For Aristotle, democracy is possible only within homogeneous ethnic groups, while despots have always reigned over highly fragmented societies

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

My point is that the universality and practical unanimity about the primacy of Peter as prince of the apostles, even before the word "pontiff" came to be used, is a clear indication that this "meat"-aspect, this oral tradition, this deeper gnosis that the Apostles possessed, contributed to an exegesis of Scripture that might seem like a stretch to you, a mere reader 2000 years later, but was abundantly clear to them.

I will undoubtedly fail to get the 'meat' of my thought across here, primarily on account of the fact that I want to do it so emphatically at this moment that the desire itself is likely to stop me, as opposed to being able to do this in a more relaxed way, say, if I'd come to decades-worth of 'terms' with the ideas.

In the section of your comment I quoted above, everything hangs on the term 'primacy'. I believe strongly that the apostles and early Church fathers did recognize the preeminence of Peter, but for entirely different reasons than the fact of his ordained pontific office as the first pope. The reason that Peter had preeminence among the apostles, even where it concerned Christ's relationship to them, was because Peter was the 'first born'. If I get more time, I might attempt to get into this more deeply, but because it relies on a linguistic analysis which is, frankly, above my head, it may take some time. The core of the idea is that Peter, in contradistinction with each of the other apostles, is the first to come to faith in Christ (true gnosis of Christ as the Son of God) by way of the Father solely. Each of the others required seeing with their eyes, a reason why Peter is able to answer Christ's question: "Who do you think I am?"

Peter is the first stone placed in the Church because he is the 'first born', as in the first to be born again according to true gnosis and true faith (as Christ puts it: through the Father alone). This is why he is the rock upon which the Church is to be built, because of course Christ was to ascend to Heaven, indicating that any future Church must be built on the rock of faith, and why Peter was the first petros.

I am not convinced that what was recognized unanimously of Peter by the apostles and earliest Church fathers was that Christ granted Peter a literal supreme office in said Church to represent Christ on earth. As Tertullian said, the Vicar of Christ is the Spirit, and I believe there is clearer scriptural evidence for this than for an apostolic succession by way of a succession of popes.

The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, was able to established a canon outside of which the hyperlinkedness, indeed the very infallibility itself, would not have been present.

Still, what we are disputing here is the particular of the pontiff, as principal of bishops and so-called Vicar of Christ. What you have described in this first paragraph about the canonization of the authentic God-breathed books in the Bible has involved two key factors: (a) the Church and (b) the Holy Spirit.

Nowhere is it justified that a third thing (c) Pope was necessary for the Spirit to guide the Church in compiling the Bible. When the apostles convened in Jerusalem in Acts, did the group default to the authority of Peter to dictate how ministry to the gentiles was to be handled? Peter figured heavily into this meeting, but there is no indication whatsoever that the other apostles approached him with the kind of authority the later Church attached to the Pope. It is clear from scripture that the final word and decision rests with James. Moreover, this supposed first pope was rebuked by Paul!

My point was not truly this, however, but to showcase that if the other apostles had truly believed what you claim the early Church did, why would there have been a council? The more important question follows: why couldn't this model of synod of bishops have accomplished what you say with respect to curating the Bible? After all, it's clear from Acts that important decisions as late as 50 A.D. were being decided by council, and not by Peter alone.

One cannot understand the Church without recognizing that this meat, this additional knowledge and understanding, though unwritten, influenced the way the early Church interpreted Scripture and established further tradition.

I fully agree, however, what the early Church apparently interpreted is precisely what we are disputing. Given the lateness of the distinct references to the title of pontiff, and of 'Vicar of Christ' to refer to a pope, then we simply cannot logically infer that this entails the earliest Church originated this tradition and carried it on unbroken. The absence of perfect knowledge about what the earliest Church fathers thought in this regard cannot be used as evidence that later historical evidence can be projected onto the past.

Logically, that historical method creates problems. First of all, it presupposes no change occurred according to contradictory reasons. For example, you assume your capital-T Tradition was something established by Holy decree early and therefore carried on infallibly, and at the same time you say that this Tradition was necessary to prevent infallibility, as a real threat, from entering Tradition. The councils to ratify canon are evidence of that threat.

But do you not see the patent circularity in this?

Let's step back for a moment. We have a fairly good idea that history begins, meaning recorded history, sometime 6,000 years ago, or so. Let's imagine that at that precise moment where history begins to be written down that man is farming. If I were to apply your 'Tradition logic' to this scenario, it would be like assuming man must have always been farming as long as mankind had been on earth. Perhaps that's true, but if there exists evidence to the contrary, we'd be remiss to ignore it. In other words, the burden of proof would lay with you to show that farming had always been going on.

In the case of popery, there seems to be more evidence to contradict that it existed in the earliest Church.

___

The issue of Bible canon is a highly, highly complex issue that involves not only this or that tradition, but unseen forces as well as the literary nature of the Hebraic genres themselves. This is highly controversial. I, for one, am not at all prepared to say with certainty that what was excluded is necessarily not inspired by the Spirit. It falls under the definition of apocryphon that a tradition did exist in which the excluded text was taken to be true. I'm not that interested in this category of the debate.

My point is just to say this: it is not a simple matter of determining just what is and what is not necessary to receive the full fruits of God's wisdom in print, given that what both you and I know about gnosis is certainly true, i.e. that perhaps with a possibly knowable amount of scripture, man's intellect transcends time and space and can instantaneously know certain truths by way of grace alone. If this were not the case, no Mosaic transmission could have occurred, right? So we arrive at the distinction between what it is possible to know by way of the Spirit alone, and what must be revealed to us.

Certainly it is the case that a person's soul could be saved had there not been a Gospel of Luke. What I mean is that if you were to distill the requisite revelation from the Bible, we might be able to identify a kernel of fundamental revealed knowledge which was absolutely necessary. Call it what so many do: 'mere Christianity' (MC).

It seems to me that what so many decisions to be made about Bible canon involve are not so much whether such-and-such a text is truly revealed (for how can one PROVE such a thing), but are instead about which likeliest candidates for authentic works preserve that truth we call MC without corrupting it? Therefore if we imagine that MC includes {X, Y, Z.....N}, then what is included in the Bible must be (a) those testimonies that date most closely to the life of Christ, and (b) which taken together best preserve MC = {X, Y, Z...N} without corrupting any element, nor adding any additional ones which would corrupt an existing element.

The thoroughgoing case you are making is that only Tradition could have decided this. But this deposit, the words of Christ, was had by the apostles, and so whatever MC is, it did not include the office of pope in {X, Y, Z...N}. If it were the case that it had, there would be no schism. And on this note, I return to 1.B of my argument from yesterday - something this concrete and crucially historically important per the instruction of Christ to His Church on earth would not have been unclear or left open to debate. Modern problems and new circumstances do leave certain doctrines open to debate about their applications under new contexts, but this is possible only because of the unchanging nature of MC itself, about which NOBODY debates. The reason a debate exists surrounding the Pope is precisely because it is not, nor was it ever a part of MC, but a political development occurring over centuries.

___

Regarding the need for today's deliberation by Church authority to contextualize Church teachings to modern circumstances, there is simply no convincing case that this could not be accomplished by a council absent a Pope, or without the 'ongoing charisma' of Peter as all-time QB for your team. To whatever extent one wants to argue that the Orthodox Church is inefficacious, if this is true then it isn't principled on the basis of its structure, but more likely as the result of lacking its own unique identity, which occurs as the result of living in the shadow of its sister. The Orthodox Church's independence from Rome is far from historically perfect. Where did so many of her bishops go seeking refuge from the Ottomans around the time of the Renaissance? Rome and Medici's Italy. Hell, they brought Plato back to Europe.

If one argues that the Orthodox Church is instead ineffective for the reason of being obstinately conservative, that isn't only a fault with her structure. The latitude displayed by Rome to be 'up with the times' could just as easily be turned around on her as being Pharisaic and analogous to the pilpul litigiousness that Christ rebuked. The life of her tradition could easily be criticized as elasticity.

In many cases, the popularity of human group endeavors, in terms of which are most active and populous isn't a sign purely of the truth in them. The 'living' state of the Church of Rome could easily be on account of its utility, or its finances, or its history of being tied up with that city itself, and all of the above. I'm just not ready to say that the Orthodox Church's lack of success at convening a council, or that it tends to be more 'sleepy', is only the result of it not having a truthful tradition.

The American legal system is pretty 'alive' too.

___

>My point is that the universality and practical unanimity about the primacy of Peter as prince of the apostles, even before the word "pontiff" came to be used, is a clear indication that this "meat"-aspect, this oral tradition, this deeper gnosis that the Apostles possessed, contributed to an exegesis of Scripture that might seem like a stretch to you, a mere reader 2000 years later, but was abundantly clear to them. I will undoubtedly fail to get the 'meat' of my thought across here, primarily on account of the fact that I want to do it so emphatically at this moment that the desire itself is likely to stop me, as opposed to being able to do this in a more relaxed way, say, if I'd come to decades-worth of 'terms' with the ideas. In the section of your comment I quoted above, everything hangs on the term 'primacy'. I believe strongly that the apostles and early Church fathers *did* recognize the preeminence of Peter, but for entirely different reasons than the fact of his ordained pontific office as the first pope. The reason that Peter had preeminence among the apostles, even where it concerned Christ's relationship to them, was because Peter was the 'first born'. If I get more time, I might attempt to get into this more deeply, but because it relies on a linguistic analysis which is, frankly, above my head, it may take some time. The core of the idea is that Peter, in contradistinction with each of the other apostles, is the *first* to come to faith in Christ (true gnosis of Christ as the Son of God) by way of the Father *solely*. Each of the others required seeing with their eyes, a reason why Peter is able to answer Christ's question: "Who do you think I am?" Peter is the first stone placed in the Church because he is the 'first born', as in the first to be born again according to true gnosis and true faith (as Christ puts it: through the Father alone). This is why he is the rock upon which the Church is to be built, because of course Christ was to ascend to Heaven, indicating that any future Church must be built on the rock of faith, and why Peter was the first *petros*. I am not convinced that what was recognized unanimously *of* Peter by the apostles and earliest Church fathers was that Christ granted Peter a literal supreme office in said Church to represent Christ on earth. As Tertullian said, the Vicar of Christ is the Spirit, and I believe there is clearer scriptural evidence for this than for an apostolic succession by way of a succession of popes. > The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, was able to established a canon outside of which the hyperlinkedness, indeed the very infallibility itself, would not have been present. Still, what we are disputing here is the particular of the pontiff, as principal of bishops and so-called Vicar of Christ. What you have described in this first paragraph about the canonization of the *authentic* God-breathed books in the Bible has involved two key factors: (a) the Church and (b) the Holy Spirit. Nowhere is it justified that a third thing (c) Pope was necessary for the Spirit to guide the Church in compiling the Bible. When the apostles convened in Jerusalem in Acts, did the group default to the authority of Peter to dictate how ministry to the gentiles was to be handled? Peter figured heavily into this meeting, but there is no indication whatsoever that the other apostles approached him with the kind of authority the later Church attached to the Pope. It is clear from scripture that the final word and decision rests with James. Moreover, this supposed first pope was rebuked by Paul! My point was not truly this, however, but to showcase that if the other apostles had truly believed what you claim the early Church did, why would there have been a council? The more important question follows: why couldn't this model of synod of bishops have accomplished what you say with respect to curating the Bible? After all, it's clear from Acts that important decisions as late as 50 A.D. were being decided by council, and not by Peter alone. >One cannot understand the Church without recognizing that this meat, this additional knowledge and understanding, though unwritten, influenced the way the early Church interpreted Scripture and established further tradition. I fully agree, however, what the early Church apparently interpreted is precisely what we are disputing. Given the lateness of the distinct references to the title of pontiff, and of 'Vicar of Christ' to refer to a pope, then we simply cannot logically infer that this entails the earliest Church originated this tradition and carried it on unbroken. The absence of perfect knowledge about what the earliest Church fathers thought in this regard cannot be used as evidence that later historical evidence can be projected onto the past. Logically, that historical method creates problems. First of all, it presupposes no change occurred according to contradictory reasons. For example, you assume your capital-T Tradition was something established by Holy decree early and therefore carried on infallibly, and at the same time you say that this Tradition was necessary to prevent infallibility, as a real threat, from entering Tradition. The councils to ratify canon are evidence of that threat. But do you not see the patent circularity in this? Let's step back for a moment. We have a fairly good idea that *history begins*, meaning recorded history, sometime 6,000 years ago, or so. Let's imagine that at that precise moment where history begins to be written down that man is farming. If I were to apply your 'Tradition logic' to this scenario, it would be like assuming man must have always been farming as long as mankind had been on earth. Perhaps that's true, but if there exists evidence to the contrary, we'd be remiss to ignore it. In other words, the burden of proof would lay with you to show that farming had always been going on. In the case of popery, there seems to be more evidence to contradict that it existed in the earliest Church. ___ The issue of Bible canon is a highly, highly complex issue that involves not only this or that tradition, but unseen forces as well as the literary nature of the Hebraic genres themselves. This is highly controversial. I, for one, am not at all prepared to say with certainty that *what was excluded* is necessarily *not* inspired by the Spirit. It falls under the definition of apocryphon that a tradition did exist in which the excluded text was taken to be true. I'm not that interested in this category of the debate. My point is just to say this: it is not a simple matter of determining just *what is* and *what is not* necessary to receive the full fruits of God's wisdom in print, given that what both you and I know about gnosis is certainly true, i.e. that perhaps with a possibly knowable amount of scripture, man's intellect transcends time and space and can instantaneously know certain truths by way of grace alone. If this were not the case, no Mosaic transmission could have occurred, right? So we arrive at the distinction between what it is possible to know by way of the Spirit alone, and what must be revealed to us. Certainly it is the case that a person's soul could be saved had there not been a Gospel of Luke. What I mean is that if you were to distill the requisite revelation from the Bible, we might be able to identify a kernel of fundamental revealed knowledge which was absolutely necessary. Call it what so many do: 'mere Christianity' (MC). It seems to me that what so many decisions to be made about Bible canon involve are not so much whether such-and-such a text is *truly revealed* (for how can one PROVE such a thing), but are instead about which likeliest candidates for authentic works preserve that truth we call MC without corrupting it? Therefore if we imagine that MC includes {X, Y, Z.....N}, then what is included in the Bible must be (a) those testimonies that date most closely to the life of Christ, and (b) which taken together best preserve MC = {X, Y, Z...N} without corrupting any element, nor adding any additional ones which would corrupt an existing element. The thoroughgoing case you are making is that only Tradition could have decided this. But this deposit, the words of Christ, was had by the apostles, and so whatever MC *is*, it did not include the office of pope in {X, Y, Z...N}. If it were the case that it had, there would be no schism. And on this note, I return to 1.B of my argument from yesterday - something this concrete and crucially historically important per the instruction of Christ to His Church on earth would not have been unclear or left open to debate. Modern problems and new circumstances do leave certain doctrines open to debate *about their applications* under new contexts, but this is possible only because of the unchanging nature of MC itself, **about which NOBODY debates**. The reason a debate exists surrounding the Pope is precisely because it is not, nor was it ever a part of MC, but a political development occurring over centuries. ___ Regarding the need for today's deliberation by Church authority to contextualize Church teachings to modern circumstances, there is simply no convincing case that this could not be accomplished by a council absent a Pope, or without the 'ongoing charisma' of Peter as all-time QB for your team. To whatever extent one wants to argue that the Orthodox Church is inefficacious, if this is true then it isn't principled on the basis of its structure, but more likely as the result of lacking its own unique identity, which occurs as the result of living in the shadow of its sister. The Orthodox Church's independence from Rome is far from historically perfect. Where did so many of her bishops go seeking refuge from the Ottomans around the time of the Renaissance? Rome and Medici's Italy. Hell, they brought Plato back to Europe. If one argues that the Orthodox Church is instead ineffective for the reason of being obstinately conservative, that isn't only a fault with her structure. The latitude displayed by Rome to be 'up with the times' could just as easily be turned around on her as being Pharisaic and analogous to the pilpul litigiousness that Christ rebuked. The life of her tradition could easily be criticized as *elasticity*. In many cases, the popularity of human group endeavors, in terms of which are most active and populous isn't a sign purely of the truth in them. The 'living' state of the Church of Rome could easily be on account of its utility, or its finances, or its history of being tied up with that city itself, and all of the above. I'm just not ready to say that the Orthodox Church's lack of success at convening a council, or that it tends to be more 'sleepy', is *only* the result of it not having a truthful tradition. The American legal system is pretty 'alive' too. ___ @KingOfWhiteAmerica

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

It is clear from scripture that the final word and decision rests with James. Moreover, this supposed first pope was rebuked by Paul!

The quote from St. John Chrysostom I referenced also addresses this point about James. As for Paul, many traditional Catholics actually cite Paul's rebuking of Peter to justify accepting Pope Francis as pope, without feeling obliged to obey everything he says. Which is what the Church teaches about the popes - that they can exercise an infallible charism, under certain specific circumstances, but outside of this they remain fallible, and they are always capable of sin.

why would there have been a council? The more important question follows: why couldn't this model of synod of bishops have accomplished what you say with respect to curating the Bible? After all, it's clear from Acts that important decisions as late as 50 A.D. were being decided by council, and not by Peter alone.

It was not God's will that a single man dictate the faith on his own, but that a single man serve as the ratifier of what the universal Church (through councils) expressed.

you assume your capital-T Tradition was something established by Holy decree early and therefore carried on infallibly, and at the same time you say that this Tradition was necessary to prevent infallibility, as a real threat, from entering Tradition. The councils to ratify canon are evidence of that threat.

But do you not see the patent circularity in this?

The infallibility comes from the Magisterium - the Holy Spirit. It is this that allows the Tradition to inform Scriptural interpretation and this that allows Scripture to be canonized. The Magisterium (Holy Spirit) works primarily through the Pope. Council documents can contribute to it, but only if "signed off" by the Pope. This is the safeguard; this is how the keys are exercised.

Life is not elasticity or liberality, though the way contemporary teachings are exploited could be said to be.

To call a council without ratification from Rome is contrary to what the earliest saints have taught. Even prior to the schism, there were councils that lacked Rome's approval and thus were not considered magisterial.

I refer you to my last reply for all else you've said.

>It is clear from scripture that the final word and decision rests with James. Moreover, this supposed first pope was rebuked by Paul! The quote from St. John Chrysostom I referenced also addresses this point about James. As for Paul, many traditional Catholics actually *cite* Paul's rebuking of Peter to justify accepting Pope Francis as pope, without feeling obliged to obey everything he says. Which is what the Church teaches about the popes - that they *can* exercise an infallible charism, under certain specific circumstances, but outside of this they remain fallible, and they are *always* capable of sin. > why would there have been a council? The more important question follows: why couldn't this model of synod of bishops have accomplished what you say with respect to curating the Bible? After all, it's clear from Acts that important decisions as late as 50 A.D. were being decided by council, and not by Peter alone. It was not God's will that a single man *dictate* the faith on his own, but that a single man serve as the ratifier of what the universal Church (through councils) expressed. >you assume your capital-T Tradition was something established by Holy decree early and therefore carried on infallibly, and at the same time you say that this Tradition was necessary to prevent infallibility, as a real threat, from entering Tradition. The councils to ratify canon are evidence of that threat. >But do you not see the patent circularity in this? The infallibility comes from the Magisterium - the Holy Spirit. It is this that allows the Tradition to inform Scriptural interpretation and this that allows Scripture to be canonized. The Magisterium (Holy Spirit) works primarily through the Pope. Council documents can contribute to it, but only if "signed off" by the Pope. This is the safeguard; this is how the keys are exercised. Life is not elasticity or liberality, though the way contemporary teachings are exploited could be said to be. To call a council without ratification from Rome is contrary to what the earliest saints have taught. *Even prior to the schism*, there were councils that lacked Rome's approval and thus were not considered magisterial. I refer you to my last reply for all else you've said.

parent
link

(post is archived)