I was addressing an erroneous statement about "my claims"--namely that the Catholic Church in the west believes transubstantiation to be the result of an "autonomous force".
I find such caricatures to be as distasteful as they are common around here.
If the "triumph" of "Orthodox Catholicism" involves strawmen, then you had better address that.
In Christ,
LatinTrad the Autonomous Force 
LatinTrad,
I have to go, but Seraphim you are way wrong.
What else is new?
I have read St. Irenaeus and he makes the claim of the exclusive jurisdictional primacy of Rome in his Adversus Heraeses. There is no way to water it down or rationalize it the way you guys are wont to do.
The text of Against Heresies as we now have it, is Latin - the original Greek has disappeared, unfortunately. It would have been valuable, as there is an ambiguity in the Latin text, which allows for a translation (popular with RC apologists for obvious reasons) which goes against the sense of the entire text.
The whole of Against Heresies, as I"m sure you know (having read it), is a polemic against Gnosticism. In the passage where St.Irenaeos brings up the Church of Rome (and not so much the person of Her Bishop in particular - though he certainly figures into it by extension, since the early Church consciousness did not envision a Church without a Bishop - see St.Ignatios of Antioch, for example), he was previously teaching against the Gnostic novelties, which often were defended by the Gnostics as "secret teachings of Christ" which the Apostles only gave to their more "advanced" initiates.
St.Ireneaos' first appeal is to the broad witness of all of the Churches of God - so many Churches founded by the Apostles, or by their direct descendents, all confessing the Orthodox faith, which these Gnostics faught against. However, St.Ireneaos says...
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;
In other words, it would simply take too long to enumerate all of the Church's Bishops, their chain of succession back to the Apostles, etc. After saying this, he says it suffices to point to the pre-eminant Church amongst the Churches of God, that founded in Rome. Why?
[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, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
Thus, as far as St.Ireneaus is concerned, it is easier to simply point to the Church which all of these other local Churches recognize as being pre-eminant in it's confession and sanctity, and which all therefore must agree with.
It is clear that St.Ireneaus' thrust then, is that the Roman Church embodied the "catholic" (universal) faith of the entire Church. Unfortunately, the common translation (as provided above) is misleading. In isolation, it gives the impression that the Roman Church "radiates Orthodoxy", in the sense that all of the other Churches received their Tradition and pious doctrine from Rome. However, this is not in sync with what the rest of the passage is saying. It seems to go against the flow of St.Ireneaus' whole argument (which was to point to the apostolicity of the Churches throughout the world, not simply that of Rome.)
Confirmation of this perceived "break", and perhaps the inappropriatness of the above translation is confirmed in the Latin itself. The following commentary on this difficulty is given in the footnotes of the copy of Against Heresies which can be found online at the CCEL patristic library website...
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; 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.) 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.
This more literal translation of the Latin actually fits the facts of history very well - it is known that the Roman Church's teaching was not only received well abroad by those who confessed the true faith, but also that the Roman Church itself was host to many confessors abroad, in particular martyr-confessors who went to Rome to glorify Christ in martyrdom.
I would also suggest this also better fits how the Roman Church was viewed both before, and after it began making more strident claims, by those Churches which were outside of Her immediate juristiction (not part of the "Roman Patriarchate").
After all of this however, I can definately say one thing without any speculation - there is nothing in the text (even in the common translation of the Latin, which itself is a translation of a now unknown Greek original) which indicates a universal juristiction. All I see is the universal acknowledgement of said Church as receiving and confirming the catholicity of the Orthodox Faith. Obviously, it does nothing either to help the case of even later doctrines (in particular, Papal Infallibility.)
Where the heck do you get this nonsense? Do you make it up or did you read it on the internet somewhere?
As the west became more and more disconnected from the phronema (mindset) of not only it's own ancient Fathers, but those of the Church throughout the world, and the new Frankish/barbarian rulers of the fallen western Empire began more and more to impose their influence upon the Latin episcopate, the theories of Augustine of Hippo (the first major ecclessiastical writer to write in Latin - important because the Franks, aspiring to be "true Romans", which they were not, mistakenly believed Latin was the common tongue of the Romans, when in reality it was rarely used by common people in the Empire) began to be taken far too seriously on all sorts of topics, including doctrine on the sacraments.
His teaching was essentially that which became universal in later western Christendom (and which is now accepted as dogma by the RCC); that it was possible for "genuine" sacraments to be excercised outside of the Catholic Church. However, Augustine would have qualified this by saying that while they were real sacraments, they were illicit, and they were fruitless. Later, Thomas Aquinas would expound the same teaching with great emphasis in his Summa Theologica.
The problem with this teaching, besides it's originality (which in Orthodoxy is always a tell tale sign of falseness), was that it taught something which just doesn't make sense, even by Augustine's own rationale. For obviously, if a "valid" (valid form, matter, intent) baptism done by heretics could leave the "mark" (character) of baptism upon a soul, this has to mean the Holy Spirit visited this heretical service - that heretical clergy can actually call upon God, and He will respond favourably. Further, if He comes down to "leave a mark", why not remit the sins of said heretic?
This clearly goes against the teaching of the Fathers, including western Fathers (such as Pope St.Leo the Great, who taught quite clearly that the Monophysite heretics, for example, had been deprived of the Grace of the Mysteries, and thus had no real Priests, and could not even make the Holy Chrism - he says explicitly the divine Light had left them), besides just not making sense. Metropolitan Anthony (of blessed memory) rightly referred to this belief as teaching a "half grace", and explained very clearly why it is not only against the teaching of the Fathers and what one can get out of the Holy Canons on this issue, but also just didn't make sense.
However, if one insists on teaching that sacraments "validly" celebrated outside of the Church of Christ can be "genuine sacraments", they are undoubtedly teaching that the sacraments are autonomous from the Church, save perhaps in origin (that is to say, the "original rites" were from the Church).
Though perhaps rather harsh sounding, such a view of the sacraments has been characterized (and I agree, btw.) as being "hocus pocus" - rather than being prayerful ministrations of the Church's ministry of reconciliation (a mission which belongs exclussively to Christ, and by extension, His members.)
Seraphim
