Posted on 10/21/2006 4:52:03 AM PDT by NYer
From Called To Communion: Understanding the Church Today
Editor's note: This is the second half of a chapter titled "The Primacy of Peter and Unity of the Church." The first half examines the status of Peter in the New Testament and the commission logion contained in Matthew 16:17-19.
The principle of succession in general
That the primacy of Peter is recognizable in all the major strands of the New Testament is incontestable.
The real difficulty arises when we come to the second question: Can the idea of a Petrine succession be justified? Even more difficult is the third question that is bound up with it: Can the Petrine succession of Rome be credibly substantiated?
Concerning the first question, we must first of all note that there is no explicit statement regarding the Petrine succession in the New Testament. This is not surprising, since neither the Gospels nor the chief Pauline epistles address the problem of a postapostolic Church—which, by the way, must be mentioned as a sign of the Gospels' fidelity to tradition. Indirectly, however, this problem can be detected in the Gospels once we admit the principle of form critical method according to which only what was considered in the respective spheres of tradition as somehow meaningful for the present was preserved in writing as such. This would mean, for example, that toward the end of the first century, when Peter was long dead, John regarded the former's primacy, not as a thing of the past, but as a present reality for the Church.
For many even believe—though perhaps with a little too much imagination—that they have good grounds for interpreting the "competition" between Peter and the beloved disciple as an echo of the tensions between Rome's claim to primacy and the sense of dignity possessed by the Churches of Asia Minor. This would certainly be a very early and, in addition, inner-biblical proof that Rome was seen as continuing the Petrine line; but we should in no case rely on such uncertain hypotheses. The fundamental idea, however, does seem to me correct, namely, that the traditions of the New Testament never reflect an interest of purely historical curiosity but are bearers of present reality and in that sense constantly rescue things from the mere past, without blurring the special status of the origin.
Moreover, even scholars who deny the principle itself have propounded hypotheses of succession. 0. Cullmann, for example, objects in a very clear-cut fashion to the idea of succession, yet he believes that he can Show that Peter was replaced by James and that this latter assumed the primacy of the erstwhile first apostle. Bultmann believes that he is correct in concluding from the mention of the three pillars in Galatians 2:9 that the course of development led away from a personal to a collegial leadership and that a college entered upon the succession of Peter. [1]
We have no need to discuss these hypotheses and others like them; their foundation is weak enough. Nevertheless, they do show that it is impossible to avoid the idea of succession once the word transmitted in Scripture is considered to be a sphere open to the future. In those writings of the New Testament that stand on the cusp of the second generation or else already belong to it-especially in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Pastoral Letters—the principle of succession does in fact take on concrete shape.
The Protestant notion that the "succession" consists solely in the word as such, but not in any "structures", is proved to be anachronistic in light of what in actual fact is the form of tradition in the New Testament. The word is tied to the witness, who guarantees it an unambiguous sense, which it does not possess as a mere word floating in isolation. But the witness is not an individual who stands independently on his own. He is no more a wit ness by virtue of himself and of his own powers of memory than Peter can be the rock by his own strength. He is not a witness as "flesh and blood" but as one who is linked to the Pneuma, the Paraclete who authenticates the truth and opens up the memory and, in his turn, binds the witness to Christ. For the Paraclete does not speak of himself, but he takes from "what is his" (that is, from what is Christ's: Jn 16: 13).
This binding of the witness to the Pneuma and to his mode of being-"not of himself, but what he hears" -is called "sacrament" in the language of the Church. Sacrament designates a threefold knot-word, witness, Holy Spirit and Christ-which describes the essential structure of succession in the New Testament. We can infer with certainty from the testimony of the Pastoral Letters and of the Acts of the Apostles that the apostolic generation already gave to this interconnection of person and word in the believed presence of the Spirit and of Christ the form of the laying on of hands.
The Petrine succession in Rome
In opposition to the New Testament pattern of succession described above, which withdraws the word from human manipulation precisely by binding witnesses into its service, there arose very early on an intellectual and anti-institutional model known historically by the name of Gnosis, which made the free interpretation and speculative development of the word its principle. Before long the appeal to individual witnesses no longer sufficed to counter the intellectual claim advanced by this tendency. It became necessary to have fixed points by which to orient the testimony itself, and these were found in the so-called apostolic sees, that is, in those where the apostles had been active. The apostolic sees became the reference point of true communio. But among these sees there was in turn–quite clearly in Irenaeus of Lyons–a decisive criterion that recapitulated all others: the Church of Rome, where Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom. It was with this Church that every community had to agree; Rome was the standard of the authentic apostolic tradition as a whole.
Moreover, Eusebius of Caesarea organized the first version of his ecclesiastical history in accord with the same principle. It was to be a written record of the continuity of apostolic succession, which was concentrated in the three Petrine sees Rome, Antioch and Alexandria-among which Rome, as the site of Peter's martyrdom, was in turn preeminent and truly normative. [2]
This leads us to a very fundamental observation. [3] The Roman primacy, or, rather, the acknowledgement of Rome as the criterion of the right apostolic faith, is older than the canon of the New Testament, than "Scripture".
We must be on our guard here against an almost inevitable illusion. "Scripture" is more recent than "the scriptures" of which it is composed. It was still a long time before the existence of the individual writings resulted in the "New Testament" as Scripture, as the Bible. The assembling of the writings into a single Scripture is more properly speaking the work of tradition, a work that began in the second century but came to a kind of conclusion only in the fourth or fifth century. Harnack, a witness who cannot be suspected of pro-Roman bias, has remarked in this regard that it was only at the end of the second century, in Rome, that a canon of the "books of the New Testament" won recognition by the criterion of apostolicity-catholicity, a criterion to which the other Churches also gradually subscribed "for the sake of its intrinsic value and on the strength of the authority of the Roman Church".
We can therefore say that Scripture became Scripture through the tradition, which precisely in this process included the potentior principalitas–the preeminent original authority–of the Roman see as a constitutive element.
Two points emerge clearly from what has just been First, the principle of tradition in its sacramental form-apostolic succession—played a constitutive role in the existence and continuance of the Church. Without this principle, it is impossible to conceive of a New Testament at all, so that we are caught in a contradiction when we affirm the one while wanting to deny the other. Furthermore, we have seen that in Rome the traditional series of bishops was from the very beginning recorded as a line of successors.
We can add that Rome and Antioch were conscious of succeeding to the mission of Peter and that early on Alexandria was admitted into the circle of Petrine sees as the city where Peter's disciple Mark had been active. Having said all that, the site of Peter's martyrdom nonetheless appears clearly as the chief bearer of his supreme authority and plays a preeminent role in the formation of tradition which is constitutive of the Church-and thus in the genesis of the New Testament as Bible; Rome is one of the indispensable internal and external- conditions of its possibility. It would be exciting to trace the influence on this process of the idea that the mission of Jerusalem had passed over to Rome, which explains why at first Jerusalem was not only not a "patriarchal see" but not even a metropolis: Jerusalem was now located in Rome, and since Peter's departure from that city, its primacy had been transferred to the capital of the pagan world. [4]
But to consider this in detail would lead us too far afield for the moment. The essential point, in my opinion, has already become plain: the martyrdom of Peter in Rome fixes the place where his function continues. The awareness of this fact can be detected as early as the first century in the Letter of Clement, even though it developed but slowly in all its particulars.
Concluding reflections
We shall break off at this point, for the chief goal of our considerations has been attained. We have seen that the New Testament as a whole strikingly demonstrates the primacy of Peter; we have seen that the formative development of tradition and of the Church supposed the continuation of Peter's authority in Rome as an intrinsic condition. The Roman primacy is not an invention of the popes, but an essential element of ecclesial unity that goes back to the Lord and was developed faithfully in the nascent Church.
But the New Testament shows us more than the formal aspect of a structure; it also reveals to us the inward nature of this structure. It does not merely furnish proof texts, it is a permanent criterion and task. It depicts the tension between skandalon and rock; in the very disproportion between man's capacity and God's sovereign disposition, it reveals God to be the one who truly acts and is present.
If in the course of history the attribution of such authority to men could repeatedly engender the not entirely unfounded suspicion of human arrogation of power, not only the promise of the New Testament but also the trajectory of that history itself prove the opposite. The men in question are so glaringly, so blatantly unequal to this function that the very empowerment of man to be the rock makes evident how little it is they who sustain the Church but God alone who does so, who does so more in spite of men than through them.
The mystery of the Cross is perhaps nowhere so palpably present as in the primacy as a reality of Church history. That its center is forgiveness is both its intrinsic condition and the sign of the distinctive character of God's power. Every single biblical logion about the primacy thus remains from generation to generation a signpost and a norm, to which we must ceaselessly resubmit ourselves. When the Church adheres to these words in faith, she is not being triumphalistic but humbly recognizing in wonder and thanksgiving the victory of God over and through human weakness. Whoever deprives these words of their force for fear of triumphalism or of human usurpation of authority does not proclaim that God is greater but diminishes him, since God demonstrates the power of his love, and thus remains faithful to the law of the history of salvation, precisely in the paradox of human impotence.
For with the same realism with which we declare today the sins of the popes and their disproportion to the magnitude of their commission, we must also acknowledge that Peter has repeatedly stood as the rock against ideologies, against the dissolution of the word into the plausibilities of a given time, against subjection to the powers of this world.
When we see this in the facts of history, we are not celebrating men but praising the Lord, who does not abandon the Church and who desired to manifest that he is the rock through Peter, the little stumbling stone: "flesh and blood" do not save, but the Lord saves through those who are of flesh and blood. To deny this truth is not a plus of faith, not a plus of humility, but is to shrink from the humility that recognizes God as he is. Therefore the Petrine promise and its historical embodiment in Rome remain at the deepest level an ever-renewed motive for joy: the powers of hell will not prevail against it . . .
Endnotes:
[1] Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 2d ed. (198 1), 147- 51; cf. Gnilka, 56.
[2] For an exhaustive account of this point, see V. Twomey, Apostolikos Thronos (Münster, 1982).
[3] It is my hope that in the not-too-distant future I will have the opportunity to develop and substantiate in greater detail the view of the succession that I attempt to indicate in an extremely condensed form in what follows. I owe important suggestions to several works by 0. Karrer, especially: Um die Einheit der Christen. Die Petrusfrage (Frankfurt am Mainz, 1953); "Apostolische Nachfolge und Primat", in: Feiner, Trütsch and Böckle, Fragen in der Theologie heute (Freiburg im.Breisgau, 1957), 175-206; "Das Petrusamt in der Frühkirche", in Festgabe J. Lortz (Baden-Baden, 1958), 507-25; "Die biblische und altkirchliche Grundlage des Papsttums", in: Lebendiges Zeugnis (1958), 3-24. Also of importance are some of the papers in the festschrift for 0. Karrer: Begegnung der Christen, ed. by Roesle-Cullmann (Frankfurt am Mainz, 1959); in particular, K. Hofstetter, "Das Petrusamt in der Kirche des I. und 2. Jahrhunderts", 361-72.
[4] Cf. Hofstetter.
Bingo. There is substantial historical evidence that Simon Magus went to Rome in 42 AD, just as Jerome and Eusebius claim, and became a favorite of Emperor Claudius, and died there in 67 AD --- amazingly the same time span that the RCC assigns to Simon Peter in Rome. He was called "Simon", like Simon Peter, and according to Justin Martur performed magic that could be interpreted as miracles from God. And after his death there was a substantial cult left behind using his name, and years later you have a church in Rome corrupted by a practice known as "simony" --- the buying and selling of church offices. Coincidence?????
While there is no evidence that Simon Peter was in Rome, other than Eusebius and Jerome's claim magically pulled out of thin air, there is substantial credible written evidence that Simon Magus had a major impact on Rome's subsequent spiritual development.
-A8
There is no evidence to support this speculation. It is no coincidence that Peter went to Rome when Simon Magus did, because the trouble Simon Magus was causing there (in Rome) was precisely what brought Peter to Rome. Likewise, according to the tradition, Simon Magus died on the very same day as Peter and Paul, in conflict with them before Nero. Again, at a deeper level, the reason it is no accident that they were in Rome over the same period is that Simon Magus was the type of the Antichrist at that time, and it is no accident or coincidence that the Vicar of Christ would be in direct conflict with him at the very center of the political center of the world.
-A8
Just to clarify, Simon Magus was the prophetic (not political) type of the Antichrist. Nero, of course, was the political type of the Antichrist.
-A8
Peter did not go to Rome.....Paul did. In my post #1238 I showed that Peter's ministry was to the "Lost Sheep of the House of Israel"......not Rome, or any other Gentile nation. A large contingent of Israelites still lived there and were, according to God's timetable, awaiting the message of the Messiah. Peter and the other eleven saw to it.
History puts Peter in Babylon....not Rome, as do the scriptures. I realize this discredits much of your theology but don't you think that God's word would have said something about Peter being there if that had been the case?
It is not a strange thing at all that the Church of Rome has managed to take on the appearance of the "Mystery Religion" over the years as practiced by Simon Magus. Simon Peter had nothing to do with the development of your organization. He was an Apostle to the Circumcised.
In Acts 8:26-40 it looks like the Holy Spirit is doing the interpretation - not men. In Luke 24:13-35 Jesus is doing the interpreting. 2Tim 2:2 seems to be a warning against people pretending to be Apostles and I find 2Tim 2:3-4 intriguing. I concede the point to you on Heb 13:17, but in light of 2Tim 2:3-4, those leaders obviously must be held to a standard, no?
And this verse right here shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the clergy can mess up and be corrected by laymen:
1Ti 5:19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.
First, it seems you are unaware of the Diaspora. (Have you read Philo and Josephus?) Second, do you think Cornelius was a Jew? Third, Paul explicitly states that Peter went to Antioch (Gal 2:11), which is not in Israel, but in Syria, clearly a "Gentile nation". The fathers also attest that Peter ordained Evodius in Antioch to be first bishop of the church there.
- A8
No I didn't,but it is becoming quite clear that you are not interested in truth,especially when you attribute to me things I never said.
If you will refer to Uncle Chip's entry into the discussion,which is post #5,you will see that he was never interested in anything but being argumentative.Initially,I was going to respond to his comment until I recognized that it was written by a person who was invincibly ignorant or looking for an opportunity to create some mischief,neither of which I had any interest in continuing.
These times are perilous for Christians throughout the world and it seems to me incredibly sad that rather than heeding Jesus and trying to be one with the Father as He was,Christians are arguing and splitting more and more.
God made us in his image and consequently we have a mind to know Him,a heart to love Him and a body to serve Him on earth so that we can live forever with Him in heaven. He established a Church and chose 12 men to whom He gave information,authority and charisms to develop it and said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. He told them to go out and baptize all nations and teach them what He had commanded them.
It seems to me that if we all were tasked with the very same thing and were promised the Truth/Comforter/Paraclete would be with each of us at all times if we just said we believed,He would have spoken thus to the multitudes. He didn't,He told the Twelve and clearly gave Peter the lead position.
I know enough about it to know that the Northern tribes, dispersed to Assyria in 721 B.C., were never called Jews....they were referred to as "Israelites" and as you can see here they were even at war against the Jews. The King of Assyria [II Kings 17:6] dispersed them and replaced them with [II Kings 17:24] Babylonians, the land of Assyria encompassing quite a bit of territory at that time.
I didn't say Peter was an Apostle to the Jews....I said Peter was an Apostle to the circumcised (Israelites)....and the other eleven Apostles also. Antioch had, as well, been a part of the old Assyrian Empire.
Third, Paul explicitly states that Peter went to Antioch (Gal 2:11), which is not in Israel, but in Syria, clearly a "Gentile nation"
It's funny that you should mention Galatians and Syria. The reason Peter was there was because Syria also was a part of the old Assyrian empire and many Israelites of the Northern ten tribes still inhabited the area. And, of course, this is where Paul makes his statement about the areas of responsibility.
Short answer:
1Ti 5:19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.
Clergy can be wrong and can be corrected by the laity.
You are still working within the 'sola scriptura' mindset, as shown by your requesting scripural proof for every claim, and assuming to yourself the authority to interpret Scripture so as to contradict the teaching of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. If you study Church history, you will see that 'sola scriptura' is an historical novely invented 1500 years after Christ. The first thing to see is that 'sola scriptura' was not a part of the Church Christ founded. This alone shows that it is a heresy, one that is at the root of the fragmentation of Christ's body into 20,000+ sects over the last five hundred years. The Bible has its authority in virtue of the authority of those who wrote it, and the authority of those who determined its contents (i.e. the canon). Otherwise, why not make your own canon?? Put _Chicken Soup for the Soul_ in your own, personally customized and individualized 'Bible' if you wish. Since the Scriptures have their authority from the Magesterium, the authoritative *interpretation* of the Scriptures also belongs to the Magesterium. You seem to be trying to take the authority of the Scriptures while rejecting the authority of the Magesterium by which the Scripture receives its authority and its content (i.e. the canon). That is the sort of gnosticism that plucks Scripture out of thin air, ripping it out of its historical context, treating it as if it fell directly from heaven, ignoring its historical and ecclesiastical origins.
This does not answer my question:
FRiend, what scripture says that an authority will be appointed to interpret scripture to the flock? I can point a couple that say otherwise.
I'm going to look past the slights and attacks in your response and just move show you the commonality of all the prophets:
Deu 13:1 "If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, Deu 13:2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,' Deu 13:3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Deu 13:4 "You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him. Deu 13:5 "But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the LORD your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from among you.
This is the very standard that the one holy apostolic church of the time was employing when they tried to trip Jesus up, with one caveat. You see, they were trying to hold Jesus to a standard that they themselves had created in addition to God's Law.
Luk 6:6 On another Sabbath He entered the synagogue and was teaching; and there was a man there whose right hand was withered. Luk 6:7 The scribes and the Pharisees were watching Him closely to see if He healed on the Sabbath, so that they might find reason to accuse Him. Luk 6:8 But He knew what they were thinking, and He said to the man with the withered hand, "Get up and come forward!" And he got up and came forward. Luk 6:9 And Jesus said to them, "I ask you, is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to destroy it?" Luk 6:10 After looking around at them all, He said to him, "Stretch out your hand!" And he did so; and his hand was restored. Luk 6:11 But they themselves were filled with rage, and discussed together what they might do to Jesus.
One of the things Christ accomplished with His earthly ministry was the return of God's Law to its simplicity. Christ did not come out of the church, he came to save it.
God's Law is the standard for measuring Godliness, not adherence to the doctrines of men.
This constant mentioning '1500 years', 'Church Fathers', 'Tradition', etc., by some posters, as proof of being THE Church, is just your opinion, no matter how large the congregation.
Consider:
Satan is transformed into an angel of light, and his ministers into ministers of righteousness.
To achieve that level of deception, is there a line the devil will not cross when wanting to look 'Christian'?
Can you imagine Satan saying, "Oh, I would not lay claim to preserving the scriptures." ? Answer: He knows that God will not let his word pass away. So the devil, who can quote it cover to cover, is more than willing to cross that line. He's gotta look like an angel of light.
Can you imagine Satan saying, "No, I would never set up my own lineage of church leaders, or even claim Peter and the other apostles as their predecessors, to further enhance my way as legitimate." ? To appear to be an angel of light, the line is crossed in hastily.
Upon seeing the phenomenon of the pouring out of God's Spirit on Pentecost, can you imagine Satan saying, "I'm going to need a long, long time to make something that would look like God's church." ? I can't, since the devil is the master deceiver. He would waste no time. In fact, the apostles said such deceivers were present even then.
Sure, some of Satan's efforts are easier to spot than others (such as the ones that claim to be the last prophet from God), but how to spot them?
By the WORD OF GOD, of course.
Yeah, such a habit of putting complex things well. PRAISE GOD.
AMEN! AMEN!
AS CHRIST HIMSELF SAID . . .
not one jot or tittle sp?
. . . even the churches of the Reformation and later have their "patriarchs" and "traditional interpretations", but when confronted with the facts of Scripture, those things should give way. Unfortunately, they often do not.
And certainly sad that is. And it is far too common, as well.
The basic rule of hermeneutical interpretation is that the plain meaning of Scripture is to rule over the imaginative meaning.
That's what I'm referring to when I speak of extrapolations and inferences. I believe that God made abundantly clear those priority things--virgin birth, substitutionary death on The Cross, The Resurrection etc.
I have a hard time believing that God would fail to make those things clear which are super high priorities to Him as much as many denominations and sects make them out to be as issues of distinction and far too often as issues of "righteousness" and even of making Heaven.
Accordingly I have a bias that where more than one interpretation of Scripture is quite plausible, that it must not be an issue that God would have us grab each other by the throats over--intellectually, or otherwise. In some respects, such Scriptures may even be tests to see who will work for unity regardless of biases about such and who will not. God certainly had the CAPACITY to insure that every last word and phrase in Scripture was abundantly clear to the nth degree beyond argument. He did not do so.
Either He intended as He stated--for Holy Spirit [NOT THE CHURCH, NOT DOCTRINE, NOT THE PRAYER GROUP; NOT THE SEMINARY; NOT THE CHRISTIAN NOVELS; NOT THE CHRISTIAN SELF HELP BOOKS; NOT THE RADIO PREACHERS; NOT PONTIFICAL ENCYCLICALS; NOT GRANDDAD; NOT ONE'S FAVORITE MENTOR] . . . BUT THE HOLY SPIRIT--TO LEAD US INTO ALL SCRIPTURAL TRUTH AS NEEDED in each individual's life.
It is also conceivable that God allowed such fuzziness knowing full well what contentious human beings would do with them--as a test to see whether pride, turf, intellectual arrogance, organizational allegiance, . . . and the like would take priority over HIS COMMAND/DESIRE THAT WE DWELL IN UNITY OF SPIRIT UNDER HIS BLOOD--particularly on the clear essentials and allowing lesser things to be . . . well . . . lesser things.
Getting individuals and Jewish/Christian organizations to major in minors and minor in majors has been a tool of satan since well before the Pharisees.
I've never found the rules of logic . . . as helpful as they can SOMETIMES be . . .
to be any more of an infallible description of REALITY than . . . say . . . Papal encyclicals have been . . .
to me, anyway.
You give the false impression that Peter was never to preach among the Genitiles.
Do you believe Scripture?
Given that my other protestations about erroneous slams of gnosticism have failed to enlighten in the least . . . I'll give it another however feeble try . . .
One problem with worship of the fossilized organization, traditions and structure and of Mary is that it lacks any objective way of determining [what Scripture commanded such under what authority--as there is none.] If two people each claim to have "The Indwelling TRADITION sdtraight from a long line of tradition statues", and they disagree with each other as to which TRADITION has which RANK in terms of commanding action, there is no way of determining which TRADITION has priority, is right. Each thinks that he is right and that the other is wrong. And so they must each go their separate ways, adding to the 20,000+ number of already existing sects split-off from the 'mother sect' or even the thousands of sects still technically within the mother Roman sect. In short, the position is a concession to silliness about the possibility of objective theological knowledge. And, it's a total wash as a foundation for Scriptural knowledge.
(PS: Please stop using all caps.)
No cigar. As my students well know, I'm an extremely expressive communicator on a number of dimensions through a number of means. USING TEXT ONLY is like putting me in a straight jacket and asking me to assemble a car or ride a bicycle. Won't happen remotely well at all.
CAPS is not screaming for me. I come closer to screaming in Red but even that is not my screaming. Screaming is like large red font with exclamations all around in the center.
There's a kind of elitist custom that's grown up on the net to call someone down for using CAPS. When it's just a notion in folks heads as to what it means. It means a lot of different things for a lot of people. Arrogantly insisting that it always means screaming AND THAT I HAVE TO BE; ABSOLUTELY MUST BE OFFENDED BY IT . . . is more than a little silly, to me. I just refuse to play that silly game.
Folks who are offended by my CAPS are invited to avoid reading my prose. Problem solved.
Those who wish to read my prose have enough mental horse power to log in their brains that CAPS for me are merely part of my varied expressiveness in a very limited TEXTUAL context.
I do realize what a custom it's become to stamp one's feet over CAPS and fuss about over the phenomenon . . . evidently somewhat like fussing about gnosticism.
They too must be arguing from silence. Right???
= = =
Sure plausible to me.
It's been my observation that the rules of logic are such tidy little boxes.
Reality has a habit of not fitting any tidy little boxes.
But the rules of logic sure are comforting brick bats to rant and batter with. Don't shed a lot of enlightenment but they're great for beating an opponent about the head and shoulders for not playing according to one's own construction on reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.