to the anonymous group of V, 31 1 f: equivocal ecclesiastics, favoring an imperfect, non-corporeal resurrection (or a « Salus animae », « Dimidia salus »). Adversaries of the « universa dispositio », they were known from the days of St. Justin (Dial. 80,4 f.). Their doctrine was echoed in the Epistula ad Rheginum, offered battle to Tertullian (De Resurrectione), and was unfolded with variations in Origen. Admittedly, at the beginning, the dogma of the resurrection of the dead (or of the bodies), had recourse, as did the heretics, to axioms which had a platonic or stoic slant, and to allegorical exegesis of Scripture. One passed easily from caro to corpus — a term which was very generic and hence ambiguous — as from caro in the obvious sense to spiritual sarx. Irenaeus felt obliged to combat them by removing the equivocations. It did no good to denounce opinions which were just prejudices of pagan ideology. The greater danger lay in their application to Scripture. Both parties believed that they were sons of the Church. However, whereas the anonymous group invoked the spiritual sense, the saint held to the obvious literal meaning. To what could he have recourse to resolve the conflict of the double parallel exegesis? The apostolic « paradosis », very explicit on the dogma of the « resurrectio carnis » (or « corporis »), was not equally explicit on the range of meaning of « corpus » (« caro »). The teaching of Scripture, attainable allegorically or literally, likewise was not self-defining. He determined the argument from analogy, citing dogmas of obvious literal sense: the redemptio per sanguinem and the efficacy of the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ. What would be the meaning of a redemption on the cross by the shedding of allegorical blood? Or a Eucharist of a spiritual Body and Blood? If we were to take the word of Clement and of Origen, with their « double (body and) blood » of Christ, the anonymous writers could defend themselves logically against the arguments of the saint. But not in conformity with the sensus Ecclesiae. Irenaeus had the skill of offering battle on a field where logic finds itself destitute of the most elementary Christian instinct. To the uncontrollable equivocations regarding corpus (or caro) he opposed the single literal sense, in its various applications: to the redemptive death of Christ, to the Eucharist of his Body and Blood, to the resurrection of the just (or the Salus carnis). It was the obvious and humble sense of the ἁπλούστεροι, held in low esteem by Origen and the allegorizers. |
|---|---|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Gregorianum
|