Catholics CAN'T Answer This Question!!!

[redleghunter]

Rather, it is mainly from uncensored Catholic authors, and rejecting them as "weeds" and what they fin because they do not support the desired narrative you have swallowed is an argument against being a RC. Which means taking more time to reason with you and provide you with substantiation you do not want to hear is of questionable warrant, since you just dismiss it.

Considering you quote Cardinals Newman and Manning I find the charge interesting to say the least.

 

[redleghunter]

I doubt that the discussion would have taken the course it has, that's all.

I wouldn't.

 

[prodromos]

I seriously would not have thought such would be said by an Eastern Orthodox.

I don't understand. He asked a question. Would you have an issue with that?

 

[Albion]

But Arsenios was way off the subject with that line of thought. If it is agreed that God occasionally inspires individuals in one way or another these days, this does not mean that whatever it is should be added to the Bible! No one is saying that it should. That was just a bad way to try to undercut Sola Scripture.

 

[Arsenios]

I seriously would not have thought such would be said by an Eastern Orthodox.

It was a rhetorical question, based on the wording that criticized writers of the early Church whose writings were not included by the Church in its Biblical Canon - Where the poster called all those authors "uninspired"...

Context, my Brother, Context!

Although I must admit that I have expressed more scandalous thoughts than that one...

Mind you!

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

But Arsenios was way off the subject with that line of thought. If it is agreed that God occasionally inspires individuals in one way or another these days, this does not mean that whatever it is should be added to the Bible! No one is saying that it should. That was just a bad way to try to undercut Sola Scripture.

It was a rhetorical way of affirming Holy Tradition...

And was not a means of adding to the Canon of Scripture...

Sheesh, I say!

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Of course you - with your illogical non-dialectal polarized reasoning and reiterations of what has been refuted - have been purposely ignored (at least in direct responses) as warranted and forewarned. The latest example of your mentality (where in the Bible does it say that the Laying-on of Hands is a ritual form of Ordination?) is a protest as if the Bible does not say the laying on of hands is "the proper ritual form of ordination" - not simply "a ritual form" as in your reference - and is necessarily opposed to being the proper form of Ordination for presbuteros, while God can sovereignly ordain apostles and prophets as he did.

But did you not say that it is A RITUAL FORM of Ordination? And why now are you fleeing from that insertion of the word RITUAL by demonizing my way of argumentation? IF you are going to use a non-Biblical term while you are professing to uphold the Bible as the SUPREME AUTHORITY over men, and someone notices that you have done so, demonizing that someone is singularly not helpful in the course of discussion...

Nor, my Brother, did you address the exegesis I provided you of your own Bible quotation...

Instead you have attacked my character as I choose to discuss this matter with you...
May I assure you that I am a far, far greater reprobate than you can imagine...
That these petty crimes of argumentation do not even dent the surface of my sins...
And I deserve far, far worse than you can ever give me...
So I am grateful to you for your generosity of condemnation of my soul...
Yet even so, I would ask you to lessen this generosity you so generously bestow upon me...
Because doing so is not beneficial to your soul, because I am not your servant, but His...
And we are not to judge our brothers and sisters - God will judge...
I love you speaking from the Truth that God has given you Light to perceive...
Will you please forgive me my miscreantic ways and pray for me?
This will be far more beneficial to both our souls...

We are speaking here of the Household of the Ekklesia of God, and the manner within that Ekklesia in which the Laying On of Hands is Biblically prescribed as HOW the Grace of the Body of Christ is bestowed upon the Deacons, the Elders, and the Bishops... The Bible does not say it is a ritual - It simply records how it is done, and the History of the Apostolic Church for 2000 years affirms that this is the MEANS of that Ordination...

And that being the part of the imperfect body of the instruments through which God provided His pure word means that this corporate body is superior as the standard for Truth to what God effected and provided by this instrumentality of sinners.

We are but members of the Body of Christ, yes?
And that membership is conditional, is it not?
If we return like a dog to its own vomit and re-embrace our former sinful life...
Then we will forfeit the Gift of the Holy Spirit we were given in our Baptism into Christ...

Then we had the continued false dichotomies such as you have the Bible, I have God, as if they were mutually exclusive, in the context in which i spoke, and other like non-sense.

My Brother, it is you who argued for Biblical Supremacy and Biblical Authority over men, and it is I who argue for repentance as a way of life in the Ekklesia of God which wrote those very Holy Words... I am arguing for the Divine Ascent of the Penitent in Christ's Holy Body on this earth here and now... And you are arguing for the authority of the Book of God, and I for its Author... Yes, they go together, but the etiology is not as you suggest as you oppose Latin Papal Authoritarianism with your Bible Only Reformational Authoritarianism... I argue for the willful and voluntary self denial which we recorded IN the Bible as it is instructed by Christ in the Gospels, and then the taking up of our own cross, and then following Christ by imitating the Holy Ones in the Body of Christ who serve as examples to us all...

And before this we even had the blatant assertion that "conditional submission" to leadership was without ANY Biblical warrant, which assertion was what was exposed as being without warrant.

Well, I know that you did prove that premise to your own satisfaction, and yes, I confess, I proved mine to my satisfaction, but really, does this mean that one of us has won and the other has lost a silly argument about "conditional submission to Church leadereship" which term is not found in Scripture, but only Paul's instruction to the faithful in the process of maturation to be imitating him as he is imitating Christ?

Yes, you are and will be directly ignored as one unworthy of much time and needed energy. Which you should consider an act of mercy.

Condemning a brother in a discussion and telling him that ignoring him is an act of mercy on your part flies in the face of Scripture... Even Christ's very Words:

Luke 6:35-37
But love ye your enemies,
and do good,
and lend,
hoping for nothing again;
and your reward shall be great,
and ye shall be the children of the Highest:
for He is kind unto the unthankful
and to the evil.

Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged:
Condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned:
Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

Please forgive me and pray for me...

I thank God for you and your efforts here...

And I am praying for the restoration of your fading energy...

Arsenios

 

[redleghunter]

It was a rhetorical question, based on the wording that criticized writers of the early Church whose writings were not included by the Church in its Biblical Canon - Where the poster called all those authors "uninspired"...

Context, my Brother, Context!

Although I must admit that I have expressed more scandalous thoughts than that one...

Mind you!

Arsenios

Yes I understood the context but wanted you to clarify.

Therefore you see the commentaries and homilies of the ECFs as inspired Sacred Scriptures?

Please see why I asked.

 

[Arsenios]

Yes I understood the context but wanted you to clarify.

Therefore you see the commentaries and homilies of the ECFs as inspired Sacred Scriptures?

Please see why I asked.

I see them as holy and inspired and not a part of the Canon of the Bible.

Have you read Lossky's "The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church"?

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Yes I understood the context but wanted you to clarify.

Good... So I really like your picture of the painting of Christ in the Jordan being Baptized, but I am not seeing the Heavens opened and the Holy spirit in the Form of a Dove descending and abiding... I do see the Light shining on Him who is the Giver of Light and Life...

The river shifted its course and the site has been recently re-discovered through Bedouines living there and is being renovated...

Arsenios

 

[redleghunter]

I see them as holy and inspired and not a part of the Canon of the Bible.

Where does the Eastern Church draw the line on the works of the ECFs as infallible?

 

[prodromos]

Where does the Eastern Church draw the line on the works of the ECFs as infallible?

I suspect that there are two completely different mindsets at play here. We only consider God to be infallible, so your question doesn't really make any sense.

 

[redleghunter]

I suspect that there are two completely different mindsets at play here. We only consider God to be infallible, so your question doesn't really make any sense.

Let me clarify.

If the writings of the ECFs are holy and inspired but not canonical as @Arsenios stated, then are they infallible?

I'm sure the Eastern Orthodox consider Sacred Scriptures to be infallible. Sacred Scriptures are Holy and Holy Spirit inspired. Where do the ECFs stand on the infallible scale for their holy and inspired texts?

 

[Major1]

I don't think he has the better argument just a better debater . I still believe we have the better argument . Again God's word is interpreted differently among denominations and BYS is also a minimalist who denies there are different interpretations/doctrines/traditions amongst your churches. Truth is not divided, nor is it simplified to say ( all protestants ) believe they are saved by Grace through Faith through Jesus Christ and to heck with everything else . There are multiple variants of doctrine (interpretation of scripture ) among protestant churches and tradition ( interpretation of scripture in written form held over time ) . It all depends on who defines Truth . Truth demands one right answer . This is the achilles heal of all Protestant churches . This is were divisions come in . If someone doesn't like ones interpretation they start another Church or become their own authority/church of one, like BYS , who denies the christianity of other churches . This is not TRUTH . Pilate asked what is " truth " we all know Christ is " the way and the truth and the life . It doesn't end there nor does it mean truth is divided .Scripture is not self interpreting . It requires shepherds/teachers and one interpretation not multiple interpretations. Each church claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit . The Catholic Church claims this distinction and so do the Orthodox ( historically true ) and on it goes . But other churches either claim they have the truth or that no one has the full truth . Each Church must defend its interpretation of scripture . I believe the Catholic Church can do this through Holy Tradition ,scripture and the early Church Fathers. You must believe otherwise , claim there is no ultimate Church authority or claim the Holy Spirit has lead your church to ultimate truth ( which the RC Church also claims ) . But what you must also do is claim any scriptural/historical evidence that smells of Catholicism is not to be found anywhere or is false . And on it goes . To deny this reality is to deny the truth of reality .

By the way the Catholic Church recognizes your right be called Christian ( but outside the Church) , I am sure we will never get that the same respect as we give to you . The Orthodox believe you and RC's are heretics . Some evangelicals believe we Catholics /Orthodox are either Christians or not . And on it goes . I what I have written is the Truth . But on it goes .

What you are referred to out side of the RCC is totally your choice. IF.....IF you follow the teachings and doctrines of the Bible then you will be referred to as a Bible Christian.

If you do not then you can not be called that. It is that simple.

 

[Arsenios]

Let me clarify.

If the writings of the ECFs are holy and inspired but not canonical as @Arsenios stated, then are they infallible?

I'm sure the Eastern Orthodox consider Sacred Scriptures to be infallible. Sacred Scriptures are Holy and Holy Spirit inspired. Where do the ECFs stand on the infallible scale for their holy and inspired texts?

Podromos has it right - Only God is infallible, and that infallibility is ineffable...

I know, it does sound kinda Mysterious - And to this, I would reply:

"You had BETTER understand the Faith of Christ as a Mystery!"

If you drag your fallen carcass of human reasoning out and declare Christianity to be a logically provable belief system provable by the Bible, you will go the way of Spinoza, a dead and mostly forgotten philosopher who tried the same - Defined God he did - As "that than which nothing greated can be conceived"! Then devised corrolaries and deductive proofs... Lord have Mercy!

And besides, as Paul so simply wrote: "We are holding the Mystery of the Faith in a purified conscience..." And that is NOT a theoretical injunctive for your edification, but an empirical descriptive of HOW the Faith of Christ is HELD by those who are perfected (eg who have attained maturity) in the Body of Christ...

So it is a good thing to avoid seeking worldly authority on matters Ekklesiastic - You will find what you need in the Ekklesia of God...

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not some neo-scholastic theology course as it is found in the Catholic Catechism online and interpreted by Catholic Answers Forum, and ruled on by the College of Cardinals... Nor is it its counterpart, the Bible study group meeting on Wednesday's at 6AM with prayer session to follow... Where the University Theological Chairs and their Committees determine the meaning of Holy Writ... This whole line of thinking is utterly off the rails...

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is repentance - eg The Cross... sine qua non...

So yes, we DO take God as our ultimate Authority, and in terms found in the Bible, regarding the teachings, that translates to the Church, because the Church is the Body of Christ Who is HER Head [like man and wife, yes?] And this then is understood as the teaching of the ECF's, yes, and of all the CF's from the beginnings to the present day and hour... The Church is catholic, you see... It is the WHOLE of its history from the beginnings to the present - kat'holon in Greek... Those beliefs held at all times by all, and even includes implicit features of the Faith not dogmatized, but clearly present...

We do not see the Bible as infallible of itself, becuse it is written by fallible and holy men of God at His behest, but, (and this is the but that gets trashed in the Sola Scriptura nonsense, but) PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD, the Bible is utterly True and is the Holy Book of God... That proper understanding comes to man by living a life of repentance in the Holy Body of Christ of which we are members, because THAT is the manner of life by which God chose His Holy Men to write it... Perfected in the actual and physical praxis of the Faith of Christ... Where Paul writes of them "We have the nous (mind) of Christ..." and for these, "to live is Christ, and to die is gain"... And "I die every day"...

Our Salvation is to be found in the discipling of the Apostolic Church that God charged with Baptizing the Nations into Christ and to be teaching them to be carefully observing ALL He had taught them to be conscientiously and fully observing... So for each of us, our job as a disciple of Christ is to make the Gospel real in our own flesh... To become through it purged from sin and turned to God in His Body, the Ekklesia of God... And what God does with us in that quest is God's to direct, and to give, and for us to do...

And if we persevere in this great effort to the end of our lives, we will be Saved by God...

Indeed in that effort, an effort of violence I should add, we are attaining in an earnest the Kingdom of Heaven in this life on earth... "That your Joy may be Full..."

If your life is not a God-quest, then you are not living a Christian life...

Arsenios

 

[Albion]

We do not see the Bible as infallible of itself, becuse it is written by fallible and holy men of God at His behest, but, (and this is the but that gets trashed in the Sola Scriptura nonsense, but) PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD, the Bible is utterly True and is the Holy Book of God.

My own opinion is that this so-called discussion has gone on too long, but the comment above is one that absolutely amazes me and has done so every one of the hundred or so times that, in my memory, it has been utilized around here by various posters.

Is the problem that you do not know what Sola Scriptura means, despite the many times it has been explained...or is the problem just that it is too good a piece of spin, of religious propaganda, to give up??

 

[redleghunter]

So yes, we DO take God as our ultimate Authority, and in terms found in the Bible, regarding the teachings, that translates to the Church, because the Church is the Body of Christ Who is HER Head [like man and wife, yes?] And this then is understood as the teaching of the ECF's, yes, and of all the CF's from the beginnings to the present day and hour... The Church is catholic, you see... It is the WHOLE of its history from the beginnings to the present - kat'holon in Greek... Those beliefs held at all times by all, and even includes implicit features of the Faith not dogmatized, but clearly present...

We do not see the Bible as infallible of itself, becuse it is written by fallible and holy men of God at His behest, but, (and this is the but that gets trashed in the Sola Scriptura nonsense, but) PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD, the Bible is utterly True and is the Holy Book of God... That proper understanding comes to man by living a life of repentance in the Holy Body of Christ of which we are members, because THAT is the manner of life by which God chose His Holy Men to write it... Perfected in the actual and physical praxis of the Faith of Christ... Where Paul writes of them "We have the nous (mind) of Christ..." and for these, "to live is Christ, and to die is gain"... And "I die every day"...

Fully understand what you are communicating. Only exception is where do the entire works of the church fathers rate on infallible teachings.

For example, we take keen note St John Chrysostom clearly exegeted from Paul's epistles that we are justified by faith alone or solely or apart from our works. Yet as a sinful man he did write Against the Jews which many see as anti-Semitic. Same could be said of other church fathers and on the Prot side for Luther as well.

I take it even though a man like Chrysostom was pious and considered holy, he did have his own failings. Yet you stated these ECF writings were holy and inspired. Was this conditional and if so what basis do we have to judge what was holy and inspired with what is not.

Put clearly what transcendent standard do the Eastern Orthdox use to determine ECF truth claims? This includes when they disagree (and many of them do) with each other?

 

[Arsenios]

My own opinion is that this so-called discussion has gone on too long, but the comment above is one that absolutely amazes me and has done so every one of the hundred or so times that, in my memory, it has been utilized around here by various posters.

Well, we don't worship a Book... We worship God... The Book is a part of worship, and edification, and reproof...

Is the problem that you do not know what Sola Scriptura means, despite the many times it has been explained...?

Well, it is true that I have never understood its hundred or so explanations... I know that the words mean Scripture Alone... And that is just not true...

or is the problem just that it is too good a piece of spin, of religious propaganda, to give up??

Actually, I simply decided to throw the fact that the Bible is written by fallible men, albiet holy men of God, into the discussion because of the Protestant deification of the Bible and then their usage of it to bludgeon their religious opponents... So it was more of a point of argumentation than one of epistemological absolutism...

But the point is valid - ONLY God is foundational, not the Bible - Because the Bible is but one element of the witness of God upon this earth... Another is creation itself... Another is the Body of Christ... Another is man himself in his fallen state... The very existence of evil bears witness to God and the Fall of man from Him...

The fact is that the Ekklesia of God, Which is the Church, IS the Holy People of God, tares and all... So that our Faith is not in the Ekklesia's hierarchical membership, where we start out so low on the "corporate ladder of success", (God forbid!) but in the Ekklesia itself under the God Who is Her Head...

The Symbol of the Faith begins:
I believe in One God...
And in One Lord...
And in the Holy Spirit...
And in one, holy, catholic and Apostolic Church...

Christians in the 4th century believed in the Church...
We still do in the 21st century...
As did Paul and the rest of the Ekklesia in the 1st century...

Believe the Bible - You do well...
But believe in God...
Do not believe in the Bible...
The Holy Book is still a book...
An image of God, but still an image...
It is not God...

Talking like that tends to stir up many who believe the Bible is the Word of God...
We believe Christ is the Word of God...
They are not co-equivalent...

Christ did not come to earth to write a book...
He came to establish His Ekklesia upon the earth...
The Holy Book was written for the sake of the Ekklesia...
It was written BY the Ekklesia at God's behest...
The Ekklesia is not established for the sake of the Book...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Fully understand what you are communicating.

Orthodox Christians LIVE what we communicate, at least insofar as we manage to avoid being reprobates!

Only exception is where do the entire works of the church fathers rate on infallible teachings.

Re-read Podromos - You have an entirely different phronema of understanding that makes this question on "infallible teachings" absolutely essential to your faith, and utter nonsense to the Faith of Christ.

For example, we take keen note: St John Chrysostom clearly exegeted from Paul's Epistles that we are justified by faith alone or solely or apart from our works.

Then you entirely mis-understand St. John C. We are justified by God, not by our personal faith or our works... We are justified THROUGH the Faith of Christ which He discipled to His Apostles who in their turn discipled all the nations... This is why the Bible is only understood through the life one has in the Ekklesia of God, and even then one is fully capable of errors in underestanding... None of which are all that lethal, because the Faith of Christ, which is essentially repentance, denying self and taking up one's cross, the preaching of Paul: Christ and Him Crucified, the DOING of the COMMANDMENT of the Gospel of Christ within the Ekklesia of Christ, is pretty much self-correcting - Even if Satan did manage to get some heretics through into the hierarchy, where they weere spat out...

Yet as a sinful man he did write Against the Jews which many see as anti-Semitic. Same could be said of other church fathers and on the Prot side for Luther as well.

This is why we look to "those precepts which have been received by the whole Church from the beginnings to now"... - And this standard condemns Papal innovations beginning with the Filioque, and more or less ending with the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos... Just as it condemns the solas... And guitars at the Holy Altar... And plastic baby dolls at the altar, for that matter...

I take it even though a man like Chrysostom was pious and considered holy, he did have his own failings.

So did David the adulterer and murderer... And killer of Goliath... And writer of the Psalms...

Yet Chrysostom moved on through repentance, horrific persecutions, and martyrdom... To die in a far land in wretched conditions of sickness and labors and persecutions... He was a holier man than you can imagine - Indeed that can be imagined... For imagination fails in understanding such holiness... His last words as he was breathing his last were: "Glory to God in all things..."

Yet you stated these ECF writings were holy and inspired.

Of course they are holy and inspired... But like the Bible, they are subject to massive mal-interpretation by those who are not living holy lives in the Ekklesia of God, the Church...

Was this conditional and if so what basis do we have to judge what was holy and inspired with what is not.

In terms of the teachings of the Church, those teachings are accepted which have been held in the Church at all times by all...

Put clearly what transcendent standard do the Eastern Orthdox use to determine ECF truth claims? This includes when they disagree (and many of them do) with each other?

We have Holy Tradition, established in the first 7 Ecumenical Councils of the Church, of which the Biblical Canon is included, and then we have local pious traditions, and where Church Fathers have differing views, we call these pious opinions - theologoumenoi - And we understand them through these conflicting lenses...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Fully understand what you are communicating.

So I have a question about your beautiful painting - Where the Golden Light is illuminating our Lord being Baptized by the hands of John the Baptist - A question to you, O Hunter of the infamous Red Legs!

Have you ever SEEN such Light with your eyes?

Or do you regard it as un-see-able and merely symbolic?

Or present but invisible?

I like that painting a lot...

Arsenios