Sunday, June 06, 2010

Tu es Petrus & Co.

Here's a comment that's worth posting:


Once we start playing "Here's how the Bible would have to read for Catholicism to be consistent with its own holy book", there's the weekend gone.

You start off with, eg, "For you are Peter, and on the rock of Peter and his duly-ordained successors I will build my only (visible) church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it for more than 20 or maybe 25 years at a time on any really important matter pertaining to faith and morals (as distinct from economic, social or political questions); and I will give you, Peter, and your successors (not anyone else) the keys to the kingdom of heaven, so that whatsoever you bind on earth (except, of course, for ordaining women), but again only in relation to faith and morals, shall be bound in heaven..." and you end up with having to re-write the Transfiguration so that when Peter suggests building three tabernacles, Jesus pats him on the head and says "Finally! We're getting there!" Meanwhile, your tax return isn't getting done.


  1. "except, of course, for ordaining women"

    Whoa Nellie! Now that particular Catholic teaching is Scripturally-based!


  2. You know, I grew up thinking it really said that!

  3. Uh, thanks. Meant to say "to be consistent". The original credit for this goes to Josh "Fearsome Pirate" Strodbeck, who had a blogpost or two on "Rewriting Scripture for Theological Consistency" where he did the same for Calvinists, Baptists, Penties, and his own Lutheran tribe. Mind you, Catholicism needs more rewriting than any Protestant church does. It goes beyond quibbles over "How can Sola Scriptura possibly be true if the New Testament omits the rules of order followed at the Council of Jerusalem, and is silent on whether Peter had red hair?" and gets to the central point: that for Catholicism to claim the Hebrew Bible (even with the Apocrypha) and the NT as its holy books (without alleging they've been textually corrupted, as the Muslims and Mormons allege) is like claiming that the US Constitution sets up a governmental structure whereby the Clerk of the Senate, when acting in concert with the Council of Lords, exercises infallible final authority (potestas) over every one of the USA's seventy-three Autonomous Republics during her non-renewable nine-year term. The vagueness of the phrase "due process of law" notwithstanding.

  4. That's the Newman Gambit: "The Gospels don't specify the precise number of wise men at the manager: so how can you possibly deny the Immaculate Conception?!" By the way, is there any way to upload a JPEG to these comboxes?

  5. TOM R SAID:

    "Uh, thanks. Meant to say 'to be consistent.'"

    I just now made the editorial correction.