Fuzzy, “baby dinosaurs on the ark” type thinking like “it doesn’t prohibit my made up reading” isn’t a good start.
Vinnie
(post deleted by author)
Do you know what a straw man argument is? That is a wonderful example.
The RCC ain’t broke?
I find that only a bit more likely than one where this episode happens near the city of Petra and Jesus somehow is using that city as a symbol.
But Justin Martyr and a number of early writers all read the verse as referring to the declaration Peter had made, not to Peter himself; it wasn’t until later that Rome tried to claim it was about Peter. And in fact when Rome was first asserting that several councils denounced that idea.
2 Likes
I wanted to touch base again. I sometimes follow Bishop Barron of Word on Fire. They have an app with a course. I just came across it because I saw there is a three part seminar on the problem of pain. They also offer courses on science, theology, etc. it costs money but you can get a free month. I just watched the first science series video and it was absolutely outstanding to me and it is thoroughly Catholic. Some cliffs for what they are worth:
God is not a supreme being, God is the source of being. So how we talk about God matters. About Creation:
“Sacred Scripture uses temporal language to communicate this truth not because God’s
creative act happened back then, but because of the inability of human language to describe a
perfect, eternal NOW, which is God’s reality,” says Dr. Baglow in the video.
God didn’t create then. God creates everything in every instant as Creation is an eternal act. That God created us from nothing indicates He upholds our existence at every instant. Without His constant divine action there would be no thing. God creates every daisy, God causes every sunrise, God causes biological evolution because God holds things together at all times in His perfect act of eternal creation. As Augustine said, “more present to us than we are to ourselves.”
Creation isn’t about a moment in time. It’s the origin of time itself and every moment. Every moment is the moment of creation. Right now all things are being brought into existence from nothing by God. God is still saying “Let there be light”as much today as any other time.
I enjoyed the first video. Moving to the second. I hope they discuss Adam and the “fall” at some point.
Edited to add, He also went on to cast evolution in terms of freedom. I have no idea how I just heard of Dr. Baglow. I ordered two of his books.
2 Likes
I have heard an interpretation that Jesus really meant that Peter had an important role but that role was not ‘hereditary’ in the sense that someone else could get it simply by being nominated to a position.
I try to look at the whole rather than a single verse. The Church is not built on any man, Peter or anyone else.
I do not remember any point in NT that would speak of local churches, or the universal church, being lead by a single bishop. There were a group of leaders, apostles as a group or ‘elders’. There is wisdom in such an arrangement. I am currently studying the basics of building a healthy community (/congregation). If a single person gets a too dominant position in a community like a congregation, there is a high risk that it leads sooner or later to toxic features in the community. Having multiple leaders is an insurance against such toxic consequences.
There may be a person (leader) that has more responsibility and influence than the others but that person needs to be responsible for his/her acts to other persons, so that the person may be corrected or sacked if the person does not behave in a proper manner or tries to rise to a position of being a despotic ruler. For example, small churches seem to attract narcissistic persons and such persons can create a very toxic atmosphere if he/she is allowed to become the dominant leader.
2 Likes
Sometimes the answer may be more obvious than you realize. Existence as such is a miracle that declares the might of someone (Creator) or something incredible powerful.
The order in the universe tells also something. It is the specific kind of order that allows the existence of life and humans. It may be understood as something that is part of the mechanisms that gave birth to existence, or it can be seen as something that declares the might of the Creator over all chaotic forces.
In the ancient cultures, people were more prone to explain everything as acts of gods. For them, the quality of the universe around us could tell something about the might and glory of the Creator.
3 Likes
The bible verse " the heavens declare the righteousness of God" Psalms 97:6 and of course, “the heavens declare the glory of God” Psalms 19…
These two passages were recorded by David long after the fall, long time after Adam, Eve and even Noah.
They were given within the context of fallible mortal sinful human life… this makes your statement above problematic.
That is well put!
1 Like
Jesus says upon this rock I (meaning Jesus) will build my church. The Church was built by Jesus. No one will dispute that. I am just looking at one method of how and through whom that was done by Jesus after He ascended.
Nowhere does the NT speak of the trinity. That belief had to be developed out of it over time and there are many questions and many who disagreed in the past. Also nowhere does it speak of four gospels or new scripture. Using such reasoning one might oddly conclude scripture is unscriptural. As far as I am aware, there is one passage in the entire 27 book corpus of the NT where a psuedepigraphical author of one of the epistles of Peter (writing probably in the early 2nd century) puts Paul’s writings on statues with scripture. But for most early Christians and all the NT works, the Law and Prophets were scripture. The definition of what was scripture evolved and changed over time so that scripture in the 4th century is not the same as scripture in the 1st century. The argument of Catholic scholars would be the papacy evolved out of what Jesus inaugurated under the guise of the Holy Spirit. Canonization is seen much the same way. Many would say Peter was not viewed as a pope in the same way as later popes. That is an anachronism. The church was still growing, in some ways turning from a purely “Jewish movement” into a distinct branch of it called “Christianity” and finding its legs. Just as scripture would have meant something different in Jesus’s day, in the latter quarter of the first century, the second century and third. it was over time that the OT canon became fixed and that there was also now a New Testament. The office of the “pope” changed as the nature and needs of the Church changed.
Likewise, arguing some fathers did not accept the papacy is like arguing some fathers did not accept the trinity or did not accept this or that book of the Bible. We all know there is a host of diverse beliefs in the early church. Precisely the reason for believing in the succession of Peter. To use your own words, there is “wisdom in such an arrangement.” A bunch of churches without structure or leadership all over the Roman Empire is chaos and probably a cesspool for heresy–something we see Paul warning about in the 50s.
And there is wisdom in too many chefs spoiling the soup. Or too many people going nowhere because the wheels just spin in endless debates. Having a singular leader also does not preclude democracy or group discussion. Think of how democracy works. We have a president and congress. Jesus called many apostles and the Catholic Church calling Peter the first pope doesn’t mean he was beyond reproach or always right. The blunders of Peter are well known. But so too is his primacy in the early church. The Pope is not infallible. Only a very view pronouncements are considered “ex cathedra.”
And my faith in Jesus tells me His trust in Peter to be the rock on which He builds His church is well put. People suck at times and screw up, including Peter. But Jesus chose Peter and declared him as such. That is enough for me. I get that protestants are going to disagree with the papacy. But that is no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Peter was given very special prominence among an already special and prominent group of apostles that were all chosen by Jesus.
Your view about the role of the Pope is one interpretation, based on a single verse in the gospels. I have another interpretation, shared by many. I put emphasis on the succession of apostolic teachings. Any church that follows the teachings of the original apostles is more apostolic than denominations that rely on the succession of persons nominated by an unbroken chain of bishops. Ideally, these would be the same churches but unfortunately, I do not see it.
Anyhow, this kind of interpretations are matters where we just have to agree that we disagree. If we were talking about evolution, creation and other matters where we could collect scientific data about the world around us, then we could look which interpretation seems to be closest to the external data. When we are talking about the role of the Pope or the leadership in local churches (local ecclesia), there is no external data that could be used to hint which interpretation is closest to the truth.
Just to clarify what I wrote, I do think that it helps if a congregation has a leading person (primus inter pares). It is just a matter of ensuring that this person does not have an unhealthy amount of power and is responsible for his/her actions to other persons. Large denominations with local congregations mostly have a positive solution to the potential problem by ensuring that the local leaders are responsible of their actions to the wider church. Small, independent churches can also have a positive solution to this threat if they decide such structures and guidelines that are likely to prevent the abuse of power and the rise of leaders that have unhealthy levels of power with little responsibility for their acts.
3 Likes
There is more than just one verse. Acts tells us Peter was prominent among believers in the early church and Paul’s he appeared “first to Cephas” is hardly just impartial chronological narration. Paul knew Peter. This material is earlier than what is found in the anonymous synoptic gospels. It’s contemporary primary data and carries significant historical weight. There is a primacy in there with regard to Peter…all the apostles had authority but Peter was the Rock.
There is no way to untangle apostolic teachings from the Church. Neither exists for us in a vacuum. There were many competing Christianities and Christologies early on. The Church had to discern which writings were apostolic and which were to become the new Scripture. Without the Church and tradition choosing, recognizing, preserving and canonizing them, we would not have anything. For me, I see any views based on sola scripture as a boat lost at sea. vI find this is rejecting papal succession but accepting a very similar apostolic teaching succession. The apple is not falling far from the tree and there is a lot of faith involved in that. An apostolic teaching is nothing but what the apostles of Jesus taught about Him. Advocating a succession of beliefs by these apostles but trying to reject the succession of these persons is like is sawing off the branch you are sitting on. For Catholics, I suppose the succession of Peter down is the succession of his apostolic teachings down to us. Apostolic teachings have no authority unless the apostle him or herself has authority granted by Jesus. I would find a false dichotomy in here. Following the original apostles means following the Rock on which Jesus built his church. We follow them insofar as we believe they reflect the true teachings of Jesus. In a circular fashion we do this because we accept writings we think are apostolic that tell us Jesus did choose them and commissioned them. There is no real way out of this circularity. We accept apostolic teachings because we think Jesus chose and commissioned them as such. We believe Jesus chose and commissioned them as such because we believe these apostolic teachings tell us that. I find the distinction between person and teaching to be rather frivolous here. It may simply be what is meant in both cases.
This also applies to our circular belief in apostolic teaching succession. There is much wisdom in such a chain from Peter to present. Dare I say, our reliance on Church traditions really seems to warrant it.
There is much wisdom in there but I don’t think it changes things.
I’m not sure that I understand. What makes it problematic?
These are the two passages I alluded to in my earlier post:
Psalm 19:1 King David writes: The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Romans 1:19, 20 The Apostle Paul writes: For what can be known about God is plain to them (the godless and the wicked), because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
God provides evidence from creation to lead to knowledge of himself. The witness of the heavens and God’s creation is universally available to all people: to the great and small, to the wise and simple, to the young and to the old, to the believer and the seeker, and even to the godless and wicked. Everyone can see the sky; everyone can see God’s creation.
Even with our reason impaired by sin, Paul still says the witness of creation is “clearly seen,” and that those who choose not to see are “without excuse.” Paul is not theologically clueless; he did not write this passage unaware of the effects of sin on our ability to reason.
Creation draws us to faith in God. In the context of Romans 1, we learn that this evidence is accessible not only to the believer but also to the seeker. Prior faith in God is not necessary or required to see God’s witness to himself in his creation.
Nor do we need expert theologians or scientists to help us to see God’s eternal power and divine nature through what he has made. Just lie on your back and look up to the sky, and just walk through the woods and see and listen and smell and touch. The beauty and creativity and design in God’s creation brings us knowledge of our beautiful creator, designer, and Savior, and draws us to worship and glorify him. The only requirement, the only prerequisite, is being open to truth.
And as we learn more about God’s creation, more than we can see in the sky or through a walk in the woods, we will see even more of His beauty and wisdom and his providential care for us. This can draw us into even greater praise and honor and thanksgiving to God our Creator and Savior.
Although the witness of God’s creation is clearly seen, this doesn’t mean that it is “always seen.” This witness can and has been suppressed. Again we go back to Romans 1, this time starting with verse 18: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
Not seeing the witness of creation does not come from the inability to see, but from suppression of what is seen—and this truth is suppressed because wicked people suppress it “by their wickedness.” An atheist when asked why she doesn’t believe in God may claim, “Not enough evidence! Not enough evidence.” But God’ Word answers, “No.” The evidence is abundantly clear, but intentionally suppressed by wickedness, suppressed by unrighteousness.
Once we have the knowledge that God is our Creator through the witness of his creation, God’s world, we also can with an open heart and mind, also learn through the Bible, God’s word, that he is our Savior. Later in Romans 6:23, Paul writes, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
1 Like
It seems to me that you insist that God’s creation can only be seen in the things of nature, and not the processes of nature. Why do whale created de nova speak of the attributes of God, but whales descended in accordance with natural laws do not? Do you only see God’s power manifest where nature is insufficient?
3 Likes
Yes, it limits God in not being able to design a system that generates diversity. (A system which just incidentally corresponds to physical reality. ; - )
Isn’t the psalms verse just poetry. Not meant to be read as doctrine but as a poem.
I think the verses about Romans is about spirituality, not science needing magic to work.