The Latin office, especially post-Vatican II is really not comparable to the Orthodox office.
You are right, because maintaining the liturgical cycle is superior to any private devotion (and if you doubt that, go ask some traditional Benedictines what they think takes primacy, the liturgical cycle or private devotion). The study of scripture ideally should take place in the context of liturgy.
I don’t agree with the idea but there used to be quite a stigma in the Orthodox Church on reading the Scriptures yourself. It was seen as dangerous because of the possibility for misunderstanding.
It has nothing to do with a stigma. The private study of scripture is great, if done with a competent guide to the meanings of the scriptures, but the study of the scriptures in the context of the cycle of services takes primacy over such private endeavors, because the services reveal the interior ordering of the Scriptures (this being the true meaning of the maxim lex orandi lex credendi). Without the Tradition, the study of Scriptures would be like the endeavors of Calvin or Zwingli.
Has anyone read “A year of grace of the Lord”?
Since we believe that all bishops are Peter, I fail to see how the above presents any problem to the Orthodox position.
Sorry, that should have been “The year of Grace of the Lord” by “a monk of the Orthodox Church”, also known as Fr Lev Gillet.
Like the Trappists?
Your chess-style apologetics and belief in “an argument that silences any and all disputation about the universal authority of the Pope” seems somewhat incongruous beside your advocacy of lectio divina…Like the Trappists?
I was a candidate at St. Joseph’s Abbey for five years, and almost entered. So, yeah.
But perhaps you are familiar with the monastic practice of lectio divina - an ancient form of prayer using the scriptures? It’s fairly common among the Benedictines.
Seriously, Cav. You won’t actually interact with the scriptures I’ve presented, and I suspect it’s because you know you can’t disprove this argument with scripture.
I’m cautiously optimistic that no one can.
“No Father (or not many) used the image of the Royal Steward to support the papacy” is an argument from silence. That’s not much to stand on, but it appears to be the best you’ve got. Mt. 18:18 and Jerome just don’t get the job done.
Interestingly, while I think that the Royal Steward argument is irrefutable proof of a powerful, universal papacy, it is not the ONLY argument in the Catholic quiver. So, I may ultimately be shown evidence that the argument is weak or fails completely. Whatever. I’ll just turn my attention to Peter as rock, shepherd, keeper of the keys, etc. You know I have boatloads of scriptural and patristic support for those points.
However, the Royal Steward is a haymaker, because the authority of the steward in Egypt as well as Israel was unparalleled. It is an argument that silences any and all disputation about the universal authority of the Pope.
As an apologist, I look for airtight defenses and explanations of Catholicism. Maybe its because I spent so many years playing chess when I was younger. Anyway, when I examine the strength of the Royal Steward argument and the objections raised by Protestants and Orthodox to it, I feel comfortable knowing that this is an opening that I can play at any time with great confidence.
I anticipate the usual attacks on me to follow, but I’ll wait for something substantive on Mt. 16:18-19 and Is. 22:20-22 before responding further.
Hm, I don’t think that’s true. Two premises unstated are:
I understand that would be a separate and closely related discussion.
Yes, a practice which appears in the rule of St. Benedict lumped in with daily manual labor. Hearing the scriptures in liturgy is the highest form of interacting with the scriptures, something which hearkens back to the ancient Jewish principle that he who heard the scriptures sung actually experienced them as if he were there himself.Like the Trappists?
I was a candidate at St. Joseph’s Abbey for five years, and almost entered. So, yeah.
But perhaps you are familiar with the monastic practice of lectio divina - an ancient form of prayer using the scriptures? It’s fairly common among the Benedictines.
Neither have you proved the argument from scripture. You have merely asserted that two passages are related, but I don’t believe you’ve proved that from scripture alone.
I’m also cautiously optimistic that you cannot actually prove your thesis from scripture alone.
There are plenty of patristic passages about all of the apostles receiving the keys or about Peter accepting things from Christ in the stead of all the apostles. St. Jerome is simply one of many in that regard, and he is quite well within the norm for patristic teaching, when he asserts that all of the apostles received the keys. We have simply been so distracted by this ridiculous fool’s errand of “proving” things from scripture alone (first demonstrate from Scripture alone Jesus’ intent to establish a new perpetual lineage of royal stewards from scripture alone, and then demonstrate from Scripture alone that such a perpetual lineage was continued in Rome after the Apostle Peter’s death and then we’ll talk about “proving” things with Scripture alone) that I’ve not had time to cite many sources.
Yet nobody disputes that Peter had some type of primacy. The typical dispute is over the nature of that primacy, and who inherits that primacy from Peter. It must be so nice, setting up all of these strawmen to knock down, Randy, but at some point you actually have to address what the other side believes, and not what you present them as believing.
Then I should think your logic needs a bit of work. You have not actually sufficiently demonstrated the reasonableness of your very own set of assumptions from Scripture alone, and without this, how can you claim that your ideas are founded upon Scripture? Your syllogistic reasoning may be valid (though as Novocastrian pointed out, your reasoning appears to be missing a few steps), but is it sound?
I feel that tension myself. Many a day I think I should just log off, and pursue the Lord as the doctors of the Church such as Therese, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross and others have done.
The most promising post I have read in weeks. I look forward to anything you’d like to bring to the discussion, and I hope others will follow your example.
Wow. An actual argument. Thank you!
Lectio Divina is scripture reading lumped in with manual labor? That’s your understanding? <long, slow whistle>
And when was that three year lectionary cycle created? '69?
The Queen does not delegate her authority to the Prime Minister. And when she charges him with forming a government, that government is of the Queen’s ministers, not his. And he is the first among equals (that is he has primacy, not supremacy).Lectio Divina is scripture reading lumped in with manual labor? That’s your understanding? <long, slow whistle>
Since you prefer hearing the scriptures in the liturgy, you may be interested to know that Catholics hear Is. 22:19-23 and Mt. 16:13-20 read together on the 21st Sunday of Ordinary Time in our three-year lectionary cycle.
Gee, do those two passages look familiar? :yup:
And what do you suppose the homily is often about?
Here’s a sample from Fr. Dwight Longenecker who started out as an Evangelical Protestant at Bob Jones University, converted to Anglicanism (catch that, Novocastrian?) where he became a priest, and then ultimately converted to Catholicism. Today, he is one of those rare married Catholic priests. From his blog:
Prime Minister Peter
The British monarchy helps explain the reading from Isaiah 22 at Mass today. The prophet says that the Lord will take the office of steward from Shebna and give it to Eliakim. The office of steward was like that of Prime Minister. In England the Prime Minister is asked to form a government by HM Queen Elizabeth II. He actually has no power until he takes a car to Buckingham Palace and meets the Queen in person and she personally and formally delegates her authority to him.
The steward of the King in the prophet Isaiah bears a similar office. He wears an official robe and sash conferring the dignity of his office and on the sash are the keys to the kingdom. The steward has the keys to the palace, the keys to the city gate, the keys to the treasury, the keys to the armory, the keys to the prison, the keys to the kingdom. Whatever he opens is open. Whatever he binds is bound. Jesus’ disciples would have understood perfectly his reference back to Isaiah 22 and would have understood clearly that he was making Peter the Steward of his Kingdom, the Viceroy, Prime Minister Peter.
read more here.
In contrast to the post-Vatican II Lectionary for Mass, the pre-Vatican II Roman Missal had only two readings for each Mass, on a one-year cycle (i.e., the same readings used every year).
If you say so. You’re British, not me.
I have only attended the office once at the Greek Orthodox Church near me. It seemed quite extensive.
As an oblate at a traditional Benedictine Monastery, I can certainly attest to the truth of this!