A Little Clarification is DEFINATELY Needed

[Filia Mariae]

Somewhere, sometime you may see someone use the following quote as an argument against the Catholic position and claim of doctrinal unity.

Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379): Liberated from the error of
pagan tradition through the benevolence and loving kindness
of the good God, with the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
by the operation of the Holy Spirit, I was reared from the very
beginning by Christian parents. From them I learned even in
babyhood the Holy Scriptures which led me to a knowledge of
the truth. When I grew to manhood, I traveled about frequently
and, in the natural course of things, I engaged in a great many
worldly affairs. Here I observed that the most harmonious
relations existed among those trained in the pursuit of each of
the arts and sciences; while in the Church of God alone, for
which Christ died and upon which He poured out in
abundance the Holy Spirit, I noticed that many disagree
violently with one another and also in their understanding of
the Holy Scriptures. Most alarming of all is the fact that I found
the very leaders of the Church themselves at such variance
with one another in thought and opinion, showing so much
opposition to the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so
mercilessly rendering asunder the Church of God and cruelly
confounding His flock that, in our day, with the rise of the
Anomoeans, there is fulfilled in them as never before the
prophecy, ‘Of your own selves shall men arise speaking
perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.’
Witnessing such disorders as these and perplexed as to what
the cause and source of such evil might be, I at first was in a
state, as it were, of thick darkness and, as if on a balance, I
veered now this way, now that—attracted now to one man,
now to another, under the influence of protracted association
with these persons, and then thrust in the other direction, as I
bethought myself of the validity of the Holy Scriptures. After a
long time spent in this state of indecision and while I was still
busily searching for the cause I have mentioned, there came to
my mind the Book of Judges which tells how each man did
what was right in his own eyes and gives the reason for this in
the words” ‘In those days there was no king in Israel.’ With
these words in my mind, then, I applied also to the present
circumstances that explanation which, incredible and
frightening as it may be, is quite truly pertinent when it is
understood; for never before has there arisen such discord
and quarreling as now among the the members of the Church
in consequence of their turning away from the one, great, and
true God, only King of the universe. Each man, indeed,
abandons the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ and arrogates
to himself authority in dealing with certain questions, making
his own private rules, and preferring to exercise leadership in
opposition to the Lord to being led by the Lord. Reflecting
upon this and aghast at the magnitude of the impiety, I
pursued my investigation further and became convinced that
the aforesaid cause was no less the true source also of secular
difficulties. I noticed that as long as the common obedience of
the others to some one leader was maintained, all was
discipline and harmony in the whole group; but that division
and discord and a rivalry of leaders besides proceeded from a
lack of leadership. Moreover, I once had observed how even a
swarm of bees, in accordance with a law of nature, lives under
military discipline and obeys its own king with orderly
precision. Many such instances have I witnessed and many
others I have heard of, and persons who make profession of
such matters know many more still, so that they can vouch for
the truth of what I have said. Now, if good order with its
attendant harmony is characteristic of those who look to one
source of authority and are subject to one king, then universal
disorder and disharmony are a sign that leadership is wanting.
By the same token, if we discover in our midst such a lack of
accord as I have mentioned, both with regard to one another
and with respect to the Lord’s commands, it would be an
indictment either of our rejection of the true king, according
to the Scriptural saying: ‘only that he who now holdeth, do
hold, until he be taken out of the way,’ or of denial of Him
according to the Psalmist: ‘The fool hath said in his heart:
There is no God.’ And as a kind of token or proof of this, there
follow the words: ‘They are corrupt and are become
abominable in their ways.’ Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9,
Preface on the Judgment of God (New York: Fathers of the
Church, Inc., 1950), pp. 37-39.

Basil was writing during the period in which Arianism was wildly popular. I don't know if this particular passage refers specifically to Arianism, but for the sake of illustrative purposes, I am going to expound a bit on Arianism. For those who do not know, Arianism was a heresy named for its founder Arius, a Libyan priest. Arianism falsely asserted that Jesus could not have been fully God since there was only one eternal God (the Father). Arianism denied the Trinity.

Arius was a strikingly charismatic speaker, so his heresy spread far and wide, becoming immensely popular.

Ecclesiastical councils could not resolve the issue, because they could not come to an agreement. Some synods affirmed this heresy, others denied it.

Only one institution stood firmly in opposition to the heresy of Arianism.
The papacy.

Arianism was defeated in 381 at the Second General Council of the Church.

The point is, Church leaders can, do, and have disagreed over points of doctrine. In the past, some such disagreements were over heresies so large they denied the truth of the Trinity. Were it not for the authoritative voice of the Pope, it is possible that the Truth of the Trinity could have disappeared from Christian doctrine. Church leaders may in fact disagree- THAT is why we have a Pope.

The devil will fight viciously against Christ's Church, but we can rejoice in the knowledge that though the devil may use the Church's shepards as his own instruments at times, the gates of hell will never prevail, Jesus will lead us into ALL truth, lead by the Rock on which our Lord and Savior built His Church- St. Peter.

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

The unity of the Catholic Church is the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[BBAS 64]

Somewhere, sometime you may see someone use the following quote as an argument against the Catholic position and claim of doctrinal unity.


Basil was writing during the period in which Arianism was wildly popular. I don't know if this particular passage refers specifically to Arianism, but for the sake of illustrative purposes, I am going to expound a bit on Arianism. For those who do not know, Arianism was a heresy named for its founder Arius, a Libyan priest. Arianism falsely asserted that Jesus could not have been fully God since there was only one eternal God (the Father). Arianism denied the Trinity.

Good Day, Carly

If it is clearly show in context that Basil was not connecting this writing with Arianism, would that help you to end some of the speculations you seem to convey? It is true that Arianism was a problem for the Christians of that time and Basil was not amune to the problem and did address it some other works quite directly with great clearity of mind.

Basil:

"But all who maintain that either Son or Spirit is a creature, or absolutely reduce the Spirit to ministerial and servile rank, are far removed from the truth. Flee their communion. Turn away from their teaching, They are destructive to souls. If ever the Lord grant us to meet, I will discourse to you further concerning the faith, to the end that you may perceive at once the power of the truth and the rottenness of heresy by Scriptural proof." (Letter 105)

Arius was a strikingly charismatic speaker, so his heresy spread far and wide, becoming immensely popular.

Ecclesiastical councils could not resolve the issue, because they could not come to an agreement. Some synods affirmed this heresy, others denied it.

Only one institution stood firmly in opposition to the heresy of Arianism.
The papacy.

Arianism was defeated in 381 at the Second General Council of the Church.

The point is, Church leaders can, do, and have disagreed over points of doctrine. In the past, some such disagreements were over heresies so large they denied the truth of the Trinity. Were it not for the authoritative voice of the Pope, it is possible that the Truth of the Trinity could have disappeared from Christian doctrine. Church leaders may in fact disagree- THAT is why we have a Pope.

Carly,

If it ever arose where 2 differnet popes held 2 views of the same issue , let us say one pope wrote about an isuue in the 6 th century and took his position on the issue. Then in the 12 th century another pope in his writing clearly takes a contray view as his own, whom would you beleive and why?


I can not recall in any thing I have read that the trinity fell out of normal Christain doctrine if this has happened please correct me.

The devil will fight viciously against Christ's Church, but we can rejoice in the knowledge that though the devil may use the Church's shepards as his own instruments at times, the gates of hell will never prevail, Jesus will lead us into ALL truth, lead by the Rock on which our Lord and Savior built His Church- St. Peter.

Carly,

This is certainly not a surprize that the exergesis you apply to Matt 16:18. Do happen to know where I can get the offical view from the RCC as it applies to this verse and any exergesis notations around the positive and negitive historical view of said verse?

Peace to u,

BBAS

 

[raptor13]

If it ever arose where 2 differnet popes held 2 views of the same issue , let us say one pope wrote about an isuue in the 6 th century and took his position on the issue. Then in the 12 th century another pope in his writing clearly takes a contray view as his own, whom would you beleive and why?

It depends on what the "issue" is. If it a matter of faith and morals and is said ex cathedra, then the popes shouldn't be contradicting each other in the first place.

If it is anything other than concerning the faith and morals of the universal church, then no one is bound to have to believe what either say.

Personally, I would find out what the current pope says on the matter. After all, the 6th century pope was speaking to the 6th century, and the 12th century pope was speaking to the 12th century, but I am in the 21st century, and i would listen to what my 21st pope has to say.

I can not recall in any thing I have read that the trinity fell out of normal Christain doctrine if this has happened please correct me.

What? U mean like Unitarianism?

 

[BBAS 64]

It depends on what the "issue" is. If it a matter of faith and morals and is said ex cathedra, then the popes shouldn't be contradicting each other in the first place.

Good day Raptor13

Thanks for you imput on this matter. How would you descripe "faith and Morals"?

If it is anything other than concerning the faith and morals of the universal church, then no one is bound to have to believe what either say.

Personally, I would find out what the current pope says on the matter. After all, the 6th century pope was speaking to the 6th century, and the 12th century pope was speaking to the 12th century, but I am in the 21st century, and i would listen to what my 21st pope has to say.

I can completly understand what you mean here. We are taking about truth here so I think we can agree that it is not subjective?

Humor me for a bit if you would:

6th century- pope A claims it is "X"
11 th- pope B claims it is "Y"

Now you are in the 21 st century and rightly so you go to pope C and he claims it is "X" also, But in doing so he has not dealt with the error he precived to be inherent with the "Y". So do you dismiss the "Y" as not being true or having any merit in logic or the search for truth?

What? U mean like Unitarianism?

Raptor, Not Exactly Unitarianism the problem there is bigger that the trintiy IMO.

Peace to u,


BBAS

 

[Polycarp1]

As I understand it, the Pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra on a matter of faith or morals, formally teaching what the Church must believe after Catholic theologians have reviewed and examined the issue thoroughly. He will teach with varying levels of authority in other matters; this constitutes the Magisterium of the Church, which hopefully a learned Catholic will speak with more clarity about.

Any given Pope may be mistaken when he states an opinion simply as a human being or in what's called "the ordinary Magisterium," and a later Pope or General Council may reverse that teaching on the basis of more thorough examination of the issue.

One of the things that led to the recognition of the Pope as leader among the bishops in the early, undivided Church is the historical fact, fully acknowledged by Orthodox, Anglicans, and Protestants, that with one exception, quickly reversed by the next Pope, the Pope of the time never taught heresy, even in a fallible mode, during the assortment of controversies that plagued the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Century Church.

For the record, St. Athanasius was also strong to speak out against Arianism, and the Popes of the period, none of them being the incisive theologian that Athanasius was, tended to use his arguments in standing firm against Arianism.

 

[Michelina]

As I understand it, the Pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra on a matter of faith or morals, formally teaching what the Church must
believe....

Any given Pope may be mistaken when he states an opinion simply as a human being or in what's called "the ordinary Magisterium,"

A papal opinion, per se, is not part of the Ordinary Magisterium, Poly. It is part of the Ord. Mag. when it faithfully echoes the Ord. Mag. Otherwise, it is simply considered a 'sententia' (opinion).

...For the record, St. Athanasius was also strong to speak out against Arianism, and the Popes of the period, none of them being the incisive theologian that Athanasius was, tended to use his arguments in standing firm against Arianism.

Glad you mentioned that so I didn't have to. Athanasius conducted a one man war vs. Arianism. You may sometimes see in Western texts the phrase "Athanasius contra mundum" because that magnificent Eastern Father stood against a horde of opponents. Most folks don't know that on the far end of the basilica of St Peter, beyond the baldochino on the 'back wall', there is a depiction in sculpture of the 'sedis' (seat) of St. Peter, upheld by two Bishops. The two Bishops (and Fathers) are St. Ambrose and St. Athanasius, representing the Western and the Eastern Fathers who defended the function of the Papacy more eloquently than any of the others.

It could very well be said that Athanasius led the Body of Christ thru the greatest heretical crisis in our history (until Modernism).

In re: the question of this thread: "Church Unity" does not mean that there have not been constant disagreements within the Church. There have been and always will be people 'with itching ears'.

CCC 813:
The Church is one because of her source: "the highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit." The Church is one because of her founder: for "the Word made flesh, the prince of peace, reconciled all men to God by the cross, . . . restoring the unity of all in one people and one body."260 The Church is one because of her "soul": "It is the Holy Spirit, dwelling in those who believe and pervading and ruling over the entire Church, who brings about that wonderful communion of the faithful and joins them together so intimately in Christ that he is the principle of the Church's unity."Unity is of the essence of the Church:

What an astonishing mystery! There is one Father of the universe, one Logos of the universe, and also one Holy Spirit, everywhere one and the same; there is also one virgin become mother, and I should like to call her "Church." St. Clement of Alexandria

 

[OrthodoxTexan]

Quick question, exactly how many ex cathedra declarations have been made by the Popes since the Doctrine of Infallability was dogmatized? How do you identify an ex cathedra declaration, and differentiate it from a "fallible" declaration. Is there a certain protocol that is followed for ex cathedra declarations?

Thanks

 

[Michelina]

Quick question, exactly how many ex cathedra declarations have been made by the Popes since the Doctrine of Infallability was dogmatized? How do you identify an ex cathedra declaration, and differentiate it from a "fallible" declaration. Is there a certain protocol that is followed for ex cathedra declarations?

Tex, you must examine the language of the declaration. (It must be declarative.)

Ex cathedra means: formally, as chief Pastor of the universal Church.
When the Pope speaks ex cathedra, with the intention of issuing the final word on a controverted issue (and this intention is clearly stated in his formulation or by the circumstances), invoking his supreme apostolic authority, he teaches infallibly.

These are not strictly required for infallibility, but are sometimes present:
(1) reference to the 'well-being' of the Church
(2) mentioning his consultation with the other Bps. and members of the Church.


OFF the top of my head: There aren't that many instances of it, unless you count the decrees of Councils which he must sign for them to be valid.

The Immaculate Conception, 1854, before formal recognition of his infallibility by Vat I.
The Assumption.
Humanae Vitae.
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

 

[OrthodoxTexan]

OFF the top of my head: There aren't that many instances of it, unless you count the decrees of Councils which he must sign for them to be valid.

The Immaculate Conception, 1854, before formal recognition of his infallibility by Vat I.
The Assumption.
Humanae Vitae.
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

Thanks for the response.

 

[Filia Mariae]

Some people have expressed a concern that we do not know if Basil was referring to Arianism or not. In order that my post not be "nonsensical" , allow me to clarify.

It doesn't really matter because Arianism isn't my point. My point was merely to show that within the Church, there have always been disagreements about doctrine and other matters, and that Catholics do not debate this.

However, we have always had a pope led by the Holy Spirit to guide us into Truth. The positions of individuals within the Church may be at odds with one another, but the Church is unified in constantly proclaiming the one Truth.

The Church herself does not proclaim many competing philosophies, members of the Church stray from her proclamation of the Truth and proclaim heresies such as Arianism.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Carly is correct. The entire reason Jesus set up someone on earth to settle any disputes is because He knew that as humans we would have disputes.

 

[Bastoune]

Each part of the Body works in conjunction with each other, not against each other. Even the "dialogues" in disagreements occur to sift and discern the Truth, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in the Unity of the Body of Christ. For one part to say to another, "I don't need you" is insane and unbiblical.

Great thread, Carly!

 

[Michelina]

Carly is correct. The entire reason Jesus set up someone on earth to settle any disputes is because He knew that as humans we would have disputes.

How could He have possibly known?

 

[BBAS 64]

Carly is correct. The entire reason Jesus set up someone on earth to settle any disputes is because He knew that as humans we would have disputes.

Good Day, Dof

For the sake of unity here I will give in on this "need that God forsaw" for the NT church as you arrive to your definition of the church.

I have a question as it relates to the chosen people of God the Jews. In the OT what was the means and manner in which these disputes "Relgious" where handled in such a manner for the sake of the Historical accuracy of the Traditions and practices of the Jew "infallible" in the realm of Faith and Morals.


Thank you,

BBAS

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Good Day, Dof

For the sake of unity here I will give in on this "need that God forsaw" for the NT church as you arrive to your definition of the church.

I have a question as it relates to the chosen people of God the Jews. In the OT what was the means and manner in which these disputes "Relgious" where handled in such a manner for the sake of the Historical accuracy of the Traditions and practices of the Jew "infallible" in the realm of Faith and Morals.


Thank you,

BBAS

Glad you asked...but you are not going to like the answer. Let's turn to our Blessed Lord's words...

Jesus affirms that the religious leaders, while many are corrupt, teach with the truth and authority of the seat of Moses, even if they don't live up to its moral standards, and the people must obey what they teach.

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Parisees sit in Moses' seat: "All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, observe and do; but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not." - Matthew 23:1-3

So according to your God, Jesus of Nazareth, the Jews were supposed to listen to PEOPLE that sat in the seat of Moses...sound familiar?

 

[Michelina]

For the sake of unity here I will give in on this "need that God forsaw" for the NT church as you arrive to your definition of the church.
I have a question as it relates to the chosen people of God the Jews. In the OT what was the means and manner in which these disputes "Relgious" where handled in such a manner for the sake of the Historical accuracy of the Traditions and practices of the Jew "infallible" in the realm of Faith and Morals...

DELETED, because Defensor Fidei said it better
and he types faster.

 

[Filia Mariae]

Apparently it's still nonsensical.

 

[BBAS 64]

Glad you asked...but you are not going to like the answer. Let's turn to our Blessed Lord's words...

Jesus affirms that the religious leaders, while many are corrupt, teach with the truth and authority of the seat of Moses, even if they don't live up to its moral standards, and the people must obey what they teach.

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Parisees sit in Moses' seat: "All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, observe and do; but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not." - Matthew 23:1-3

So according to your God, Jesus of Nazareth, the Jews were supposed to listen to PEOPLE that sat in the seat of Moses...sound familiar?

Good Day, DOF

I guess I was some what unclear would you please provide some OT verse to support you idea. The time it would take to come to the correct understanding in the struture of the Jewish people from a civics perspective is long and varied. The requirement of clear understanding would take much OT history of the Jews in the time of Moses and the structure of a civil govenment at the time of the Exodus as it relates to Matt 23:1-3. I could try to recommed some fine Jewish teachers to help you in this endovor if you would like I must warn you it is long and sometimes confusing IMHO.

I guess the long and the short of it is appling your 21 st century meaning into a phase you see as "seat" and what you presups tell you it means. May cause ramification to the whole of the historical reprsentations of the idea of the "seat". Thus invaildating the true Historical and traditional meaning with great injustice and malice.


Thank you,

BBAS

 

[Michelina]

Dear BBAS,
I am puzzled by your response to Defensor Fidei's post. He wrote:

Jesus affirms that the religious leaders, while many are corrupt, teach with the truth and authority of the seat of Moses, even if they don't live up to its moral standards, and the people must obey what they teach.
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Parisees sit in Moses' seat: "All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, observe and do; but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not." - Matthew 23:1-3

So according to your God, Jesus of Nazareth, the Jews were supposed to listen to PEOPLE that sat in the seat of Moses...sound familiar?

You do not respond to what he said, especially his quotation of the words of Our Lord Himself, nor address the implication of the quotation "according to your God, Jesus of Nazareth, the Jews were supposed to listen to PEOPLE that sat in the seat of Moses...sound familiar?"

No offense, dear brother BB, I have seen you do this before. You come onto a OBOB thread, ask a question, and then ignore the answer(s). Then you proceed to write something that seems (to me) rather convoluted and irrelevant.

Instead of answering what he said, you post the following:

I guess I was some what unclear would you please provide some OT verse to support your idea. The time it would take to come to the correct understanding in the struture of the Jewish people from a civics perspective is long and varied. The requirement of clear understanding would take much OT history of the Jews in the time of Moses and the structure of a civil govenment at the time of the Exodus as it relates to Matt 23:1-3. I could try to recommed some fine Jewish teachers to help you in this endeavor if you would like. I must warn you it is long and sometimes confusing IMHO.

I guess the long and the short of it is appling your 21 st century meaning into a phase you see as "seat" and what you presups tell you it means. May cause ramification to the whole of the historical reprsentations of the idea of the "seat". Thus invaildating the true Historical and traditional meaning with great injustice and malice.

We're not all on the same wavelength here, are we BB?

I especially don't get your last line:

"Thus invaildating the true Historical and traditional meaning with great injustice and malice."

What malice?

I don't follow your reasoning.

Maybe it's just me.