Posted on 10/25/2009 9:52:48 AM PDT by narses
I would not dismiss other bishops from consideration if that's what you're getting at.
What is it with you, dude? Every time I expose your solipsism, you've got to toss in another concept that doesn't quite fit the circumstances. Haven't you ever heard of "the first rule of holes?"
And mabye you better look up the word "caveat" while you're at it. I'm surprised you don't know it. It's not even english!
This where all similarity to the passage in Jude disappears. The Pope is a bishop in the Church; this is not about God appointing somebody and having everyone else in the Church opposing him. The Pope is not Muhammed nor is he an Indian chieftain or Zulu warrior priest.
I suppose this has gone on more than too long.
PT, you’ve managed to embrace Feeneyism and violate a Decree of the Council of Trent in just a few short paragraphs. That would seem to set you up for condemnation from the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox and the Protestants, no mean feat.
+John Chrysostomos, in his Homily VI on Titus, had sound advice for Christians dealing with the promoters of novel and heretical teachings:
“”Contentions,” he means, with heretics, in which he would not have us labor to no purpose, where nothing is to be gained, for they end in nothing. For when a man is perverted and predetermined not to change his mind, whatever may happen, why shouldest thou labor in vain, sowing upon a rock, when thou shouldest spend thy honorable toil upon thy own people, in discoursing with them upon almsgiving and every other virtue? How then does he elsewhere say, “If God peradventure will give them repentance” (2 Tim. ii. 25.); but here, “A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself”? In the former passage he speaks of the correction of those of whom he had hope, and who had simply made opposition. But when he is known and manifest to all, why dost thou contend in vain? why dost thou beat the air? What means, “being condemned of himself”? Because he cannot say that no one has told him, no one admonished him; since therefore after admonition he continues the same, he is self-condemned.”
According to whom?
I don't have directions to know the guy that tells me "you can't get there from here" is lying.
Yeah...princes of the Church, princes of Israel...no similarity THERE.
“Then wouldn’t a reference to Lucifer in Isaiah have been more apropriate, my stubborn FRiend?”
Lucifer isn’t a man, and isn’t a well respected member of the church. Korah was one of the Levites, and set apart for service to God already...but he wanted an office not given him.
From Barnes, with an unauthorized interpretation:
“The errors which he combats in the epistle were evidently wide-spread, and were of such a nature that it was proper to warn all Christians against them. They might, it is true, be more prevalent in some quarters than in others, but still they were so common that Christians everywhere should be put on their guard against them. The design for which Jude wrote the epistle he has himself stated, Jude 1:3. It was with reference to the “common salvation”— the doctrines pertaining to salvation which were held by all Christians, and to show them the reasons for “contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.” That faith was assailed. There were teachers of error abroad. They were insinuating and artful men—men who had crept in unawares, and who, while they professed to hold the Christian doctrine, were really undermining its faith, and spreading corruption through the church. The purpose, therefore, of the epistle is to put those to whom it was written on their guard against the corrupt teachings of these men, and to encourage them to stand up manfully for the great principles of Christian truth.”
“Verse 11. Woe unto them! See Matthew 11:21.
For they have gone in the way of Cain. Genesis 4:5-12. That is, they have evinced disobedience and rebellion as he did; they have shown that they are proud, corrupt, and wicked. The apostle does not specify the points in which they had imitated the example of Cain, but it was probably in such things as these—pride, haughtiness, the hatred of religion, restlessness under the restraints of virtue, envy that others were more favoured, and a spirit of hatred of the brethren (comp. 1 John 3:15) which would lead to murder.
And ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward. The word rendered ran greedily—\~execuyhsan\~, from \~ekcew\~—means to pour out; and then, when spoken of persons, that they are poured out, or that they rush tumultuously on an object, that is, that they give themselves up to anything. The idea here is, that all restraint was relaxed, and that they rushed on tumultuously to any course of life that promised gain. See Barnes “2 Peter 2:15”.
And perished. They perish, or they will perish. The result is so certain that the apostle, speaks of it as if it were already done. The thought seems to have lain in his mind in this manner: he thinks of them as having the same character as Korah, and then at once thinks of them as destroyed in the same manner, or as if it were already done. They are identified with him in their character and doom. The word rendered perish (\~apollumi\~) is often used to denote future punishment, Matthew 10:28,39; 18:14; Mark 1:24; Luke 13:3,5; John 3:15,16 John 10:28; 2 Thessalonians 2:10; 2 Peter 3:9.
In the gainsaying of Core. Of Korah, Numbers 16:1-30. The word gainsaying here means properly contradiction, or speaking against; then controversy, question, strife; then contumely, reproach, or rebellion. The idea here seems to be, that they were guilty of insubordination; of possessing a restless and dissatisfied spirit; of a desire to rule, etc.”
So, you see, Jude, under the inspiration of God, with “God-breathed” words, DOES use appropriate examples.
Pride. Desire for gain. Desire to rule. Where has that been encountered?
Well, TV Evangelists. We have an Internet prophet who calls himself ‘Jedediah’ - don’t know if he is after money, but he seems to want acclaim and he frequently uses this passage to attack those who doubt his ‘authority’.
Anyone else? Someone inside the church, with Pride, Desire for gain and Desire to rule. Hmmm....
In honesty, this scripture fits a LOT of people, including some deacons in Baptist congregations. If someone is sowing discontent from within a church, and eager for gain, acclaim and higher authority...it fits.
Lucifer in Isaiah would not.
Despite your most earnest efforts to instruct the unlearned, no doubt...
PT, you've managed to embrace Feeneyism and violate a Decree of the Council of Trent in just a few short paragraphs.
And you have chosen to preen rather than think. I already demonstrated how you can not substantiate your claim of "contradiction" in violation Trent, nor can you demonstrate Feenyism without ignoring my qualifier in taking up YOUR challenge.
Now, let us demonstrate your incompetence with "Homily VI on Titus."
Would you argue there is, in principle "nothing to be gained" by answering whether it is Rome or The East that is in error?
What manner of "admonishment" have YOU brought to the table aside from an exceedingly verbose "nuh-uh!" with a dash of "you're dumb, and nobody likes you?"
By all means, quote the saints, but like Otto from "A Fish Called Wanda," orangutans may quote Nietzsche, "they just don't understand him."
No he didn't. There's not a peep of Korah aspiring to Moses office in all of Numbers 16. The passage even repeats the offense so there is no doubt: Korah and his fellows accused Moses of taking too much on himself.
Your contention is simly not supported by the text.
And the source for Barnes revelation that gainsaying is more "properly" something other than gainsaying is...?
Moreover, your observation that Lucifer is not a man is utterly arbitrary and serves no purpose other than to give you a random detail to hang your conjecture. Which is rather funny as you didn't seem to mind using Lucifer's aspirations to model Korah's sin in the Jude reference until I pointed out a stronger reference for that particular sin.
“Which is rather funny as you didn’t seem to mind using Lucifer’s aspirations to model Korah’s sin in the Jude reference until I pointed out a stronger reference for that particular sin.”
Korah’s sin was pride, and claiming an office he wasn’t qualified for - per Moses & Jude. Now you are claiming I used Lucifer’s aspirations to model Korah’s sin?
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
“And the source for Barnes revelation that gainsaying is more “properly” something other than gainsaying is...?”
Barnes says it “means properly contradiction, or speaking against”
Do you know the definition of gainsaying is? Let me help:
1. to deny, dispute, or contradict.
2. to speak or act against; oppose.
Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
Golly...Barnes was DEFINING the word, and you oppose him doing it?!?!?!?!? What is your problem? Is Random House a bunch of heretics?
Not Moses! Aaron! REEAAADDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“And Moses said to Korah, “Hear now, you sons of Levi: is it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself, to do service in the tabernacle of the LORD and to stand before the congregation to minister to them, and that he has brought you near him, and all your brothers the sons of Levi with you? And would you seek the priesthood also? Therefore it is against the LORD that you and all your company have gathered together. What is Aaron that you grumble against him?”
Peter did not lord over other Apostles, nor did the Apostles go to Peter to ask for permission or correction. By extension, the same is true of their successors.
You are engaging in the exact same vanity, except with the Patristic writings
And you are engaging in teaching something the Church never taught. Talk about vanity...
So I ask again, what IS Jude referring to with the gainsaying of Korah?
That Korah wanted more than was assigned to him by God.
Keep in mind, by your own standard, any explaination you give that is not authenticated by the Patristic writings is no more or less conjecture than the one you disdain from me. ...And that is hypocrisy, by definition.
Patristic commentaries never ever suggested it had anything to to even remotely with the Bishop of Rome. Your statement is not hypocrisy by my standard; it is simply not what the Church taught and would therefore qualify as heresy, by definition, if you are actually an ordained cleric.
You mean you read INTO it? Perhaps you need to re-read it. You will find that Jude takes full responsibility for his writing being his will and intention. He does not invoke the assistance of the Holy Spirit leading him.
Do I have to explain "inspiraion?"
How about prove it? At this point it's a conjecture yet you treat it as a matter of fact.
What do you think compelled him to write on contending for the faith when he says he wanted to write about salvation?
From what he says, it wasn't anything other than his will and intention.
Talk about gagging on gnats....
I agree. You will need at least a box of toothpicks.
Here I thought there was an obvious difference between inferring from a chain of events, and explicit declaration! Guess I need to work on my evidence building skills.
So then, according to you, the Gospels are just narratives...the real "meat" of the New Testament is to be found in the deuterocanonical works of dubious origin, because they are inspired declarations, instead of simples stories...that's not what the Church teaches either.
As for evidence building skills, how about just some evidence other than your private interpretations? :)
Exactly. The usual theme in the Bible—ingratitude, greed and pride lead to resist God and those God spoke through.
To be sure, this letter is grounded in reason, however, if you read Chapters 57-59, you will see that it also contains a forceful warning for those who “shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us”. The letter is an exercise of papal authority, or, at the very least, is written exactly like the more forceful latter-day papal exncyclicals are written.
Regarding the number of the apostles, obviously, it first contracted with betrayal of Judas and then expanded to include Mathias and Paul. Yet, the initial number 12 was related to the 12 tribes of Israel.
Be it as it may, the letter of Clement does contain that claim implicitly, by referring to the rod of Aaron. It correct actions taken by local authority, condemns it, and insists on correction.
I just gave you an example of an important piece of patristic literature where a bishop of Rome corrects someone whom he accuses of sedition and implies Aaronic privilege.
Even your best case scenario, which I don’t accept, would have the Bishop of Rome claiming authority. You do not have other Bishops from other regions accepting it.
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.