Wasn’t there a chief high priest among the Pharisees? But anyway, let’s stick with the subject of Moses. Why did God put one man, Moses, in charge of all of God’s people? How can one man have universal and supreme authority over all of God’s people as Moses had? How can one man be the spokesman for God?
When one of the authors writing for the encyclopedia translates, “exorta est,” into the present tense in English instead of in the preterite, I would say so.I should have known, you can’t trust an encyclopedia.
What would be intellectually honest is to actually read the entire epistle, which is what I’ve done with ones you presented quotes from. That’s how I know that your interpretation of St. Cyprian’s writings doesn’t sit well with me. Once again, I’m not interested in getting into a quote war with you. If you cannot look to the Fathers for wisdom and proper guidance, and not for quotes to cut and paste into internet arguments, then arguing about who is being intellectually honest is a moot point. Read the Fathers for your benefit, not my detriment. I won’t be embracing RC views anyway, even if you were right, which, let’s be honest, is what this is really all about; you don’t want to bring people to Christ or else you wouldn’t be arguing with Orthodox and your fellow Catholics; you want to be right, and the game’s not over until we all say uncle. Well, fine; I have dinner cooking right now anyway, so uncle.
Yes, saying that it’s a bad translation is a way to shut down all discussion since most people aren’t translation experts. Why did I even try to have a discussion about this or presume to know anything when I’m not even a language translation expert?
Oh well. Is that what you call this? Having a discussion?Why did I even try to have—— a discussion about this? Oh well.
Indeed, in such an environment where we are limited to six thousand characters or so per post, actually arguing for any particular interpretation of a document would be quite impractical, because such short posts would be insufficient for defending any thesis. This is why it helps instead to look to scholarship done on such topics. And I can say for certain that certain men who were well studied in Patristics, such as Johannes Quasten, would agree with the reading that St. Cyprian understands all bishops as being types of Peter, because he identifies the one Episcopacy with Peter, and the unity to be found in him.
Does the relative obscurity of the fact that “exorta est” functions as the third person indicative active preterite/perfect of the deponent verb exorior thereby invalidate my assertion that St. Cyprian has been mistranslated?Yes, saying that it’s a bad translation is a way to shut down all discussion since most people aren’t translation experts. Why did I even try to have a discussion about this or presume to know anything when I’m not even a language translation expert? Oh well.
I don’t believe there’s been a Catholic conspiracy to corrupt all of the writings of the ECFs. After over 200 posts of EO’s telling me that the problem is that I’m not interpreting the quotes right, one EO finally comes along and ends the whole discussion by suggesting that we can’t trust the translations. But that tells me that the ECF quotes do support the Catholic point of view or you would not have told me that the translations can’t be trusted. I personally would not tell someone that they have a bad translation unless it was from an obviously questionable source. But, the Catholic Encyclopedia is a source that is trusted. I’ve seen it used as a source by Jewish and secular outside sources.
No they didn’t. They were a political faction. The High Priest was a Sadducee. However Christ acknowledged the Pharisees (as a whole) as having the teaching authority Moses had held.
Why Moses? I think we should talk about Deborah. God put a woman in charge of his people. Therefore the Pope should be a woman.
No, but that particular passage is a rather commonly quoted mistranslation (which is why I am familiar with it). I am saying that over a medium such as this forum, it is actually quite impossible to “support” one’s understanding of a document because to do so would require writing a thesis length defense of why a document should be read in a certain way. It should suffice, I think, as an appropriate defense of the credibility of our position over this somewhat limiting medium to say that although you may find a certain reading of St. Cyprian to be incredible, some rather learned scholars of Patristics have also come to a similar understanding that St. Cyprian equates the one Episcopacy with the person of Peter, making all bishops participants in the type of Peter.
Is there a problem, particularly, with arguing over how a passage or document should be understood?
The Faith is so easy that even infants participate in it in Orthodoxy through being baptized, chrismated, and communed, and later when they have matured through prayer, fasting, the giving of alms, and confession. Engaging in a reasoned defense of our faith (In accordance with St. Peter’s command to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear”) is an admirable pursuit, but it in no way forms the basis of our kerygma, which is accomplished primarily by allowing the glory of God to shine through us by leading a holy way of life.
Mein Kampf, used in the proper place in context might be a valid source. That doesn’t mean it is correct.
I never argued for something so ridiculous as saying that all of the translations of St. Cyprian cannot be trusted. I noted that that one particular translation was incorrect, because in the original Latin, St. Cyprian wrote, “exorta est,” which is the third person indicative active preterite/perfect of the deponent verb exorior, and appropriately should be translated as “originated” or “took its source” to use the wording in the quote you provided, instead of being translated in the present tense.
Where do you come up with some of this? Of course I don’t believe that evangelization is entirely up to the bishops. I’ve never said or remotely implied such a thing. However, bishops will decide the basis for restoration of communion. So what you will or will not accept as a basis of unity doesn’t matter.
Actually, Jimmy what if it isn’t an either/or situation, i.e., what if both interpretations are correct, can one really separate the confession from the man who confessed it? The thing is, if there are Orthodox clergy who are interpreting “rock” in Matthew 18 as referring to his confession only, then they disregard the many many fathers who interpreted it as being Peter. Also, I found this from St. John Chrysostom:
And as I was perusing my books I also found this quote issued at the Council of Chalcedon:
And here is St. John Damascene:
Which kind of leaves me scratching my head because I can’t understand how anyone would deny that Peter is the rock.
I am simply stating if they are in communion with your patriarch that is all, but thank you for the extra info.
Sure. There is nothing wrong with them both being correct. There is also a third patristic interpretation of the text, in which Christ is the rock. They are all correct, and there is nothing wrong with that. I don’t think most eastern Christians will argue with that. I think the primary reading would be the profession of faith as the rock though. The profession of Peter is what our faith boils down to. The statement, ‘you are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ This is the basis of all doctrine and the history of theology. It sums up all of patristic theology.
I realize that I can’t be the one to decide this. If I were the one then the East and West would have already been reunited. The problem is that it doesn’t matter how much us Catholics want reunification if the EOs are absolutely dead-set against it. I even offered a hypothetical scenario where they are basically given the Papacy, and one of the EO’s on here responded to me that even an offer like that would be rejected. So, it’s obvious that the EO’s are the ones who are being unreasonable and won’t compromise even an inch. What we have now is division between Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox. And it’s intellectually dishonest if we simply redefine division to mean unity. Don’t people realize how much Satan is loving how Christendom has been split and how this has led to the massive world apostasy and rise of Islam we are currently seeing? There is so much apathy about how Christianity is divided.
That’s part of it, but there’s more.
