tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post181958093468845042..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Is that the best they can do?Fr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-34706047979498471182009-12-10T19:24:48.388-05:002009-12-10T19:24:48.388-05:00Father Hart:
The rebellion against traditional se...Father Hart:<br /><br />The rebellion against traditional sexual morality is a world wide phenomenon - nothing "in house" about it. <br /><br />Humane Vitae fails in nothing - it's strong medicine for our times, regardless of one's denomination.Mark VAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-81531258234184416732009-12-10T16:09:53.266-05:002009-12-10T16:09:53.266-05:00What it upheld was not doctrinal unity, but doctri...What it upheld was not doctrinal unity, but doctrine itself. The rebellion against it is a pastoral in-house Roman Catholic issue. My only objection is using it as an example of ideal unity in practice. I am sorry that it fails in that respect.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-2514073601761823452009-12-08T22:11:49.304-05:002009-12-08T22:11:49.304-05:00From the Roman/Traditionalist perspective:
In my ...From the Roman/Traditionalist perspective:<br /><br />In my view, both Father Hart and Poetreader significantly overstate the degree of rejection of Humane Vitae in RC circles in our country today. <br /><br />The point in mentioning Humanae Vitae is that it upheld doctrinal unity in the area of sexual morals - it did not compromise them, as the Lambeth Conference began to do in 1930. In the historical context in which it was issued (late 1960s), it was a given that it would be rejected by the progressives. That's one of the reasons why it was issued - to speak Truth to them. There were perhaps other reasons, but they are outside the scope of our discussion. <br /><br />True, many in the passing sixties generation remain stuck in their "hip" status quo. But they are declining in strength, and have failed to win any considerable numbers of the informed young clergy and laity to their cause. These young Catholics are by any measure much more conservative and tradition minded - Humanae Vitae was written for people like them. It's a joy for me to see their large happy families every Sunday. The challenge lies with those young Catholics who are not well versed in their faith - they are the collateral damage of the progressive ideology.Mark VAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-75411265574519197582009-12-08T20:55:43.154-05:002009-12-08T20:55:43.154-05:00Not sure I quite go that far, Canon Tallis. I thin...Not sure I quite go that far, Canon Tallis. I think the witness of the Fathers is quite specific in seeing Peter as present and presiding in Rome, and as having been martyred there, but, if my reading of the Scripture is anywhere near accurate, I would have to see that presence as having begun after the NT canon had all been written, as I see no Scriptural witness of his presence.<br /><br />Several of the Eastern Fathers seem to have been quite ready to defer to Rome, not because its bishop had any essential authority, nor because of its vanished status as capital city, but because at their time it had held steadfast in the faith, and also because Peter's relics were buried there. Both of these points were made repeatedly.<br /><br />Later, when the East began to see some evidence of error at Rome, they were less ready to accept the pope's authority, but still believe Peter to be buried there.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-21493479740506452222009-12-08T20:10:24.032-05:002009-12-08T20:10:24.032-05:00Having read both of the volumes Wm Tighe reference...Having read both of the volumes Wm Tighe references - although it was quite a number of years ago - I do not remember being impressed with the arguments of either for the presence of Peter in Rome. Instead the arguments which did impress me were those of Littledale in 'The Petrine Claims.' Michael Grant in 'St Peter' makes quite the same arguments against Peter never being in Rome and then reverses himself on the basis that he intends to retire to Rome. I think it must be his single act of intellectual cowardice. But it has always struck me that the fathers of the late first and early second centuries with a connection with Rome such as Justin Martyr do not mention St Peter in connection with the Roman See.<br /><br />I understand the desire to maintain the old myths, but as important as the argument which advocates of the Roman position make - if true - it would seem to require some validation in either the earliest creeds or the earliest councils. But just as the New Testament fails to connect Peter with Rome while St Paul's epistle would seem to exclude any such connection. Considering Peter's own remarks about "cunningly devised fables" I think, knowing that the Roman Church was smarting because of its demotion in status from the movement of the imperial capital, we can understand the only too human and sinful motivations behind its claim to a singular position.Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-3004269443112232002009-12-08T19:53:12.413-05:002009-12-08T19:53:12.413-05:00Thank you Fr, Hart. This is not a scientific samp...Thank you Fr, Hart. This is not a scientific sampling, but of all my Roman Catholic friends, only one of them agrees with the encyclical, and every married one of them does practice birth control.<br /><br />It is a very good document indeed, and the pope deserved to be congratulated for it, but it did not manage to accomplish much.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-46407172611651842202009-12-08T17:42:13.735-05:002009-12-08T17:42:13.735-05:00The point Ed made was not against Humanae Vitae, b...The point Ed made was not against Humanae Vitae, but a response to how effective Rome is in establishing unity. Within the Roman Catholic Church, the encyclical is treated with wide scale rebellion, as if it were allowable that such could be controverted. There is no real unity and obedience in evidence.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-17975514831246643612009-12-08T16:46:54.011-05:002009-12-08T16:46:54.011-05:00From the Roman perspective:
Poetreader:
To addre...From the Roman perspective:<br /><br />Poetreader:<br /><br />To address just one issue, namely, the encyclical Humanae Vitae of Pope Paul VI.<br /><br />I respectfully disagree with your proposition that this encyclical “.. did not accomplish more than a committee would have”. Two counter points: <br /><br />First, contrast this encyclical with the Anglican position first taken during the 1930 Lambeth Conference. With respect to contraception, in Resolution 15, this conference allowed “other methods” to be used to prevent conception (voting: For 193; Against 67). Previous Lambeth conferences did not allow for such “other methods”;<br /><br />Second, this encyclical was issued to a generation that sought to “liberate” itself from such “constraints”. Yes, many of them threw this encyclical in the trash. However, forty years later, there is a new generation coming of age which has seen such “liberations” fail, often at a great personal cost. Humane Vitae is for them.Mark VAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-15111119649558726532009-12-08T16:39:08.323-05:002009-12-08T16:39:08.323-05:00Perhaps some do disagree with me, but I'm quit...Perhaps some do disagree with me, but I'm quite convinced from every evidence of Scripture that the Roman foundation did precede Peter. I doi believe it is certain. However It's extremely unimportant one way or the other. I am convinced that he was indeed at a later time bishop of that place, and the status of his successors there is another question entirely. If the claims made are true, they do not hinge upon that question,nor is my position that the papal claims do not hold up strengthened in any way by the existence of a previous foundation. Papal claims are not affected by whichever answer is given. <br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-15158352793926333332009-12-08T15:53:41.963-05:002009-12-08T15:53:41.963-05:00POSTSCRIPT
For thiose who may be interested, here...POSTSCRIPT<br /><br />For thiose who may be interested, here is a link to the Edmundson book online:<br /><br />http://www.ccel.org/e/edmundson/church/William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-48619697094446999422009-12-08T15:46:21.409-05:002009-12-08T15:46:21.409-05:00"What is certain, however, is that Peter did ..."What is certain, however, is that Peter did not found the Church in Rome. When Paul wrote to the Romans, the Church was already active there, and he, while greeting many members by name, did not mention either Peter or Cephas."<br /><br />I am surprised at the "certain" here, for I can cite offhand two eminent English Anglican Church Historians who contended that it is likely that Peter did, indeedm, found the Roman Church. These are George Edmundson (1848-1930) whose *The Church of Rome in the First Century: the Bampton Lectures for 1913* (1914) was recently repuiblished by Wipf & Stock of Portland, Oregon, and Treevor Gervase Jalland (1898-1975) whose *The Church and the Papacy* (1944) was originally delivered as the Bampton Lectures for 1942.<br /><br />Both were Anglican scholars in the tradition of Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort; both also parish priests; and Edmundson (whose lectures formed a foundation for the arguments of J. A. T. Robinson in his *Redating the New Testament* [1977]) an amazing polymath to boot.<br /><br />I will not try to summarize Edmundson's arguments -- not least since the book not only has been reprinted of late, but can also be read online - but his argument is, that Peter made for Rome after his escape from prison in 42 AD, remained there for a number of years, then went on his various missionarly journeys, residing at Rome for a time ca. 54-56 (when he probably made Linus and Cletus together eposkopoi there), then went off on various missionarly travels again, and finally was bacl in Rome for a few years preceding his martyrdom there in 65 AD.William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-87027064502452326942009-12-08T10:14:03.793-05:002009-12-08T10:14:03.793-05:00Luther, BTW, is a prime example of what imperfect ...Luther, BTW, is a prime example of what imperfect tools our God uses. I do believe he was raised up to confront some very real evils and to proclaim som essential truths. At the same time I find it very obvious that he exceeded his call in many ways, and, instead of opening the way for a growth of truth within his church, so conducted himself that a radical division came to be. I'm convinced that that was not God's choice. There, thus, are no infallible men walking among us, and thus the classic Anglican approach of seeking the consensus of the Fathers in interpreting Scripture gives much more assurance than the reliance on one flawed human being.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-15694701947382955772009-12-08T10:02:02.082-05:002009-12-08T10:02:02.082-05:00Mark VA cites three examples of how God used the B...Mark VA cites three examples of how God used the Bishop of Rome to be "Valiant for Truth."<br /><br />Counter examples can be quickly adduced. There was Athanasius of Alexanderia, who stood "contra mundum" for the homoousion.<br /><br />There was Martin Luther, whom God raised up for the defense of the Gospel against another Pope. <br /><br />And then there was Balaam's Ass, who mightily uttered the Word of the Lord. <br /><br />Our God being a persistent God has a way of getting His message out and if He has on occasion used the Papacy, He is surely not in need of it.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-24724184259597082562009-12-07T22:58:54.125-05:002009-12-07T22:58:54.125-05:00Indeed, John Paul II did a lot for Poland during t...Indeed, John Paul II did a lot for Poland during the dying days of the U.S.S.R. But, Russian Communism fell under its own power, and the one man in the whole world who most hastened its demise was President Ronald Reagan. Nonetheless, his successors qualify even less than the Roman Patriarch as living replacements for the Vincentian Canon. In fact, if history proves anything relevant in this whole matter, it is, as Canon Hollister pointed out, that the Vincentian Canon stated a fact.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-66299404640889290672009-12-07T22:17:38.093-05:002009-12-07T22:17:38.093-05:00Well, Mark,
on your point 1, perhaps it did take o...Well, Mark,<br />on your point 1, perhaps it did take one man to write Humanae vitae, but just what effect did it ultimately have. What percentage of RCs are abstaining from the use of birth control? What percentage even believe the pope has a right to speak in that manner? Yes, it's a good statement. No, it did not accomplish more than a committee would have.<br /><br />firthermore, your assumption that I would substitute a committee for a pope completely misses my point. It is imposed central authority of any kind that I beleieve to be unnecessary and usually harmful. Such declarations rightly come from the prophetic speaking of men that God raises up and gain their authority from the working of the Spirit in the hearts of hearers. God is not bound by human systematizing.<br /><br />Your second point regards a political activism of the Papacy which has, over time, more often worked ill than good, and therefore is not a proof of any utility.<br /><br />Your third point is even less applicable as it is the authoritative correction of serious abuse resulting directly from the actions of authoritative actions the central power under earlier popes.<br /><br />My answer to your question is that things would be no worse, at least in the long view, and perhaps somewhat better if that central power had never existed.<br /><br />I'm not saying any of the above dogmatically, but as an illustration that these things can indeed be seen rationally in more than one way, and this question is not going to be decided on practicalities, but on finding the will of God. If I were convinced that God desires such a central authority, I would accept it, even though everything in my human thinking sees it as a negative things. However, if I were convinced (as I am, at least at the moment) that God desires no such thing, even were I to be convinced it was not only desirable, but a practical necessity, I would need to refuse it.<br /> <br />To repeat: I do not believe that God has required, or even particularly approves of a centralized church structure such as Rome has developed, let alone its concentration of power in one man. That being the case, I don't really care about its practical effectiveness. Therefore that is where the only meaningful debate lies.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-28532650029328921612009-12-07T17:49:22.232-05:002009-12-07T17:49:22.232-05:00From the Roman perspective:
From the outset, let ...From the Roman perspective:<br /><br />From the outset, let me repeat that I like many aspects of Traditional Anglicanism, especially your solidly orthodox stand today’s key social issues, and your strong desire to keep the Catholic coat of arms, so to speak. My criticism is more technical. It’s about organization, structure, authority, and the necessity to be able to withstand those cultural centrifugal forces that afflict all of us. In a word, I consider you friends. <br /><br />Now to the issues at hand. Poetreader asks if there are any contemporary examples of Papacy bringing about "unity in doctrine and ecclesial structure”. I propose three recent examples for your consideration, no smoke and mirrors:<br /><br />(1) In the late 1960s, Pope Paul VI issued the encyclical “Humanae Vitae” in the face of strong opposition from some of his advisors, who argued for a more accomodationist approach. This Pope used the power of his office to maintain the unity of doctrine regarding sexual morality. I encourage those who may not have read this encyclical to do so, and ask themselves if a committee would ever agree to issue something this courageous?<br /><br />(2) In the late seventies, Pope John Paul II, using the power of his office, decided to end the ineffective Ostpolitik, and replace it with a much more risky direct engagement with the communists. This change in policy aimed at maintaining both, the structural cohesiveness of the Church, and the integrity of doctrine in the affected lands. The communists aimed at corrupting both, before eliminating the Church altogether from their domain. I ask, would a committee have the courage to junk something comfortable but ineffective, and embark on a venture this risky for the sake of some obscure peoples’ Catholic faith?<br /><br />(3) In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI issued the motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, which received an initially cold response from the progressives. Yet it filled the sails of the conservatives and the traditionalists with joy and energy. It unequivocally restated that liturgical tradition would not be changed by fiat. Strangely, it has also catalyzed somewhat of an introspective moment in some (former?) progressives, who perhaps for the first time are making the crucial connection between the Catholic faith and tradition. Again, I ask, would a committee have the guts to issue such a challenge, or would it more likely get entangled in endless disputes?<br /><br />I submit these real world examples for your consideration. Remove the papacy from these three situations, and ask what most likely would have happened?Mark VAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-87639537843246632352009-12-07T16:47:39.067-05:002009-12-07T16:47:39.067-05:00Point taken, Fr, Hollister, except that there seem...Point taken, Fr, Hollister, except that there seems no disagreement among traditional sources in considering Peter as bishop of Rome. Was he the first one? We can't know that. Were they fully organized with established leadership (presumably a bishop) or were they in the sort of half-organized situation one often finds in a mission? We can't know that either. Was Peter in an episcopal role there. Well, I hate to go against the weight of tradition both East and West. All that said, however, it seems a rather flimsy bit of data on which to build such theories as surround the current papacy.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-17267463991772718792009-12-07T16:39:55.673-05:002009-12-07T16:39:55.673-05:00I thoroughly agree with three-quarters of Ed Pacht...I thoroughly agree with three-quarters of Ed Pacht's statement about "the ... consensus of the Church ... that Peter was in Rome, acted as bishop there, and was martyred there.... What is certain, however, is that Peter did not found the Church in Rome."<br /><br />Out of those four points, the one I find to be highly debatable is the one that claims "Peter ... acted as bishop there...." By definition, a "bishop" is a successor to the Apostles and, since the Church was already up and running in Rome prior to the arrival of either Peter or Paul, it would require real evidence, rather than speculation of the "and they must..." sort, to establish that either or both of them in any way displaced the already-established leadership there.<br /><br />So, with Fr. Hart, when "the See of Peter" is mentioned, I vote for Antioch.<br /><br />John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-81827181021753746422009-12-07T15:24:39.706-05:002009-12-07T15:24:39.706-05:00Mark from the Roman Church perspective wrote: Perh...Mark from the Roman Church perspective wrote: Perhaps the Anglicans (broadly understood) should demonstrate that at least some unity in doctrine and ecclesial structure is achievable without "... any of what the papacy claims for itself...", as you put it. <br /><br />For most continuing Anglicans the divisions of the continumm pain us greatly and we are working towards ending those divisions and achieving meaningful unity.<br /><br />Mark and many Romans gloss over the paper thin unity that is the Roman Church today. <br /><br />From FSSP and Tridentine breakaways like the highly successful St. Pius X Church to American, Australian and UK clergy and religious who advocate for women priests or whose use of women "special ministers" of the eucharist makes their position pretty clear anyway the Roman Church is no longer, if it ever was united in faith.<br /><br />Whatever the intentions were of John XXIII, Vatican II opened the floodgates of liberalism, modernism, and moral relativism masked by clown and rock masses celebrated by priests who threw away cassock and clerical collar aided by habit-less nuns.<br /><br />I suspect that one day some US Roman bishops will ordain women unilaterally, and it will be acclaimed by the secular world with such gusto that the liberal bishops and priests will just roll over and accept the kudos of being so relevant.<br /><br />The Gospel witness of the continuum is lonely, is without power and wealth and is reliant on Jesus Christ alone. What Anglo-Papists like Papa Doc do by urging an immediate rush to the Tiber is to say that actually our own Anglican Catholic Church was devoid of the means of salvation, devoid of sacraments of grace and that I cannot and will not accept.Deacon Down Underhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14903366446394957630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-71456108191111684022009-12-07T14:52:30.988-05:002009-12-07T14:52:30.988-05:00Mark,
Well, to start off with, you've changed...Mark,<br /><br />Well, to start off with, you've changed the subject. I was talking about what can be seen in history, and granting that Peter probably was there, but that the mentioned claims were not thereby proven. I'd rather have left that as what was being discussed.<br /><br />However, I'll answer with another challenge. Demonstrate to me that there has ever been a time (including this time)when the existence of a Pope with the claimed powers has brought about "unity in doctrine and ecclesial structure is achievable." I don't see it historically and I don't see it on the ground today. What I do see is a massive bureaucracy able to hide all sorts of abuses and structural weakness and a formal nod given to many things that a huge number do not believe. In short, I don't see that the bloated claims of the papacy have really provided much of value, but mainly smoke and mirrors.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-47251758772824589972009-12-07T13:00:14.478-05:002009-12-07T13:00:14.478-05:00From the Roman perspective:
Poetreader:
Perhaps ...From the Roman perspective:<br /><br />Poetreader:<br /><br />Perhaps the Anglicans (broadly understood) should demonstrate that at least some unity in doctrine and ecclesial structure is achievable without "... any of what the papacy claims for itself...", as you put it.Mark VAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-82586530221916672132009-12-07T11:42:47.425-05:002009-12-07T11:42:47.425-05:00I second the observations of "Canon Tallis&qu...I second the observations of "Canon Tallis", except that I must take firm exception with his assertion that "the great historians have pointed out that that their is very little probability that Peter was ever in Rome."<br /> It seems to be the universal consensus of the Church, East and West, that Peter was in Rome, acted as bishop there, and was martyred there. There is little reason to doubt this consensus even if there is not specific documentary evidence.<br /> What is certain, however, is that Peter did not found the Church in Rome. When Paul wrote to the Romans, the Church was already active there, and he, while greeting many members by name, did not mention either Peter or Cephas. What cannot be demonstrated is that Peter claimed for himself any of what the papacy claims for itself, or that such authority (even if he had it) was to be passed down to his successors there.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-26046387467944507092009-12-07T10:32:40.657-05:002009-12-07T10:32:40.657-05:00Jakian Thomist wrote, "I don't see the pe...Jakian Thomist wrote, "I don't see the persuasive argument that the Vincentian Interpretation has the equivalent of Peter's keys to loosen and bind."<br /><br />That is because he has overlooked the Gospel passages where Our Lord has promised His Church that the Holy Spirit will be with it, guiding it in all truth, until the end of the age.<br /><br />What St. Vincent did, unlike Pius IX, was not to create some new doctrine but, instead, simply to observe, analyze, and summarize the effects the Holy Spirit had already produced in the Church in the course of His fulfilling Christ's promise to that Church.<br /><br />Thus St. Vincent's "canon" is not the formulation of a dogma, it is a statement of fact. And, unlike Pius's elevation of himself to infallibility, it actually corresponds to observable reality.<br /><br />John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-28708625679538682452009-12-07T10:31:17.345-05:002009-12-07T10:31:17.345-05:00I made a visit to the Anglo-Catholic (which indeed...I made a visit to the Anglo-Catholic (which indeed should be titled the "Anglo-papist") and came away amazed those its owners should not be aware how much it displays the unattractiveness of their position. If they had any sense at all they would take it down as quickly as possible and deny that it had ever existed. But they won't. Why? Because they themselves as all believers in fairy tales so frequently do, they are unable to recognize that it is the wolf wearing grandma's nighty and nightcap.<br /><br />It is the same with Mark of the Roman perspective who will not peek into the writings of the fathers who very early stripped the consensus of the Fathers from the view that the bishop of Rome was solely the successor of St Peter when the great historians have pointed out that that their is very little probability that Peter was ever in Rome. The New Testament certainly does not locate him there.Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-41524783536497754372009-12-07T08:30:29.597-05:002009-12-07T08:30:29.597-05:00This morning's edition of "The Angl-Catho...This morning's edition of "The Angl-Catholic" has a couple of remarks comparing the Continuum jurisdictions to the various splinters of the English Nonjurors. Borrowing from the shallow concept "history repeats itself", they attempt to prove that the Continuum will, just like the despised Nonjurors, burn itself out through endless splintering.<br /><br />Currently, the splintering mostly seems to be going on in TAC/ACA.<br /><br />I will not waste time pointing out the differences in historical situations between the Nonjurors and the Continuum, nor will I mention that for all its alleged disappearance, the Nonjurors had lasting historical impact, laying the ground for later Catholic revivals. Think of that every time you sing Thomas Ken's LM Doxology.<br /><br />It is simply enough to mention that this argument proves too much. If "history repeats itself", what conclusions must we draw from the the degenerate Renaissance papacy, endless theological meanderings through the so-called development of doctrine, contemporary scandals both sexual and financial, etc etc.<br /><br />Historical analogies are rarely exact and, unfortunately, they work both ways.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com