R
Randy_Carson
Guest
No, of course not.
It’s just crazy to think that Jesus put Peter in charge of all His treasures, right?
Well, right?
- Status
It’s just crazy to think that Jesus put Peter in charge of all His treasures, right?
Well, right?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Take it up with Cleenewerck. And Soloviev.I would think the progenitors of a brand new liturgy and new dogma barely 60 years ago would be slow to accuse anyone of doctrinal fluctuations and liturgical decay.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Must you be so discourteous as to lump all of your “adversaries” together instead of treating each as a separate person? It really is quite rude, as many of those things, I did not write, and it is far beneath anybody’s dignity to try to defend arguments which he did not make. On the first and the fourth though, I must remark that of course these things were asked, because by reading the fathers, we are transformed and acquire the mind of the Church, which teaches us how properly to interpret the scriptures, and how properly to understand God. Any discussion of theology or scriptural exegesis removed from the context of the Holy Fathers is worthless, because it has no guarantee of faithfulness to the mind of the church, and no connection to that which makes the faith truly Catholic (that is, being the faith which has been believed everywhere and at all times).
Such a sad statement (more befitting of Luther or Calvin than anybody who calls himself Catholic). The Fathers guide our reading of scripture. Without having received the tradition of the fathers, we would be clueless as to how to interpret the Scriptures. Why not interpret them as Arius did, or as Eunomius, or as Nestorius, etc.? Those readings of scriptures were all tenable enough that thousands of souls were lost to those heretics. But the Holy Fathers showed from the Tradition that their reading of scripture was incorrect. Even the Tridentine Creed (or more accurately the Creed of Pope Pius IV) recognizes this very basic fact in one of its articles:
I also admit the Holy Scripture according to that sense which our holy mother the Church hath held, and doth hold, to whom it belongeth to judge of the true sense and interpretations of the Scriptures. Neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
Well, since we are apparently relying only scriptural interpretation in a void, which is supposed to be completely independent of what the Holy Fathers believe, I have no reason to believe in a.) to begin with, because that is not how I have ever interpreted the Scriptures, and with that, the entire argument crumbles. I suppose that without looking to some exterior standard of scriptural exegesis (like… oh maybe the Holy Fathers), we shall just be stuck at such an impasse.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Of course, Cleenewerck also makes a long argument from patristic sources that all bishops are inheritors of Peter. Rather dishonest to leave the entire backbone of the author’s thesis out of your presentation of his work, don’t you think? To Cleenewerck, it wouldn’t matter if it were true or not, not because of his Orthodoxy (as you incorrectly allege), but because of his views on how bishops are related to Peter.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Of course. YOU have never interpreted the scriptures that way so MY argument crumbles.
What if YOU are in error? Put that thought on hold.
- When you personally open your bible to look at the two passages, do you see any connection between the words Jesus spoke in Mt 15:18-19 and those in Is. 22:20-22? Common words, phrases, imagery…anything at all?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Not dishonest. We both know it’s there…he’s ORTHODOX, for cryin’ out loud. What is he *supposed *to say?
However, what may NOT have been commonly known before was that he admits the possibility - however small - that Peter might be the Steward.
It’s a chink in your armor, Cav. Maybe even the Achilles’ Heel.
Peter might, just might, be the first in a line of perpetual second-in-command stewards who exercise God-given authority universally.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Without looking to patristic commentaries (the value of which you denigrate like some Baptist), you have no commonly recognized standard by which you can judge my interpretation of scripture. I myself accept the authority of the Holy Fathers as scriptural exegetes, which is why unless you can demonstrate how your argument accords with the consensus patrem, I have no reason to take seriously your own interpretation of the scriptures.Of course. YOU have never interpreted the scriptures that way so MY argument crumbles.
What if YOU are in error? Put that thought on hold.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Returning to the context of the passage from St. Ephraim which you allege connects Peter to the office of royal steward:
You earlier condensed your logic as follows:
a. re-established by Jesus,
b. conveyed by the awarding of literal or symbolic keys,
c. second in authority only to the king,
d. universal in jurisdiction throughout the kingdom (by virtue of c above), and
e. perpetual.
Now, the passage you St. Ephraim does not clearly seem to teach proposition a.) in that passage (unless you use proposition b.) as a support for a.), but then this will yield a type of circular argument). Indeed, St. Ephraim seems to imply that Christ was not establishing an analogous office, because he connects the keys to the priesthood and the prophecy, and to think that Peter was alone among the apostles a priest and prophet would be a most ridiculous proposition. Your own interpretation of St. Ephraim tortures the passage into saying something that it most certainly does not, for if it were true, as you claim, that St. Ephraim meant to teach that Jesus gave the keys to Peter in order to re-establish the office of royal steward, then St. Ephraim would not have linked the keys to both priesthood and prophecy, which was a trait held in common among all of the apostles.
You earlier condensed your logic as follows:
a. re-established by Jesus,
b. conveyed by the awarding of literal or symbolic keys,
c. second in authority only to the king,
d. universal in jurisdiction throughout the kingdom (by virtue of c above), and
e. perpetual.
Now, the passage you St. Ephraim does not clearly seem to teach proposition a.) in that passage (unless you use proposition b.) as a support for a.), but then this will yield a type of circular argument). Indeed, St. Ephraim seems to imply that Christ was not establishing an analogous office, because he connects the keys to the priesthood and the prophecy, and to think that Peter was alone among the apostles a priest and prophet would be a most ridiculous proposition. Your own interpretation of St. Ephraim tortures the passage into saying something that it most certainly does not, for if it were true, as you claim, that St. Ephraim meant to teach that Jesus gave the keys to Peter in order to re-establish the office of royal steward, then St. Ephraim would not have linked the keys to both priesthood and prophecy, which was a trait held in common among all of the apostles.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I do not hold Fr. Cleenewerck, no matter how nice his work is, to be an infallible expositor of Scripture. Show me the consensus patrem and the mind of the church, not the mind of 21th century writers.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Were the Fathers inspired?
Were the Fathers infallible?
Were the Fathers apostles?
With the exception of Clement, did any of the Fathers ever hear Jesus speak?
Did any of the Fathers have high-speed Internet access and Google?
Nope, nope, nope, nope and just kidding.
Do you ever read scripture, Cav? Commentaries are fine…I own lots of them, and despite your aspersions, I do appreciate Sacred Tradition. Catholic…hello*???*
But what I think I’m seeing over the past year or so is that EO rarely if ever reference scriptures when they argue theology. My suspicion is that you know the councils better than you know the New Testament. You can quote Chrysostom more easily than you can quote Paul or James or even Jesus. That’s backwards.
You revere the Fathers, but not enough to follow their examples, apparently. They soaked themselves in the Word of God and in prayer. You drown yourself in decretals.
If the Fathers were here today, they would say, “Don’t listen to me, listen to Him!”
We do that through prayer, the reading of Sacred Scripture and participation in the sacraments especially the Divine Liturgy.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I have not attempted to construct a linear argument; b is simply how a was accomplished. Like this:
Jesus re-established of the office the the royal steward and conveyed the keys, symbols of that office, to Simon Peter alone.
No. All of the apostles were the same in this regard. What separates Peter is the fact that in addition to all of the traits common to the Eleven, he also was named the Chief Steward.
Explained above, but Ephraim apparently links the keys to the office of the Chief Steward since he uses that exact word several times.
And in the second passage from Ephraim recently posted, he states:
"I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).
ALL MY TREASURES.
Not just those in the West.
+++
I’m curious…you have obviously spent a few minutes mulling this over as evidenced by your multiple posts on Ephraim. I’d venture you have Googled or pulled some commentaries off your shelves, too.
Have you opened your Bible, yet?
Let me know what you come up with on your own after you’ve read the passages.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Oh, what the heck.
Ambrose
How, then, can He not have in His power that which He gives, saying: To you will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven? See the gulf between [the one and the other]. The servant opens, the Lord bestows; the One through Himself, the other through Christ; the minister receives the keys, the Lord appoints powers: the one is the right of a giver, the other the duty of a steward. (Exposition of the Christian Faith, Book III, 100).
Tertullian
Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ, and for this asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth; grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ, neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles—is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition? (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, Ch. 28)
John Cassian (c. 362-435)
“On that day I shall summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah. …I will place the Key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, and when he shuts, no one shall open.” (Isaiah 22:20-22)
“O Peter, Prince of Apostles, it is just that you should teach us, since you were yourself taught by the Lord; and also that you should open to us the gate of which you have received the key (singular). Keep out all those who are undermining the heavenly house; turn away those who are trying to enter through false caverns and unlawful gates since it is certain that no one can enter in at the gate of the Kingdom except the one unto whom the key (singular), placed by you in the churches, shall open it.” (John Cassian, Book III, Chap 12, Against the Nestorians on the Incarnation)
Cassian is drawing from Isaiah 22, and applying it to Matt 16.
Aphraates the Sage (c. 330 A.D.)
“David handed over the Kingdom to Solomon and was gathered to his people; and Jesus handed over the Keys to Simon and ascended and returned to Him Who sent Him.” (Aphraates, xxi, 13).
Ephraem the Syrian (c. 350)
“Then Peter deservedly received the Vicariate of Christ over His people.” (Ephraem, Sermon de Martyrio. SS. App. Petri et Pauli).
Ambrose
How, then, can He not have in His power that which He gives, saying: To you will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven? See the gulf between [the one and the other]. The servant opens, the Lord bestows; the One through Himself, the other through Christ; the minister receives the keys, the Lord appoints powers: the one is the right of a giver, the other the duty of a steward. (Exposition of the Christian Faith, Book III, 100).
Tertullian
Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ, and for this asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth; grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ, neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles—is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition? (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, Ch. 28)
John Cassian (c. 362-435)
“On that day I shall summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah. …I will place the Key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, and when he shuts, no one shall open.” (Isaiah 22:20-22)
“O Peter, Prince of Apostles, it is just that you should teach us, since you were yourself taught by the Lord; and also that you should open to us the gate of which you have received the key (singular). Keep out all those who are undermining the heavenly house; turn away those who are trying to enter through false caverns and unlawful gates since it is certain that no one can enter in at the gate of the Kingdom except the one unto whom the key (singular), placed by you in the churches, shall open it.” (John Cassian, Book III, Chap 12, Against the Nestorians on the Incarnation)
Cassian is drawing from Isaiah 22, and applying it to Matt 16.
Aphraates the Sage (c. 330 A.D.)
“David handed over the Kingdom to Solomon and was gathered to his people; and Jesus handed over the Keys to Simon and ascended and returned to Him Who sent Him.” (Aphraates, xxi, 13).
Ephraem the Syrian (c. 350)
“Then Peter deservedly received the Vicariate of Christ over His people.” (Ephraem, Sermon de Martyrio. SS. App. Petri et Pauli).
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Oh brother, a bunch of insults where you presume to know me, even though you don’t (I can hardly say that I am surprised). I am a reader, for crying out loud, and my whole job during liturgical services concerns singing the prayers of the faithful and reading the scriptures. I don’t argue against you using scripture because the nature of the disputed points concern not the contents of Holy Scripture, but the proper interpretation of Holy Scripture. And for that we should turn to the Fathers, not to ourselves. Perhaps you simply do not read the Fathers enough.Were the Fathers inspired?
Were the Fathers infallible?
Were the Fathers apostles?
With the exception of Clement, did any of the Fathers ever hear Jesus speak?
Did any of the Fathers have high-speed Internet access and Google?
Nope, nope, nope, nope and just kidding.
Do you ever read scripture, Cav? Commentaries are fine…I own lots of them, and despite your aspersions, I do appreciate Sacred Tradition. Catholic…hello*???*
But what I think I’m seeing over the past year or so is that EO rarely if ever reference scriptures when they argue theology. My suspicion is that you know the councils better than you know the New Testament. You can quote Chrysostom more easily than you can quote Paul or James or even Jesus. That’s backwards.
You revere the Fathers, but not enough to follow their examples, apparently. They soaked themselves in the Word of God and in prayer. You drown yourself in decretals.
If the Fathers were here today, they would say, “Don’t listen to me, listen to Him!”
We do that through prayer, the reading of Sacred Scripture and participation in the sacraments especially the Divine Liturgy.
B
Butzi
Guest
I would think the progenitors of a brand new liturgy and new dogma barely 60 years ago would be slow to accuse anyone of doctrinal fluctuations and liturgical decay.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Randy,
**“Roland Bainton in his effort to make the best of Luther **declared that Luther’s view of the Jews was ‘entirely religious and by no means racial’.” Richard Marius, pg. 377
You seem to have noticed Bainton’s ‘slant’ and yes, it is a “Lutheran favorite”. Bainton make this bias very well known on page 388, (yes, you make skip ahead ). Marius on the other hand is extremely informative, readable, and is much more willing to deal with Martin Luther the man. He does an excellent job with certain ‘aspects’ of Luther’s career, aspects that Bainton does not.
God Bless You Randy, Topper
PS, there will be a very predicable reply here involving Heiko Oberman.
Bainton’s biography “Here I Stand” is one of the most popular accounts of Luther’s life that is available. Like many writers, Bainton has a ‘certain bias’. In his case though that bias is a little more obvious than most. If you want to read something much more even-handed, I would suggest “Martin Luther, The Christian Between God and Death”, by Richard Marius. Marius, a Baptist Seminary graduate, Reformation History Scholar and Harvard Professor, commented on Bainton:Which may explain the reticence of some to make recommendations.
I’m currently reading Here I Stand by Roland Bainton which was recommended to me by some of our Lutheran guests.
So far, Luther seems like a really nice guy with some valid concerns about indulgences. Who knew?
**“Roland Bainton in his effort to make the best of Luther **declared that Luther’s view of the Jews was ‘entirely religious and by no means racial’.” Richard Marius, pg. 377
You seem to have noticed Bainton’s ‘slant’ and yes, it is a “Lutheran favorite”. Bainton make this bias very well known on page 388, (yes, you make skip ahead
). Marius on the other hand is extremely informative, readable, and is much more willing to deal with Martin Luther the man. He does an excellent job with certain ‘aspects’ of Luther’s career, aspects that Bainton does not.God Bless You Randy, Topper
PS, there will be a very predicable reply here involving Heiko Oberman.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Sounds like an interesting follow-up read to balance out Bainton. Thanks for the recommendation.Hi Randy,
Bainton’s biography “Here I Stand” is one of the most popular accounts of Luther’s life that is available. Like many writers, Bainton has a ‘certain bias’. In his case though that bias is a little more obvious than most. If you want to read something much more even-handed, I would suggest “Martin Luther, The Christian Between God and Death”, by Richard Marius. Marius, a Baptist Seminary graduate, Reformation History Scholar and Harvard Professor, commented on Bainton:
**“Roland Bainton in his effort to make the best of Luther **declared that Luther’s view of the Jews was ‘entirely religious and by no means racial’.” Richard Marius, pg. 377
You seem to have noticed Bainton’s ‘slant’ and yes, it is a “Lutheran favorite”. Bainton make this bias very well known on page 388, (yes, you make skip ahead
God Bless You Randy, Topper
PS, there will be a very predicable reply here involving Heiko Oberman.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I was a lector, also. It’s not the same as spending time alone with God and His Word.
Undoubtedly. The more I read, the more I realize just how thoroughly *Catholic *they really were.
P
Peter_J
Guest
You had me worried … for a minute I thought this ^^ post *wasn’t *going to be about Randy.
:phew:
P
Peter_J
Guest
(Kidding, kidding. 
)
)
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
- Status