like some or even most christans i tire of the notion that it was all made up and that everyone has repeated a fake story this whole time among other things
nice to bring a modern comparison to it to show how impactful the event actually was
We're now at least two full generations removed from a basic knowledge of Scripture in the American population. Alas, we're still burdened with millions of people who confidently THINK they know what the Bible contains. Thus we get those embarrassing posts on social media, where some poor undergrad goes "you're telling me dudes named John and Matthew just happened to be running around ancient Palestine?"
On the plus side, the fields are white for harvest in introducing folks anew to the riches of the Bible. Jordan Peterson has proven this all by his lonesome.
I amazed when people can’t understand that a population in an area has changed over time. Even when it’s happening currently in real time.
Ancient Egypt was not built by modern Egyptians. Peak Rome was not comprised of modern Italians. This should be obvious to anyone. Instead the erasing white history project proudly embraces the fact that former first world cultures are now inhabited by third worlders.
I also hate when modern people think people from a long time ago were simple or stupid. Really just a case of solipsism there.
somewhere i had a monograph about all the popes who were, well,you know...in the middle ages. i vaguely remember one who--i think--was a teenager who sold the papacy and then bought it back.
I don't see much distinction between him and any other pope since about the late fourth century, when emperors and popes first started having trouble telling which was which.
It seems to me that, despite an enormous amount of confusion, the question of the Primacy of Rome remains, at base, a family dispute between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
Imagine that the Vatican announced, with full authority, that only the first Seven Ecumenical Councils were, in fact, ecumenical; leaving Florence, Trent, Vatican I and II, etc. as mere local councils. That, in theory, would restore the unity between East and West.
But how many Protestants would thereby come on-board? Very few, I'd wager, and certainly not at the denominational level. These denominations have essentially the same disagreements with the Patriarchs and Metropolitans as they do with the Pope. Indeed, they reject wholesale the theory of church government via apostolic communion laid out by St. Cyprian in the mid-3rd century, which drew on even earlier sources like St. Ignatius, who was a disciple of John the Evangelist.
Not all Protestants reject the theory of apostolic communion - Calvinists and their offshoots certainly do, but Anglicans and Lutherans generally don't. They just disagree about two other things: (1) what the line of succession actually is, and (2) what exactly it means to be a church leader or even an ordained minister.
I think determining a true line of succession is an impossible task for man at this point. If we are to have one, it will have to be through new divine revelation of some sort. First there was massive interference in the church by temporal rulers, starting in the fourth century and continuing for many years. Then the church leaders themselves also became temporal rulers, which seems to me to be in direct contradiction with what Jesus personally taught. Today's pope remains a temporal ruler, and I just can't imagine that would have been acceptable to Jesus.
Pope Francis has a habit of upsetting the Catholic cart with many of his statements only for popesplainers to come along and try to make everything right. Easier to say - he might not be a great leader or primate.
While I was received by the Antiochian Orthodox - I currently attend a Greek Orthodox parish (90%+ converts) and I'll just say that some of the higher ups in GOA seem more interested in the praise of men then in defending Holy Orthodoxy. Catholicism, of course, puts a great deal more on the Pope than the Orthodox do on any given bishop, and a great sticking point is that we would expect the Pope to be seen as what he is - another bishop.
I think they forced Benedict out — and in any event, there was a seven hundred year precedent that popes can’t “quit”. I think this was done to protect various interests within the church, I just couldn’t guess WHICH interests. The pedophile priests? The bankers?
Well, some cases don't have any gray areas or possible wiggle room.
Historians disagree whether Alexander VI, circa 1501, actually hosted an orgy called "The Banquet of the Chestnuts," wherein prostitutes scuttled around on the floor naked, competing to see who could pick up the greatest number of chestnuts using only their "Vats-is-es."
But historians generally agree that Alexander VI set the Papal record for fathering the greatest number of illegitimate offspring.
Earning A6 a top position on the List of Bad Popes.
The current guy, I refer to as "Frankie from Hollywood."
Great post, I believe that growing up “Catholic” in part kept me from seeing the Truth until later in life. Now that I have taken that journey I’m struck by how it all seems so clear and simple. Love articles like this that reveal another new aspect and perspective. Thank you!
I'm still working my way back. I'm not going to rehash the well-known things that drove me away for many years, but the start back was my feeling that "that's not what He had in mind."
Every time I see a painting or depiction of the Magi with the Christ child as an infant/newborn I feel compelled to point out that they would not have arrived for years after the birth of Christ. The involvement of Herod, and his subsequent massacre of the 2-3 yr old male children in the holy land provided further proof of the appreciate age of Jesus.
Well and convincingly argued! An acrimonious divorce from someone who purported to be a close follower of Jesus but who turned out to be a manipulative swindler and overall dirtbag left me uncomfortable with my faith--not questioning it, but unfortunately focused on what the Christian church has become in this modern world: a badge to wear to show others that you are good, a tax dodge, and a realm of flexible standards in the interest of inclusivity (having adopted the tenets of John Wesley, I recently experienced the schism in Methodism as it decided whether to maintain those tenets or change them with regard to specifics of marriage, among others). Your refreshingly modern, yet decidedly traditional take on this particular aspect of Christianity is a delight to read, and reminds me that despite the modern tendency to pish-posh this miracle as the misapprehensions of primitive peoples, there is wondrous evidence that our faith is not misplaced. Additionally, you are clearly a subject matter expert and have inspired me to explore the feasts of Epiphany and Theophany and their history more thoroughly, which will, I'm certain, take me down a rabbit hole of interests and new knowledge. Finally, your prose is surely worthy of ACF, and I look forward to seeing your writing here again.
Thanks for the kind words, Rich. Since I am a rabbit-hole man myself, I'll take the liberty of pointing your own inquires in two directions. First, the foreshadowing of Theophany in Exodus 14: 19-31, where it looks like two additional hypostases of the Lord appear at the parting of the Red Sea; which then culminates in the Baptism of Christ in the Jordan (reported in all four Gospels), where the three Persons of the Trinity are unmistakably present.
Secondly, there is a document known as The Penitence of Adam (it's easy to find translations in public domain), which records the eventual repentance of Adam and Eve, evidently centuries after the Fall. (Variations of the events appear in other apocryphal texts.) And where do our first ancestors go in order to repent? The Jordan River.
most excellent post
like some or even most christans i tire of the notion that it was all made up and that everyone has repeated a fake story this whole time among other things
nice to bring a modern comparison to it to show how impactful the event actually was
We're now at least two full generations removed from a basic knowledge of Scripture in the American population. Alas, we're still burdened with millions of people who confidently THINK they know what the Bible contains. Thus we get those embarrassing posts on social media, where some poor undergrad goes "you're telling me dudes named John and Matthew just happened to be running around ancient Palestine?"
On the plus side, the fields are white for harvest in introducing folks anew to the riches of the Bible. Jordan Peterson has proven this all by his lonesome.
I amazed when people can’t understand that a population in an area has changed over time. Even when it’s happening currently in real time.
Ancient Egypt was not built by modern Egyptians. Peak Rome was not comprised of modern Italians. This should be obvious to anyone. Instead the erasing white history project proudly embraces the fact that former first world cultures are now inhabited by third worlders.
I also hate when modern people think people from a long time ago were simple or stupid. Really just a case of solipsism there.
"but bro america is an idea"
cool story
have that idea over there then
[deleted on reflection as too hotheaded and anti-Catholic]
Nice writing.
real time self reflection and honesty
you love to see it
It is the Lord's job, not mine, to judge the men in Vatican City.
Including the anti-pope Bergoglio, may he burn.
(I have zero chill about this.)
somewhere i had a monograph about all the popes who were, well,you know...in the middle ages. i vaguely remember one who--i think--was a teenager who sold the papacy and then bought it back.
I don't see much distinction between him and any other pope since about the late fourth century, when emperors and popes first started having trouble telling which was which.
It seems to me that, despite an enormous amount of confusion, the question of the Primacy of Rome remains, at base, a family dispute between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
Imagine that the Vatican announced, with full authority, that only the first Seven Ecumenical Councils were, in fact, ecumenical; leaving Florence, Trent, Vatican I and II, etc. as mere local councils. That, in theory, would restore the unity between East and West.
But how many Protestants would thereby come on-board? Very few, I'd wager, and certainly not at the denominational level. These denominations have essentially the same disagreements with the Patriarchs and Metropolitans as they do with the Pope. Indeed, they reject wholesale the theory of church government via apostolic communion laid out by St. Cyprian in the mid-3rd century, which drew on even earlier sources like St. Ignatius, who was a disciple of John the Evangelist.
Not all Protestants reject the theory of apostolic communion - Calvinists and their offshoots certainly do, but Anglicans and Lutherans generally don't. They just disagree about two other things: (1) what the line of succession actually is, and (2) what exactly it means to be a church leader or even an ordained minister.
I think determining a true line of succession is an impossible task for man at this point. If we are to have one, it will have to be through new divine revelation of some sort. First there was massive interference in the church by temporal rulers, starting in the fourth century and continuing for many years. Then the church leaders themselves also became temporal rulers, which seems to me to be in direct contradiction with what Jesus personally taught. Today's pope remains a temporal ruler, and I just can't imagine that would have been acceptable to Jesus.
Expand please.
I've heard good reports from people that worked with him when he was whatever he was in Argentina.
"By their fruits ye shall know them"
Pope Francis has a habit of upsetting the Catholic cart with many of his statements only for popesplainers to come along and try to make everything right. Easier to say - he might not be a great leader or primate.
While I was received by the Antiochian Orthodox - I currently attend a Greek Orthodox parish (90%+ converts) and I'll just say that some of the higher ups in GOA seem more interested in the praise of men then in defending Holy Orthodoxy. Catholicism, of course, puts a great deal more on the Pope than the Orthodox do on any given bishop, and a great sticking point is that we would expect the Pope to be seen as what he is - another bishop.
I think they forced Benedict out — and in any event, there was a seven hundred year precedent that popes can’t “quit”. I think this was done to protect various interests within the church, I just couldn’t guess WHICH interests. The pedophile priests? The bankers?
I had the impression that Benedict was overly protecting the pedophile priests. Not so?
Well, some cases don't have any gray areas or possible wiggle room.
Historians disagree whether Alexander VI, circa 1501, actually hosted an orgy called "The Banquet of the Chestnuts," wherein prostitutes scuttled around on the floor naked, competing to see who could pick up the greatest number of chestnuts using only their "Vats-is-es."
But historians generally agree that Alexander VI set the Papal record for fathering the greatest number of illegitimate offspring.
Earning A6 a top position on the List of Bad Popes.
The current guy, I refer to as "Frankie from Hollywood."
Great post, I believe that growing up “Catholic” in part kept me from seeing the Truth until later in life. Now that I have taken that journey I’m struck by how it all seems so clear and simple. Love articles like this that reveal another new aspect and perspective. Thank you!
I'm still working my way back. I'm not going to rehash the well-known things that drove me away for many years, but the start back was my feeling that "that's not what He had in mind."
Good rebuke to the Reddit level hot take bullshit about Christmas.
Thank you for this.
How did I miss this until today?
Thought-provoking and scarily well-written. Thanks for sharing this with us.
Every time I see a painting or depiction of the Magi with the Christ child as an infant/newborn I feel compelled to point out that they would not have arrived for years after the birth of Christ. The involvement of Herod, and his subsequent massacre of the 2-3 yr old male children in the holy land provided further proof of the appreciate age of Jesus.
Well and convincingly argued! An acrimonious divorce from someone who purported to be a close follower of Jesus but who turned out to be a manipulative swindler and overall dirtbag left me uncomfortable with my faith--not questioning it, but unfortunately focused on what the Christian church has become in this modern world: a badge to wear to show others that you are good, a tax dodge, and a realm of flexible standards in the interest of inclusivity (having adopted the tenets of John Wesley, I recently experienced the schism in Methodism as it decided whether to maintain those tenets or change them with regard to specifics of marriage, among others). Your refreshingly modern, yet decidedly traditional take on this particular aspect of Christianity is a delight to read, and reminds me that despite the modern tendency to pish-posh this miracle as the misapprehensions of primitive peoples, there is wondrous evidence that our faith is not misplaced. Additionally, you are clearly a subject matter expert and have inspired me to explore the feasts of Epiphany and Theophany and their history more thoroughly, which will, I'm certain, take me down a rabbit hole of interests and new knowledge. Finally, your prose is surely worthy of ACF, and I look forward to seeing your writing here again.
Thanks for the kind words, Rich. Since I am a rabbit-hole man myself, I'll take the liberty of pointing your own inquires in two directions. First, the foreshadowing of Theophany in Exodus 14: 19-31, where it looks like two additional hypostases of the Lord appear at the parting of the Red Sea; which then culminates in the Baptism of Christ in the Jordan (reported in all four Gospels), where the three Persons of the Trinity are unmistakably present.
Secondly, there is a document known as The Penitence of Adam (it's easy to find translations in public domain), which records the eventual repentance of Adam and Eve, evidently centuries after the Fall. (Variations of the events appear in other apocryphal texts.) And where do our first ancestors go in order to repent? The Jordan River.
Well done! Lies fade with time but the truth perseveres, thanks be to God...