Posted on 10/25/2009 9:52:48 AM PDT by narses
What circumstances? You pontificate worse than a Protestant. After introducing a fatuous dodge pitting Alexandria against Jerusalem to mangle one of Jude's three examples of apostasy, you expect me to follow a direction as spare as "go west" to find a line of reasoning you won't even describe in the broadest of terms, after condescending to me over "Greek lessons?"
I pray such hauteur is not your habit, and if it is, that you repent before it is too late.
***I have every business, however, to suggest to you that you, a subject of +BXVI, the most patristic pope in at least 1000 years, perhaps even the first Father of The Church to appear in that same 1000 years, to read the Fathers if you want to seriously discuss these issues! Tell us what you find about Jude 11 and then you’ll be taken seriously.***
Interesting. We have had that ravaged street preacher posting among other things, Jude 11. Many Latin Catholics do not realize strongly enough that we are a Church of the Fathers, and not a church of whatever falls out of Scripture today depending on our alcohol intake. This is a continuous Church, one in which the Consensus Patrum holds sway, and not any individual who happens to take the reins or the imagination of others.
***At our best, and frankly there has been plenty of “best” here, we have lived up to the charge that the first two hierarchs of Christendom have laid upon us. At other times, thankfully mostly in the past, we have come to verbal blows...and then usually come to recognize each other as fully members of The Church and so brothers and sisters, albeit separated and with differing opinions, our bishops no longer in communion.***
It is our bishops, full of pride and hubris, that have kept us at arms’ length for a millennium. The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops. It was true when this was coined; it is true now.
We are one Church, we are not legion. Else we are no better than the children of the Reformation, believing on the whims of the day, the contents of our stomachs, and the opinions of our wives.
“I pray such hauteur is not your habit,...”
Sadly, it is, but what can you expect from the greatest of sinners, +John Chrysostomos notwithstanding. That doesn’t change the fact, however, that you need a Greek lesson. As I suggested, speak to your priest or bishop, or failing them, the local Orthodox priest. The word “presvyia” is very important.
Still haven’t read the Fathers, have you! There’s really no excuse not to, you know.
Even Irenaeus' repertoire of books does not include Philemon, II Peter, III John, or Jude! Origen includes it but then he also includes Gospel of Peter and Gospel of Hebrews, Acts of Paul (that's the one in which Paul revives a fried fish!), I Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas and Didache as 'divinely inspired,' while rejecting James, II Peter, II John and III John, so his inclusion o Jude cannot be taken seriously.
No early Father who acknowledged it used Jude to interpret verse 11 as papertyger does. Such interpretation is UNKNOWN to the Church.
According to Metzger (Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance, Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1987), Tertullian comments on Jude 14 but not 11.
As for Numbers 16, what can I say...when I read that Moses is telling God what not to do (v. 15) I bite my lip and move on...otherwise I would be on the floor laughing.
Worth repeating.
Would to God you were that self-effacing in practice and not just principle.
That doesn’t change the fact, however, that you need a Greek lesson.
You have GOT to be kidding! Are you seriously trying to float the idea one must know Greek to be an (small o) orthodox Christian?
Still haven’t read the Fathers, have you! There’s really no excuse not to, you know.
Would you please estimate for any lurking readers the volume of text I would have to review to find what the Church Fathers had to say about Jude 11...bearing in mind you have given me no more direction beyond "the Fathers?"
I'm beginning to believe I've fallen victim to "Job's friends" practicing that peculiar form of studied ignorance characterized by the charge of "darbyism." That is: "We don't know what those scriptures mean, but we know they don't mean what they say."
Irrelevant, unless you care to cite a contrary interpretation from said early Church Fathers.
“Now, therefore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that for every human creature it Is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff.”
Statements like the above occur in most religions in one form or another. That’s why “organized” religion is such a problem for millions of people. Too much “I’m right - you’re wrong. My interpretation/translation is right - yours is wrong. I’m going to heaven - you’re not because you don’t believe the “right” way etc.”
Why do so many religious people not get this?
“You have GOT to be kidding! Are you seriously trying to float the idea one must know Greek to be an (small o) orthodox Christian?”
No, right now just you.
“Would you please estimate for any lurking readers the volume of text I would have to review to find what the Church Fathers had to say about Jude 11...bearing in mind you have given me no more direction beyond “the Fathers?””
I gave you a link to a collection of the Fathers’ writings in English that even has a search engine. I gave you the names of several of the Fathers who have written on the topic. It seems to me that you’ve been given sufficient direction to find what you need with a minimum of effort. If you deal with the actual bound volumes, well the Ante Nicene, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers collection is around 40 volumes.
“We don’t know what those scriptures mean, but we know they don’t mean what they say.”
Says the fellow who believes, contrary to anything the Fathers have written, that Jude 11 refers to +Peter. LOL!
What's irrelvant is your hyperbolic private interpretation that doesn't match anything taught by the Church.
ping
It is difficult for me to believe such obtuseness is not deliberate. My assertion was that Jude 11 could find no more worthy application than to the papacy and the authority thereof. That is not a claim to exclusivity, as I'm confident you are aware.
You are the one who introduced a specious geographical component into the interpretation for which there is zero evidence. Furthermore, you have completely ignored how Alexandria and Jerusalem might be pitted against each other in a manner that could be called "gainsaying."
Forgive me if I have trouble taking your mocking seriously.
I gave you a link to a collection of the Fathers’ writings in English that even has a search engine. I gave you the names of several of the Fathers who have written on the topic. It seems to me that you've been given sufficient direction to find what you need with a minimum of effort.
You would be wrong.
I followed your link only to find a pathetic twelve comments relating to Jude 11, and none of that commentary was by the Fathers you name...they were almost exclusively protestant.
No, right now just you.
Please tell me the point of insisting I learn Greek besides absolving you of the responsibility to "put up, or shut up."
So enlighten me on what "The Church" has to say about "the gainsaying of Core?"
THEN you can talk to me about hyperbole.
“My assertion was that Jude 11 could find no more worthy application than to the papacy and the authority thereof. That is not a claim to exclusivity, as I’m confident you are aware.”
Your claim is nonsense, exclusively nonsense.
“You are the one who introduced a specious geographical component into the interpretation for which there is zero evidence.”
If you knew what presvyia meant you’d understand. Like I said, its a common theological word. The Pope uses it.
“Forgive me if I have trouble taking your mocking seriously.”
I am seriously mocking you.
“You would be wrong.”
That’s a shame. Its apparent that you don’t need English lessons. I can’t imagine why you can’t find what is otherwise there to be found...in the writings of the Fathers I cited to you, none of whom were protestants. Now, try searching what I suggested you search, which, if you remember, was not Jude 11, but rather the verse from Numbers whence it comes. But you have learned one thing, pt, and that is that The Fathers never, ever, made the absurd connection you have made between +Peter and Jude 11. The Fathers knew what happened to Korah and his cabal and commented upon it drawing parallels to a number of people and situations current in their time, but never to +Peter or any of this successors at Rome.
Do the research. If you can’t find the passages, perhaps your parish library has a searchable disk of the Fathers. Most well stocked parish libraries do.
As for “”put up, or shut up.””, you, pt, are the one who showed up on this thread spouting a personal interpretation of Jude 11 unknown to The Fathers and thus The Church. You are for the most part a stranger to these discussions. We regularly have strangers show up on these threads. Many of them, even among the Protestants, quickly establish their bona fides as people who think deeply about theology and can support their positions with references to established theological commentary. We don’t always agree, but that isn’t the point. We do virtually always agree that each others points are sincerely presented, with a proper foundation and not nonsense. But that’s because we respect each others ability to lay an arguable theological foundation for comments.
You’ve shown no ability to lay a proper foundation for your assertion. I’m surprised. I’m used to better from Latin Rite Christians. Consequently, it’s not for you to tell me to “put up or shut up.”
Well there's a response worthy of study and celebration down through the ages!
What's your next gem, "I know you are but what am I?"
If you knew what presvyia meant you’d understand. Like I said, its a common theological word.
And if you weren't acting the petulant child playing "I've got a secret" I might be able to tell if you have some actual insight, or are stonewalling to save face.
Either way, you've played this card far longer than any kind of virtue would permit.
Furthermore, as I don't normally carry a priest, and google only produces four hits for "presvyia," how does any person of goodwill classify the term as common...even with the "theological" qualifier?
This is disingenuousness at best.
That’s a shame. Its apparent that you don’t need English lessons. I can’t imagine why you can’t find what is otherwise there to be found...
I should think a person of your learning would fairly trip over that answer: because you grossly misrepresent the difficulty of the task.
Now, try searching what I suggested you search, which, if you remember, was not Jude 11, but rather the verse from Numbers whence it comes.
That statement is as asinine as protestants directing us to other scriptures to "understand" Matthew 16:18. Jude 11 gives us the Holy Spirit's authentication that the sin of Korah was gainsaying Moses. The story in Numbers is a NARRATIVE, and carries no such explict conclusion. Or do you suppose I should draw inferences from the Fathers on writings tangential to Jude 11 instead of what The Holy Spirit concludes explicitly?
The undivided and authentic Church did not compare popes to Moses, and did not teach that gainsaying of Core is comparable to not being in communion with or obedience to the pope.
Well, try presbeia (the way it was pronounced back then in the 1st century). Presevyia is a modern-Greek pronunciation, but the spelling is the same in either case — πρεσβεια. That's why fundamental knowledge of Greek helps when discussing concepts developed in Greek, so as to avoid transliterational confusion.
Presbeia gives 43,000 hits.
How do you know that? The author of Judes makes no such claim. He seems to take all the credit for writing it.
The story in Numbers is a NARRATIVE, and carries no such explict conclusion
So, the Old Testament writers were not led by the Holy Spirit? Is that what you are saying?
For anyone else reading who is confused about what this debate entails, here is the passage in Jude, as translated by in the ESV:
” 8Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. 9But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” 10 But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively. 11Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error and perished in Korah’s rebellion. 12These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.”
Now, while a child of the Reformation, and thus one who “...believ[es] on the whims of the day, the contents of our stomachs, and the opinions of our wives”, I haven’t had any alcohol for a month or more, just ate some pizza, and my wife is at work - she was hired a couple of weeks ago at St Mary’s Hospital in Tucson - so take all this into account and give my thoughts the lack of respect they undoubtedly deserve...
No one doubted Moses was the single authority for Israel, and rebellion against him was rebellion against God. However, citing that as evidence that the Pope is the undoubted single authority for all Christianity is an impressive stretch.
It isn’t found in Scripture, and no, one verse in Matthew with disputable meaning is NOT the way God ordains a perpetual office...look at the care God took in setting up the priesthood in the OT.
Nor did ‘church fathers’ consider the Bishop of Rome supreme over them. I believe - and those of you whose opinions are NOT being influenced by pizza & Diet Coke can tell me if I’m wrong - that the Vicar of Christ was, in the early church, the Holy Spirit.
I probably shouldn’t stick my nose into the ecumenical thread discussion, particularly one where all agree I’m an alcoholic, wife-obeying (aren’t we all?), unstable pepperoni pizza-demon, but it seems odd that someone would use Jude to show rebellion against the Pope is dangerous when the same NT doesn’t show Papal supremacy in the first place.
Just FWIW, which probably isn’t much, given the audience. Still, it reads more like a passage on Rome than on the Orthodox...
Rare as it may be, and not to talk about being worthless, I for once agree with you. :)
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.