In a sense that's correct, but then it's true about everything, and thus uninteresting. It's like Van Til's "all reasoning is circular." It's true as far as it goes, but not helpful.
In a sense that's correct, but then it's true about everything, and thus uninteresting. It's like Van Til's "all reasoning is circular." It's true as far as it goes, but not helpful.
Yes, but then I'm saying I don't appeal first to the Fathers; I'm more inclined to appeal to Magdalene's first witness to the Resurrection, which I believe is still available to us all. And that's an independent phenomenological basis of direct verification of what the faith is. So you may call that a sort of Protestant, if you want, or something I think the Protestants got right.
Actually it's not independent, because without the Fathers we'd have no record of Mary Magdalene's witness, or the Holy Spirit's explanation of it. The Scriptures are the Church's book -- they weren't delivered to individual believers in isolation.
I believe the nexus of revelation itself is unconditioned and independent, operating in a vertical dimension that has no need of historical transmission. But would we know wiithout any historical or cultural context that what we see is the risen Jesus, or that Magdalene saw Him first?тАФof course not. Those are two separate questions. But I think the original thing in itselfтАФthe eventтАФis antecedent of any institution in this world that calls itself the Church. In a way, they claim an awful lot of authority for just delivering a newspaper.
If it wasn't for the Church we'd have no knowledge of the event, so in that sense it's moot. The Church pre-existed the written record by what, 20 or 30 years, and the texts were shaped and formed in its matrix. Hardly just a delivery boy (or girl, more accurately)!
Mostly for the metaphysics and the Liturgy and the Eucharist, I guess. I phenomenologically drift to where the magic's at. And I'm Eastern CatholicтАФnot a fan of Rome.
Most of my epistemology is from Kierkegaard and has to do with the axiomatic nature of what we consider final authority: at some point, we must choose a thing we cannot prove. And on that front, I could be described as an intuitionist.
In a sense that's correct, but then it's true about everything, and thus uninteresting. It's like Van Til's "all reasoning is circular." It's true as far as it goes, but not helpful.
Yes, but then I'm saying I don't appeal first to the Fathers; I'm more inclined to appeal to Magdalene's first witness to the Resurrection, which I believe is still available to us all. And that's an independent phenomenological basis of direct verification of what the faith is. So you may call that a sort of Protestant, if you want, or something I think the Protestants got right.
Actually it's not independent, because without the Fathers we'd have no record of Mary Magdalene's witness, or the Holy Spirit's explanation of it. The Scriptures are the Church's book -- they weren't delivered to individual believers in isolation.
I believe the nexus of revelation itself is unconditioned and independent, operating in a vertical dimension that has no need of historical transmission. But would we know wiithout any historical or cultural context that what we see is the risen Jesus, or that Magdalene saw Him first?тАФof course not. Those are two separate questions. But I think the original thing in itselfтАФthe eventтАФis antecedent of any institution in this world that calls itself the Church. In a way, they claim an awful lot of authority for just delivering a newspaper.
If it wasn't for the Church we'd have no knowledge of the event, so in that sense it's moot. The Church pre-existed the written record by what, 20 or 30 years, and the texts were shaped and formed in its matrix. Hardly just a delivery boy (or girl, more accurately)!
I dunnoтАФword gets around. And anyway, now we all know, right? So good job, Church! Five stars, I swear.
Very Protestant understanding of the Church you've got. Makes me wonder why you're Catholic.
Mostly for the metaphysics and the Liturgy and the Eucharist, I guess. I phenomenologically drift to where the magic's at. And I'm Eastern CatholicтАФnot a fan of Rome.
I would have thought that epistemology would figure in there somewhere.
Most of my epistemology is from Kierkegaard and has to do with the axiomatic nature of what we consider final authority: at some point, we must choose a thing we cannot prove. And on that front, I could be described as an intuitionist.
I've never read Kierkegaard, but that looks spot-on to me. Basically it comes down to that you have to start somewhere.