Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: "Monolithic" [was Markan Priority/Posteriority]

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 9/20/2002 3:47:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... There are amongst us some, myself included, who are loathe to accept the validity of this
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 20, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 9/20/2002 3:47:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time, eric.eve@... writes:


      It wasn't, but it's a clever idea! And I wasn't applying the adjective to
      the Roman Catholic Church but the primitive church of the first and second
      centuries;


      There are amongst us some, myself included, who are loathe to accept the validity of this distinction. I thought the point should be made even though I am fully aware that a discussion of this point falls outside the scope of this list as defined by its policy statement.

      Leonard Maluf
    • John Lupia
      ... Don t worry about it. No offense was ever taken by anyone, I am sure. When I read John Lupia s ... This is a matter of semantics. Let me clarify ths.
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 21, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Eric Eve wrote:
        > Dear Leonard (and John),
        > It wasn't and isn't my intention to become embroiled
        > in denominational or
        > confessional polemics, and I certainly apologize for
        > any offence I may have
        > unwittingly caused.


        Don't worry about it. No offense was ever taken by
        anyone, I am sure.

        When I read John Lupia's
        > reference to the 'Roman
        > Catholic Church' it struck me that this *could* have
        > been a reference to a
        > later entity than I had in mind, and I was merely
        > intending to clear up any
        > potential confusion. Indeed, far from intending any
        > polemical denominational
        > point scoring, my 'not... but...' was intended as a
        > distancing from any
        > possibility of my use of the word 'monolithic' being
        > read as polemic against
        > the present-day Roman Catholic Church. (I
        > nevertheless maintain my right to
        > a different historical opinion - would a third or
        > fourth century bishop of
        > Alexandria or Jerusalem have thought of themselves
        > as *Roman* Catholic? -
        > but that's a different matter).


        This is a matter of semantics. Let me clarify ths.
        When the term *Roman Catholic* is used it
        differentiates between those who call themselves
        *Catholic* but who are in fact schismatic, meaning not
        in union with the bishop of *Rome*.

        The examples you draw of 3rd-4th century bishops of
        Alexandria or Jerusalem depends on *which* bishops you
        refer to since there were bishops in union with the
        bishop of Rome as well as schismatic bishops who were
        not. My point is that this has always been the case.
        What muddles the historical picture for some
        researchers less informed is that some of these clergy
        were ambivalent being schismatic one day and then
        recanting the next and then going back to being
        schismatic again. The best example I can think of
        offhand is Eusebius Historicus, but there are many.

        The case for documented evidence from the 3rd century
        is provided by Jungmann, that the bishop of Rome was
        the determining factor for legal jurisdiction of
        bishops and real property ownership which extant
        documents show that by 200 AD the Church owned real
        estate and buildings. Eusebius provides details of the
        case involving Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch
        when he became schismatic the Roman Catholic Church
        brought a lawsuit against him to vacate the building.
        Emperor Aurelian (272) recognized the Roman Catholic
        Church as a legal corporation and ruled in the
        Church's favor. (See Joseph Andreas Jungmann, SJ, The
        Early Liturgy (Notre Dame, 1962):14).

        As for the acceptance of the historical reality of the
        Roman Catholic Church even K. Aland and B. M. Metzger
        admit that it is clearly attested to by AD 100. This
        seems to be the academic position of the majority of
        non-Catholic scholars. Clarifying what was the
        condition within the first century seems to be where
        the heated debate lies, not the second century on.

        The thesis I developed is easy to reject by those who
        deny that the Roman Catholic Church today was the one
        and the same as that instituted by Jesus and
        perpetuated by apostolic succession by simply denying
        it. Of course, proof, strong convincing arguments, or
        strong evidence will *always* be lacking and
        *evidence* that contradicts them will *always* be
        available and presented. This will come down to a
        stand-off.

        This whole approach will be non-productive to find a
        solution to the Synoptic Problem. The alternate
        position is to simply acknowledge that the Roman
        Catholic Church has *always* taught that it was
        founded by Jesus and perpetuated by the apostles; the
        paper trail going back to the first century clearly
        demonstrates this. There is no need to "maintain
        one's right to a different historical opinion" when a
        theory that employs the claim of the Roman Catholic
        Church's antiquity dating back to Jesus himself is
        offered since the theory itself is comprised of
        alternative and disjunctive syllogistic propositions.
        Any researcher would immediately see that "if it is
        the case then" and take it at face value. As with any
        theoretical solution the value is in it's ability to
        completely satisfy and answer all of the problems
        associated with the Synoptic Problem. If it does then
        it will be hard to refute regardless of one's views of
        the Roman Catholic Church really existing in the first
        century or not. If the theory stands up to testing
        then the latter will be self-evident.

        With warm regards,
        John

        =====
        John N. Lupia, III
        501 North Avenue B-1
        Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
        Phone: (908) 994-9720
        Email: jlupia2@...
        Editor, Roman Catholic News
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News

        __________________________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
        http://sbc.yahoo.com

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.