Orthodoxy, Papacy

[Bluegoat]

If the Catholics are right about the nature of the papacy, then this makes perfect sense to me. If there are two brothers, and the eldest becomes king, then the eldest has greater authority than his brother. If the eldest then has a son and dies, the kingship passes to the son, who will have greater authority than his uncle. If the pope is the “king” of the Church Militant, then Pope St. Clement would have had greater authority than the Apostle John.

This is a bad example. The king has the authority of the king, whether he is the uncle or son.

 

[JimCBrooklyn]

This is a bad example. The king has the authority of the king, whether he is the uncle or son.

Exactly why it’s a good example. If the Pope is the Universal Patriarch, living head of the Church, successor of Peter and able to invoke the seal of infallibility, then that is who he is, no matter who he is, Apostle or not. If he is not, then of course it is ludicrous to suggest that he could be above the Apostle John in authority, but that is why it is not a ridiculous suggestion IF Rome is correct on the papacy.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

It means that Peter is given a “VERY” special role, and that whatever he declares bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever he declares loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven. It absolutely means that; that is where I’m not disagreeing with you, but He says that to Peter. He does not say, “and all of the guys that succeed you in your role as presbyter when you get to this other city in 30 years or so, but only when they speak ex cathedra”. I’m not saying I flat out don’t believe that, but it’s certainly not clear from that passage.

That’s a fair observation when we isolate that passage, but the Gospel message is one thing. If we look in another place we hear the Lord telling the disciples, “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” John 20:21. The Father sent Jesus to choose particular men, to instruct them, to send them to preach the good news, to forgive sins, to bind and loose. He gave them the authority to speak and act in His Name. If the Lord is sending them as the Father sent Him, He is also sending them to instruct others, to send them to preach the good news, to bestow the same authority on them and to train others in the same way to take their place. That’s what we call Apostolic Succession.

It makes no sense to suppose the Lord taught a single generation of men with the intention that His teaching and the authority He gave them would die with them. Makes no sense at all. If all we had left of them is a book, we’d be stuck with a moribund faith and the chaos we find in the ‘sola scriptura’ crowd.

As to the first issue, what did Chesterton have in mind when he wrote Orthodoxy? And you would be hard pressed to find an EO that does not view theirs as the catholic faith.

It’s certain he wasn’t writing about the Orthodox faith. He meant to discuss authentic Christian doctrine through the Apostles’ Creed – orthodoxy, small ‘o.’

Of course the Orthodox think theirs is the true faith. “Catholic” small ‘c’ as in universal. That’s what the dispute is about.

Blessings.

 

[Contarini]

Of course the Orthodox think theirs is the true faith. “Catholic” small ‘c’ as in universal.

No, the “small c” is a silly Protestant convention. I have not found the Orthodox using it.

Edwin

 

[josephdaniel29]

If the Catholics are right about the nature of the papacy, then this makes perfect sense to me. If there are two brothers, and the eldest becomes king, then the eldest has greater authority than his brother. If the eldest then has a son and dies, the kingship passes to the son, who will have greater authority than his uncle. If the pope is the “king” of the Church Militant, then Pope St. Clement would have had greater authority than the Apostle John.

I guess this begs the question. Since apparently in Roman Catholic thought there is no distinction between an Apostle and a bishop; after St Peter ordained the first Bishop of Rome, and while St Peter was still alive, who had supreme authority? Did they both have universal jurisdiction (even over each other) at the time?

 

[Contarini]

Contarini;6857763:

I consider that a personal insult. Please don’t compare me with fundies ever again.

Then don’t proof-text ever again. Don’t ever just throw Scripture references at me without an argument.

It is a false accusation and, in light of all I’ve said to you, a not very intelligent observation.

It is an inescapable conclusion to reach given your poor use of Scripture, which is exactly in the fundamentalist style. If you ever say again “Don’t tell me that Jesus didn’t mean what he said” when you really mean “don’t dare to disagree with my interpretation of Scripture” I will point out that you are using a fundamentalist dodge. Because that’s exactly what it is.

Make substantive arguments showing why you think Scripture means what you think it means, and you need never fear such an “insult” from me again. But I’m going to tell the truth about your methods, whether you like it or not.

I have said what I’ve said about Scripture and, like Scripture, I mean it.

So do the fundamentalists.

Not completely fulfilled. And, upon reflection, not fulfilled at all. Yet.

Perhaps you could talk to some of the Catholics I’ve been talking to recently on this forum, who are shocked that I think the promise that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth is still in the process of being fulfilled!

Much begging of the question there.

I’m trying to respond to what you and Joseph actually said.

If by ‘from above’ and ‘in no way accountable to the inferior’ you mean Our Lord, you’re right.

No, I was referring to Joseph’s post (to which I was replying when you got into the conversation) which said that Jesus established a “top-down” structure and that for laity to depose or overthrow the bishops contradicts this. In other words, you and Joseph seem to be defending the idea that bishops cannot be challenged by those who are “below” them. The Orthodox Church maintains the view that authority rests with the whole Church, and while the bishops are responsible for governing the Church, they are not absolute rulers free from all accountability. I find this to be a more convincing position.

He is the Head of the Church and we are His Body. It is we who are accountable to Him. If you mean the Pope, I challenge you to name one individual on this earth under more scrutiny than the Pope, who is more maligned and attacked than the Pope, who is treated more unjustly than the Pope.

Being treated “unjustly” is not accountability. The facts to which you point actually work against you. By making such absolutist claims for itself, the modern papacy has set up a situation in which any criticism is going to take a destructive form, because no other accountability structures exist. The claims made for the Papacy with increasing shrillness and absolutism between the eleventh century (one could go back earlier, but this is the turning point as far as I’m concerned) and the early 20th century created a dichotomy between those who were absolutely loyal to the beleaguered, blameless Papacy on the one hand, and the vile enemies of the truth and servants of Antichrist who sought to tear down the Papacy on the other. This is an extremely unhealthy situation. But once you get into that mentality, it’s hard to get out of. Vatican II was a noble effort. But in fact what happened was that the forces of criticism and “aggiornamento” were unleashed by Vatican II, and Vatican II was set up as a revolutionary Council that somehow overturned the Tradition instead of further developing and enriching it. The last two Popes have fought mightily to re-establish a “continuous” rather than “discontinuous” reading of Vatican II. The problem is: continuous with what? Continuous with Vatican I and the generally dysfunctional and unhealthy way Western Catholicism had been developing for centuries? I lean toward the view that the task B16 has set himself is impossible. Once you break with the Tradition, you can’t get back to it. You find yourself locked into false dichotomies from which only repentance and conversion can free you. And there are some good reasons to think that not only Protestants but Western Christians generally have broken with the Tradition. I have resisted this reading of Western Christianity for a long while, and I may yet persuade myself that it’s wrong. But it seems a lot more persuasive to me than it used to.

 

[Contarini]

That’s a digression–the relevant point in response to you is that tyrannies create their own nemeses, so the existence of huge opposition to the Papacy does not in itself prove that the Papacy is not a tyranny. Nor does the unsavory nature of much of that opposition prove anything–see the point about unhealthy dichotomies above. Disordered claims of authority lead to disordered resistance to authority. Nor does the personal holiness of recent Popes prove anything–very good people can find themselves locked within an unhealthy system. When Pope Benedict speaks theoretically about the role of the Papacy, I find it hard to disagree with him. But the resources he has to hand are those shaped by a thousand years of increasingly dysfunctional theory and action. And finally, the fact that the Papacy has no directly coercive power any more does not prove that its claims of authority are not disordered. On the contrary, the Papacy became *more *tyrannical in its spiritual claims precisely at the point where it lost temporal power. A purely spiritual tyranny can sometimes be the worst of all. I know–I grew up under one. (My grandmother had much less accountability than any Pope.)

The second part is a little too simplistic. Bishops are appointed by the Pope, but only after much vetting of the candidate. Those in the dicastry, priests and bishops in the candidate’s diocese have great influence on who is selected. The laity may submit an opinion, but I doubt it’s given much consideration. Most Catholic laity are not aware of the qualities required of a bishop and, in this day, there is always the danger of making it a popularity contest.

There always was. When bishops were elected by acclamation, you think it didn’t often become a popularity context? And do you seriously think that there are no equivalent dangers in the present system used by your Communion?

Anyway, nothing you say affects my point. I know that there’s a complex process and that the Pope acts with a lot of consultation–but it is still his decision.

Getting rid of bad bishops is another story and I tend to lean your way on that one. I can tell you, however, Bernard Law was chased out of Boston by the laity, yours truly included.

But then you agree with me against Joseph that this is sometimes the right thing to do–Joseph seems to think that it violates the “top-down” structure.

It seems to me most non-Catholics judge the modern papacy by the failings of medieval popes. Why is that?

We could discuss that, but it’s irrelevant here since that’s not what I’m doing. I don’t judge the papacy by the failures of medieval popes, but by their successes. Because those successes have permanently shaped the nature of the Papacy.

Or perhaps, rather than successes, I should say–by their ideals and their best efforts. I don’t care about corrupt Popes who had mistresses. I care about zealous, reforming Popes who claimed absolute authority for the noblest of reasons (and sometimes also possibly corrupt Popes, like Boniface VIII, who contributed to doctrinal development through their claims–but their personal flaws aren’t the point).

Edwin

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I guess this begs the question. Since apparently in Roman Catholic thought there is no distinction between an Apostle and a bishop; after St Peter ordained the first Bishop of Rome, and while St Peter was still alive, who had supreme authority? Did they both have universal jurisdiction (even over each other) at the time?

This is not such a problem as you would think. Even if Peter ordained several bishops and presbyters, in Antioch, Rome, and elsewhere, he could have simply said to them: “out of all these men I ordained, I choose Linus to be my successor after my death. Since I received the keys to Heaven, and authority to bind and loose, let all these powers go to Linus after I die.”

Problem solved.

 

[josephdaniel29]

This is not such a problem as you would think. Even if Peter ordained several bishops and presbyters, in Antioch, Rome, and elsewhere, he could have simply said to them: “out of all these men I ordained, I choose Linus to be my successor after my death. Since I received the keys to Heaven, and authority to bind and loose, let all these powers go to Linus after I die.”

Problem solved.

So Linus didn’t become a bishop until after Peter died?

Also I assume that Pope Benedict shares that same authority today. Could he name a successor and have him automatically ascend to the papacy after his death?

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

But then you agree with me against Joseph that this is sometimes the right thing to do–Joseph seems to think that it violates the “top-down” structure.

You know, thinking if Judas Iskariot, and if he hadn’t committed suicide, I still can’t imagine the disciples of Christ, OTHER THAN the other 11 Apostles, chasing him out or deposing him. I mean, Jesus chose Judas Iskariot to be His Apostle, so who am I as a non-Apostle, to overrule that? I could suggest to Judas to step down, but that’s not the same as whacking him over the head with an axe, as the people did with St. Josaphat. I could also appeal to the other 11 Apostles, to do something about Judas. But I would never dare, as a layman, to go and depose Judas.

I don’t know how this works today, but I assume the role of laity should be limited to appealing to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, and to the Pope, asking them to remove or depose that Bishop. I don’t think that the laity has the right to go and depose a Bishop, like the EO did after the Unions of Florence and Brest, or like the Corinthians did with their leaders at the time of Pope St. Clement I.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

So Linus didn’t become a bishop until after Peter died?

Also I assume that Pope Benedict shares that same authority today. Could he name a successor and have him automatically ascend to the papacy after his death?

Peter could have simply said to Linus, “you are a Bishop (or Presbyter). You will take my place as the supreme shepherd and leader of Christ’s Church, and bearer of the keys to Heaven, after I die.” I still don’t see what’s the problem with this.

I think Pope Benedict could do the same. Instead of choosing Cardinals and let the Cardinals elect the new Pope from among themselves, I think Pope Benedict could opt to directly name the one successor to ascend to his throne after his death. But this is just my guess.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Peter could have simply said to Linus, “you are a Bishop (or Presbyter). You will take my place as the supreme shepherd and leader of Christ’s Church, and bearer of the keys to Heaven, after I die.” I still don’t see what’s the problem with this.

Well there isn’t a problem with it if you understand the distinction between an Apostle and a bishop. Any Apostles’ personal authority is greater than that of any bishop. They were called by name by the Lord Himself and consecrated by His special prayer.

The problem is when you try to set the Bishop of Rome’s authority above that of the Apostle John you introduce a contradiction. If Peter ordained Linus as a bishop he had to be a bishop of something. There can only be one bishop in one city at any one time and if Linus was a bishop in Rome while Peter was alive, and there is no distinction between an Apostle and a bishop, then you have the untenable position of Linus and Peter holding universal jurisdiction at the same time (even over St Paul who was still alive at the time).

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Ferde Rombola;6859288:

Then don’t proof-text ever again. Don’t ever just throw Scripture references at me without an argument.

What argument is there to make about the meaning of a clear declarative statement? I don’t know what ‘throw Scripture at me’ means. I quoted a verse pertaining to the primacy of Peter. It’s not an isolated verse. It’s meaning and the Lord’s intention is justified by all the other references to Peter in the Gospels and in Acts. I assumed you know them.

It is an inescapable conclusion to reach given your poor use of Scripture, which is exactly in the fundamentalist style. If you ever say again “Don’t tell me that Jesus didn’t mean what he said” when you really mean “don’t dare to disagree with my interpretation of Scripture” I will point out that you are using a fundamentalist dodge. Because that’s exactly what it is.

How many fundamentalists do you know who say ‘let the text speak for itself?’ I don’t know any. Your ‘inescapable conclusion’ is your own invention.

I told you clearly, and I know you read it since you edited it out of the quote you attribute to me, that I don’t interpret Scripture. Your claim that I mean “don’t dare to disagree with my interpretation of Scripture” does not follow my remarks. This kind of fraudulent debate tactic is the mark of a fundamentalist, as is the accusation I do what you are doing.

Make substantive arguments showing why you think Scripture means what you think it means, and you need never fear such an “insult” from me again. But I’m going to tell the truth about your methods, whether you like it or not.

You can start any time. For the second time, I read the text for what it says, not for what I think it says. If Mt. 16:18-19 means what Protestants and fundies say it means, the Lord would have said, “You are Peter, BUT upon this rock…, etc.” He didn’t say that. He said “…AND upon this rock…” ‘And’ is a connector. The Lord is connecting “You are Peter…” to “…upon this rock…” so there is no doubt the Catholic interpretation is the correct one. All the Greek gobble-de-gook pseudo-interpretation is just smoke and mirrors and is an invalid eisegesis. What does ‘I give to you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.’ mean? ‘You’re just one of the boys?’

So do the fundamentalists.

Another nonsequitur. They don’t say what I said. What’s your problem with having the words mean what they say? Other than that it makes your theology difficult to sustain?

Perhaps you could talk to some of the Catholics I’ve been talking to recently on this forum, who are shocked that I think the promise that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth is still in the process of being fulfilled!

Maybe I wasn’t clear. What hasn’t been fulfilled is the desired result; that all – the entire world, should be converted to Christ.

Jn. 16:13 is one of the most important verses in all of Scripture. “Will guide…” is future tense and I believe it still applies. What did the Apostles teach about the morality of stem cell research? Other, similar issues we know nothing about will arise 20-50-100 years from now and the Church will still rely on the Spirit for guidance.

I’m trying to respond to what you and Joseph actually said.

No, I was referring to Joseph’s post (to which I was replying when you got into the conversation) which said that Jesus established a “top-down” structure and that for laity to depose or overthrow the bishops contradicts this. In other words, you and Joseph seem to be defending the idea that bishops cannot be challenged by those who are “below” them. The Orthodox Church maintains the view that authority rests with the whole

Church, and while the bishops are responsible for governing the Church, they are not absolute rulers free from all accountability. I find this to be a more convincing position.
Joseph used as an example the murder of St. Josephas. Do you subscribe to that kind of laity involvement in the business of the Church?

If you doubt the laity in the Catholic Church don’t or are forbidden from doing what you think they should be doing, I invite your attention to the blog <bryanhehirexposed.wordpress.com>. Read the article about Fr. Erickson’s Response and the comments. Plan on packing a lunch.

Being treated “unjustly” is not accountability. The facts to which you point actually work against you. By making such absolutist claims for itself, the modern papacy has set up a situation in which any criticism is going to take a destructive form, because no other accountability structures exist.

Absenting specifics, you have simply made another speech. Being a target for the entire secular world and much of the religious world is being made accountable. If you have a problem with the way Pope Benedict is handing it, state your problem.

The speech continues below. It’s far afield of the subject of this thread so I’d prefer to let it pass if you don’t mind.

 

[JimCBrooklyn]

That’s a fair observation when we isolate that passage, but the Gospel message is one thing. If we look in another place we hear the Lord telling the disciples, “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” John 20:21. The Father sent Jesus to choose particular men, to instruct them, to send them to preach the good news, to forgive sins, to bind and loose. He gave them the authority to speak and act in His Name. If the Lord is sending them as the Father sent Him, He is also sending them to instruct others, to send them to preach the good news, to bestow the same authority on them and to train others in the same way to take their place. That’s what we call Apostolic Succession.

It makes no sense to suppose the Lord taught a single generation of men with the intention that His teaching and the authority He gave them would die with them. Makes no sense at all. If all we had left of them is a book, we’d be stuck with a moribund faith and the chaos we find in the ‘sola scriptura’ crowd.

It’s certain he wasn’t writing about the Orthodox faith. He meant to discuss authentic Christian doctrine through the Apostles’ Creed – orthodoxy, small ‘o.’

Of course the Orthodox think theirs is the true faith. “Catholic” small ‘c’ as in universal. That’s what the dispute is about.

Blessings.

You just made my point. Of course he wasn’t writing about Eastern Orthodoxy, as a Protestant-turned-Catholic, and of course they would call themselves small “c” catholic. That has been my point all along, and that is why Irenaeus’ use of the term is irrelevant, because in his time, there was only small “c”. We’re talking aorund each other. I think we both understand all of the relevant terms, and are picking at something small here. At any rate, that element of that passage does not compel me in any direction, but I’d like to continue watching this discussion.

 

[Contarini]

Contarini;6860493:

What argument is there to make about the meaning of a clear declarative statement?

Ferde,

It is a standard (and quite correct) Catholic argument against conservative Protestantism that Scripture is obviously not clear when well-informed people of ostensibly good faith regularly differ on what it means. This is such a passage. Therefore, I repeat: simply by claiming that the passage is clear you are adopting one of the silliest and most thoroughly discredited arguments of Protestant fundamentalists. If it were all that clear, everyone would be Catholic. Period.

I don’t know what ‘throw Scripture at me’ means.

It means to quote a verse and simply assume that your interpretation of it is correct, without arguing for that interpretation or discussing the context.

I quoted a verse pertaining to the primacy of Peter. It’s not an isolated verse. It’s meaning and the Lord’s intention is justified by all the other references to Peter in the Gospels and in Acts. I assumed you know them.

Yes, and I know the standard Catholic interpretations, and the standard Protestant/Orthodox responses to those interpretations, and so on. Again, if these passages were crystal clear, only fools and hypocrites would exist outside the Cahtolic Church. And frankly, if you think we are all fools and hypocrites, you have no reason to try to communicate with us. You ought to resort to the former practices of your Communion and try to get the government to shut us down. Argument would be pointless.

As long as you choose to communicate with me (or any other non-Catholic) at all, you need to assume my good faith. Otherwise we can’t communicate at all.

How many fundamentalists do you know who say ‘let the text speak for itself?’ I don’t know any.

Then I find it hard to believe that you know any fundamentalists at all. I have never yet met a fundamentalist who didn’t do that. In fact, “letting the text speak for itself” is pretty much the definition of a fundamentalist approach. Fundamentalists, by definition, insist that all Scripture is perfectly clear and if we all just submitted to its authority we would all agree with them.

What fundamentalists have you been talking to? What is your definition of a fundamentalist?

What led me to reject fundamentalist Protestantism (and even more nuanced forms of conservative Protestantism) was the discovery that the text clearly didn’t speak for itself. That is one of the strongest arguments Catholics have.

I told you clearly, and I know you read it since you edited it out of the quote you attribute to me, that I don’t interpret Scripture. Your claim that I mean “don’t dare to disagree with my interpretation of Scripture” does not follow my remarks.

Ferde, the claim “not to interpret Scripture” is the hallmark of a fundamentalist. I actually don’t remember you saying this, nor can I find it in your posts when I go back and look. If I had found such a statement in your posts, I would certainly *not *have edited it out, because it’s proof positive of my claim that you are methodologically a typical fundamentalist.

Only fundamentalists deny that they interpret Scripture. This is not a reasonable position. That you make it puts you outside the pale of rational discourse. We are all interpreting Scripture, period.

Frankly, I don’t like discussing with irrational people–which fundamentalists are, by definition. I argue with Protestant fundamentalists because some of them can be reclaimed from their folly (which is a spiritual work of mercy) and because refuting them makes the Catholics trust me a bit. But I think it’s going beyond the call of duty to argue with a Catholic who gratuitously adopts fundamentalist tactics such as claiming “not to interpret Scripture.”

Joseph used as an example the murder of St. Josephas. Do you subscribe to that kind of laity involvement in the business of the Church?

Of course not. But the laity *did *have the right to discern whether or not “St.” Josaphat was teaching them the truth.

Edwin

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

God bless you, Edwin. I wish you the best.

Ferde Rombola;6861732:

Ferde,

It is a standard (and quite correct) Catholic argument against conservative Protestantism that Scripture is obviously not clear when well-informed people of ostensibly good faith regularly differ on what it means. This is such a passage. Therefore, I repeat: simply by claiming that the passage is clear you are adopting one of the silliest and most thoroughly discredited arguments of Protestant fundamentalists. If it were all that clear, everyone would be Catholic. Period.

It means to quote a verse and simply assume that your interpretation of it is correct, without arguing for that interpretation or discussing the context.

Yes, and I know the standard Catholic interpretations, and the standard Protestant/Orthodox responses to those interpretations, and so on. Again, if these passages were crystal clear, only fools and hypocrites would exist outside the Cahtolic Church. And frankly, if you think we are all fools and hypocrites, you have no reason to try to communicate with us. You ought to resort to the former practices of your Communion and try to get the government to shut us down. Argument would be pointless.

As long as you choose to communicate with me (or any other non-Catholic) at all, you need to assume my good faith. Otherwise we can’t communicate at all.

Then I find it hard to believe that you know any fundamentalists at all. I have never yet met a fundamentalist who didn’t

do that. In fact, “letting the text speak for itself” is pretty much the definition of a fundamentalist approach. Fundamentalists, by definition, insist that all Scripture is perfectly clear and if we all just submitted to its authority we would all agree with them.

What fundamentalists have you been talking to? What is your definition of a fundamentalist?

What led me to reject fundamentalist Protestantism (and even more nuanced forms of conservative Protestantism) was the discovery that the text clearly didn’t speak for itself. That is one of the strongest arguments Catholics have.

Ferde, the claim “not to interpret Scripture” is the hallmark of a fundamentalist. I actually don’t remember you saying this, nor can I find it in your posts when I go back and look. If I had found such a statement in your posts, I would certainly *not *have edited it out, because it’s proof positive of my claim that you are methodologically a typical fundamentalist.

Only fundamentalists deny that they interpret Scripture. This is not a reasonable position. That you make it puts you outside the pale of rational discourse. We are all interpreting Scripture, period.

Frankly, I don’t like discussing with irrational people–which fundamentalists are, by definition. I argue with Protestant fundamentalists because some of them can be reclaimed from their folly (which is a spiritual work of mercy) and because refuting them makes the Catholics trust me a bit. But I think it’s going beyond the call of duty to argue with a Catholic who gratuitously adopts fundamentalist tactics such as claiming “not to interpret Scripture.”

Of course not. But the laity *did *have the right to discern whether or not “St.” Josaphat was teaching them the truth.

Edwin

 

[Bluegoat]

Contarini;6860493:

What argument is there to make about the meaning of a clear declarative statement? I don’t know what ‘throw Scripture at me’ means. I quoted a verse pertaining to the primacy of Peter. It’s not an isolated verse. It’s meaning and the Lord’s intention is justified by all the other references to Peter in the Gospels and in Acts. I assumed you know them.

How many fundamentalists do you know who say ‘let the text speak for itself?’ I don’t know any. Your ‘inescapable conclusion’ is your own invention.

I told you clearly, and I know you read it since you edited it out of the quote you attribute to me, that I don’t interpret Scripture. Your claim that I mean “don’t dare to disagree with my interpretation of Scripture” does not follow my remarks. This kind of fraudulent debate tactic is the mark of a fundamentalist, as is the accusation I do what you are doing.

You can start any time. For the second time, I read the text for what it says, not for what I think it says. If Mt. 16:18-19 means what Protestants and fundies say it means, the Lord would have said, “You are Peter, BUT upon this rock…, etc.” He didn’t say that. He said “…AND upon this rock…” ‘And’ is a connector. The Lord is connecting “You are Peter…” to “…upon this rock…” so there is no doubt the Catholic interpretation is the correct one. All the Greek gobble-de-gook pseudo-interpretation is just smoke and mirrors and is an invalid eisegesis. What does ‘I give to you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.’ mean? ‘You’re just one of the boys?’

Another nonsequitur. They don’t say what I said. What’s your problem with having the words mean what they say? Other than that it makes your theology difficult to sustain?

Maybe I wasn’t clear. What hasn’t been fulfilled is the desired result; that all – the entire world, should be converted to Christ.

Jn. 16:13 is one of the most important verses in all of Scripture. “Will guide…” is future tense and I believe it still applies. What did the Apostles teach about the morality of stem cell research? Other, similar issues we know nothing about will arise 20-50-100 years from now and the Church will still rely on the Spirit for guidance.

Joseph used as an example the murder of St. Josephas. Do you subscribe to that kind of laity involvement in the business of the Church?

If you doubt the laity in the Catholic Church don’t or are forbidden from doing what you think they should be doing, I invite your attention to the blog <bryanhehirexposed.wordpress.com>. Read the article about Fr. Erickson’s Response and the comments. Plan on packing a lunch.

Absenting specifics, you have simply made another speech. Being a target for the entire secular world and much of the religious world is being made accountable. If you have a problem with the way Pope Benedict is handing it, state your problem.

The speech continues below. It’s far afield of the subject of this thread so I’d prefer to let it pass if you don’t mind.

I think you are running into problems because you misunderstand the word “fundamentalist”. A fundamentalist is not defined by being opposed to Catholic viewpoints. A hallmark of fundamentalism is a method of reading Scripture which says that by simply taking passages at face value the meaning is clear.

 

[Contarini]

Ferde Rombola;6861732:

I think you are running into problems because you misunderstand the word “fundamentalist”. A fundamentalist is not defined by being opposed to Catholic viewpoints. A hallmark of fundamentalism is a method of reading Scripture which says that by simply taking passages at face value the meaning is clear.

And actually I didn’t originally call him a fundamentalist. I said he was “playing the fundamentalist game,” which he was and is (though oddly, he appears never to have heard an actual fundamentalist make these claims). In other words, I am aware that “fundamentalist” can mean a lot of things, and generally refers to anti-Catholic Protestants. So I specifically referred to the methodological, interpretive aspect of fundamentalism (namely its refusal to admit that it is interpreting at all).

Edwin

 

[Bluegoat]

Bluegoat;6862180:

And actually I didn’t originally call him a fundamentalist. I said he was “playing the fundamentalist game,” which he was and is (though oddly, he appears never to have heard an actual fundamentalist make these claims). In other words, I am aware that “fundamentalist” can mean a lot of things, and generally refers to anti-Catholic Protestants. So I specifically referred to the methodological, interpretive aspect of fundamentalism (namely its refusal to admit that it is interpreting at all).

Edwin

Edwin,

I was actually intending to tell Ferde that he was misunderstanding the word fundamentalist - I quoted the wrong thing I guess.

I know you know what a fundamentalist is.

 

[Contarini]

Contarini;6862237:

Edwin,

I was actually intending to tell Ferde that he was misunderstanding the word fundamentalist - I quoted the wrong thing I guess.

I know you know what a fundamentalist is.

Bluegoat,

My point was that I’m not quarreling with Ferde’s implicit definition of “fundamentalist” as “anti-Catholic Protestant.” That’s one way to define it. I’m just pointing out that he is in fact using the interpretive strategy characteristic of those particular Protestants and constituting the single biggest weakness in their generally weak position!

I didn’t want to pin myself to a semantic dispute about several different possible definitions of the term “fundamentalist.”

Edwin