“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?