Catholics CAN'T Answer This Question!!!

[redleghunter]

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..

Therefore the Sacred Scriptures are subject to your Holy Traditon.
Thanks that clarified a lot.

 

[redleghunter]

Have you ever SEEN such Light with your eyes?

Yes indeed. With the eyes which truly see. (Matthew 13:16).

However what is important is how our light shines before others. (Matthew 5:16)

 

[prodromos]

Therefore the Sacred Scriptures are subject to your Holy Traditon.

Protestant interpretation of Scripture is subject to their own traditions. They just don't like to admit it.

 

[Arsenios]

Therefore the Sacred Scriptures are subject to your Holy Traditon.

The Sacred Scriptures are a part of the received Canon of Christ's Holy Body, the Church. Therefore your take on my saying this, eg that they are a part of the Holy Tradition of the Ekklesia of God, eg that the Bible is subject to my Holy Tradition, is false... I am simply relating the history of the Church and its canonization of the Bible... We gave you the Bible, my Brother, that's all... God gave you the Bible through the Church, in all its particulars... Your 1500 years later rebellion against the apostatic Latin Church did not give the Bible... It simply capitalized on the printing press technology...

The Holy Scriptures are the Canon of the Church...

It is their interpretation that is the problem here, and not the Scripture itself...
I tell you that they were written by those discipled by the historical Ekklesia of God...
I then tell you that this discipling is needed for their proper interpretation...
That only those who have been discipled in the same discipling that the writers of Holy Writ were discipled...
That only these CAN properly interpret what was written...
Because it WAS written by Holy Men who WERE so discipled...

And your response is???

Thanks that clarified a lot.

Why does this sound just a tad snarky??

Arsenios

 

[redleghunter]

Therefore the Sacred Scriptures are subject to your Holy Traditon.

Protestant interpretation of Scripture is subject to their own traditions. They just don't like to admit it.

One is not the other. Tradition should be made subject to the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures.

The apostolic epistles make such clear.

 

[Arsenios]

Yes indeed. With the eyes which truly see. (Matthew 13:16).

Can you describe it?

However what is important is how our light shines before others. (Matthew 5:16)

It cannot be hidden...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

One is not the other. Tradition should be made subject to the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures.

Every heterodoxical opinion on Holy Writ claims the Holy Spirit in their mis-interpretation...

The apostolic epistles make such clear.

It is more mixed than that...

We love our Holy Writ...

For instance: When is the last time you KISSED your Bible?

For us it is more than daily...

Jes' sayin'...

Arsenios

 

[redleghunter]

We gave you the Bible, my Brother, that's all... God gave you the Bible through the Church, in all its particulars... Your 1500 years later rebellion against the apostatic Latin Church did not give the Bible... It simply capitalized on the printing press technology...

The Holy Scriptures are the Canon of the Church...

St Irenaeus had a different view:

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies Book 1.1)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

 

[redleghunter]

Every heterodoxical opinion on Holy Writ claims the Holy Spirit in their mis-interpretation...

I think you misunderstood my post. If not your claim is the Scriptures are not Holy Spirit inspired.

 

[redleghunter]

And your response is???

"A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his lord. (Matthew 10:24)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

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?

No, i did Not say A RITUAL FORM of Ordination. For the second time, try actually reading what I wrote!!!! I never said "A RITUAL FORM of Ordination" which you referenced me as saying, but said "the PROPER ritual form of ordination." Thus unless you do not think this is not a ritual, or it is the proper form, then my statement is accurate.

Instead you have attacked my character

You mean by attacking your misrepresentation of what i said and twice using it?

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...

You mean your strawman SS means one cannot use a descriptive term such as "ritual" for something? And you wonder why i consider your responses fit to be ignored.

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...

And it is you who treated this as mutually exclusive as per your typical reasoning. And you wonder why i consider you fit to be ignored. But instead of getting the "hint," you continued to post your provocations and then complain at my exasperation.

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

Nice to see you finally see these as going together, but then you resort to your absurd strawman SS and already-refuted reasoning that "Bible Only" excludes ecclesiastical authority (which, as with SCOTUS, is the supreme authority in governmental judicial rule, but not the the ultimate, infallibly standard on Truth), while the idea that ecclesiastical authority does and must possess ensured veracity and warrants unconditional submission has already been refuted.

... 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...

Which is correct, and consistent with Scripture being the supreme sure standard, regardless of your thinking to the contrary.

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?

This goes from absurdity to absurdity. I clearly showed you that principled dissent to both valid civil authority as well as religious, including by apostles themselves, could be required and was sanctioned. Which leaves you taking a verse in isolation from what is taught on the subject, and which would require unconditional submission to authority and thus ensured judicial infallibility, which is nowhere taught.

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:

It refers to you responses, and here you are also using a verse in isolation to teach what it does not, for "Open rebuke is better than secret love." (Proverbs 27:5)
And Christ's very Words affirm Scripture is the word of God.

But finally, this quote here really begs to be reproved:

Arsenios said: ↑

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.

In-credible! God inspires (not usually commands or requests) men to write His Truth, but since men are fallible and who wrote His Truth at His behest then it cannot be all correct! And all this time I was told all Scripture was given by inspiration of God, via men ,moved by the Holy Spirit, whether they knew it or not, and that all such things are possible with God. But your reasoning is just that, your erroneous reasoning.

Being wholly inspired of God means it is is 100% wholly inspired infallible Truth.

Certainly not every statement that God had recorded under full inspiration is right counsel, since God recorded things like what men did in history as well as man's natural reasoning, which God showed in teaching us what is right and wrong, and even in Christ's parables not everything said is presented as morally right, (Luke 16:1-8) and requires understanding.

As does church teaching (it is possible to misunderstand some so-called infallible church teachings), but the teaching of Scripture never is incorrect, though man's understanding can be. Some people can take Solomon's words, "There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink," (Ecclesiastes 2:24) as expressing the natural mind, out of context, just like they can take "love thy neighbor" as excluding rebuke of error and erroneous reasoning.

And neither does holding Scripture to be the supreme infallible standard on earth for Truth mean you worship a book, which another of your many false dichotomies. The source is always what is worshiped even though Scripture is lauded as no other substantive form of revelation is, and the psalmist says thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name, (Psalms 138:2)

With that, I should be of here.[/QUOTE]

 

[Arsenios]

No, i did Not say A RITUAL FORM of Ordination. For the second time, try actually reading what I wrote!!!! I never said "A RITUAL FORM of Ordination" which you referenced me as saying, but said "the PROPER ritual form of ordination." Thus unless you do not think this is a ritual, or it is the proper form, then my statement is accurate.

Please forgive me for any offense I have given you...

Where I grew up, in harsh and bitterly cold and windswept conditions, when one said that, say, a man is a genuine low-life cur of a human person, then one has just said that this man is a low life cur... And if he comes back and complains that he called that man NOT a low life cur, but a GENUINE low life cur, we can become a tad consterned...

Yet even so, I happen to agree with you that there is a direct and divine form of Ordination recorded in the Bible, which is differentiated from human ordination at God's behest, possible... But it is obscured by the very few words accorded it - eg The Order of Melchidesek... I only know of two members of that Order of the Priesthood...

Human ordinations are one of the favorite points of attack in the Church by the enemy of man. All you need to do is ordain someone and they better have good armor - eg Righteousness of soul... Paul addresses this matter with Timothy and Titus... These men are to become examples of the Apostolic Way of Life in the Body of Christ for others to follow by imitation... Once ordained, they "take point" as we called the role of the lead guy in sweeps in Vietnam... They get hit pretty hard normally...

You mean by attacking your misrepresentation of what i said and twice using it?

Yes...

All you need to do is point out that you called the Laying on of Hands as "the PROPER ritual form of ordination", and not merely "A RITUAL FORM of Ordination" and the conversation then could continue without rancor... And I would then have to defend my objection to your calling it a RITUAL...
And this I might be able to do or not... My comeback, fwiw, was that if you leave out ritual, then your statement is true without reservation... The Laying on of Hands is THE proper form of Ordination according to the Bible... And my objection was to your sneaking in an un-Biblical term into the Biblical understanding we were establishing... Which is a fair point, n'est pas?

And I would submit that the proof that you WERE sneaking this term in is the fact that you immediately began attacking my character for identifying the non-Biblical term you were injecting into the conversation to envenomate it with your view... Because the Catholics (and the Lutherans, if I understand it aright) both believe that the Ritual causes the Grace to come... The Orthodox do not - And for this reason, we use tons of ritual in our Divine Services, because we do them in obedience to God Who IS the Giver of Grace to those who Serve in obedience to Him...

Different phronema, you see...
Same words but understood radically differently...
Podromos said it right away...

What? You mean your strawman SS means one cannot use a descriptive term such as "ritual" for something? And you wonder why i consider you fit to be ignored.

Outrage, indignation, and nose-high Prom-Queen exits Stage Left are simply not helpful modes of having a discussion, my Brother...

I have additional reservations about this SUPREME AUTHORITY of yours, that you bandy about... It is not a biblical term either...

With that, I am out of here.

Dramatic Exit Stage Left, I say!!

I sure hope you don't remain a stranger to good discussion here with us...

Arsenios

 

[prodromos]

One is not the other.

Absolutely! One is apostolic, the others are not.

Tradition should be made subject to the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures.
The apostolic epistles make such clear.

Lovely theory. Nobody does it in practice.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

All you need to do is point out that you called the Laying on of Hands as "the PROPER ritual form of ordination", and not merely "A RITUAL FORM of Ordination" and the conversation then could continue without rancor.

Which is just what i called it in the first place from what i see (and cannot see any proof reading edits i may have made, as usual before seeing replies, which my last post also needed), and not merely "A RITUAL FORM of Ordination."

And again, regardless of your strawman, there is nothing inconsistent with my position on Scripture as supreme by describing what is seen in scripture, in laying on of hands in ordination is indeed the proper ritual means of doing so. It is the only means men engaged in, except that prophets do not seem to have any, outside of Elijah casting his mantle upon Elisha, (1 Kings 19:19) while no one did so to John the Baptist (maybe because he was a Baptist)

And neither did i say "mere ritual" or infer the same. Taking part in a ritual hypocritically can cost you your life. (1 Cor. 11:29-30)

Now see, your charges must have work me out of sleep!

 

[Arsenios]

Which is just what i called it in the first place from what i see (and cannot see any proof reading edits i may have made, as usual before seeing replies, which my last post also needed), and not merely "A RITUAL FORM of Ordination."

And again, regardless of your strawman, there is nothing inconsistent with my position on Scripture as supreme by describing what is seen in scripture, in laying on of hands in ordination is indeed the proper ritual means of doing so. It is the only means men engaged in, except that prophets do not seem to have any, outside of Elijah casting his mantle upon Elisha, (1 Kings 19:19) while no one did so to John the Baptist (maybe because he was a Baptist)

And neither did i say "mere ritual" or infer the same. Taking part in a ritual hypocritically can cost you your life. (1 Cor. 11:29-30)

Now see, your charges must have work me out of sleep!

So just for fun - We just finished a two and a half hour set of Services: Orthros and the Divine Liturgy, at 1:45AM, so I am up for a few minutes - IF you grant that the Laying on of Hands is the PROPER ritual means of Biblical Ordination into the Priesthood, would you then affirm the converse feature of that sentence? eg That the Ritual of the Laying on of Hands IS the proper means of Biblical Ordination into the Priesthood?

I personally think not... But am very eagerly hoping to be contradicted in this thought!

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

I think you misunderstood my post. If not your claim is the Scriptures are not Holy Spirit inspired.

I was simply speaking of heterodoxical opinions and the claims of their proponents...

Sorry I was not more clear...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

St Irenaeus had a different view:

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies Book 1.1)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

Forgive me, I missed the difference... These Scriptures are the ones read in our Church Services - It simply means that their reading in these Services by the Church doing them is now functioning as the Ground and the Pillar of the Faith of Christ... They are useful as reproof of error, because they are written... I don't think he is proposing that the Scriptures have replaced the Church as the Ground and Pillar of the Truth... Christ IS the Truth, and He is the one Who established His Body upon the earth, and CAUSED the writing of Scripture by His Body...

Sorry I cannot give a better response - I haven't read much of Irenaeus, and do not know the context of this citation...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

"A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his lord. (Matthew 10:24)

And the disciple has to follow his teacher in order to understand what his teacher is teaching...
Armchair quarterbacks have one understanding, and the player on the field quite another...
Scripture was written by disciples who had been discipled - Its Holy Words flow forth from God THROUGH that discipling... When we read these words apart from that discipling, we become armchair quarterbacks... And until we ARE discipled, we will lack the basis of understanding them...

Thank-you for your response...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Now see, your charges must have worked me out of sleep!

May you rest well...

I suspect your arisal was by God through my prayers for you during the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom at around 1:30AM...

But for whatever reason, I thank God you woke up and replied...

A.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

So just for fun - We just finished a two and a half hour set of Services: Orthros and the Divine Liturgy, at 1:45AM, so I am up for a few minutes - IF you grant that the Laying on of Hands is the PROPER ritual means of Biblical Ordination into the Priesthood, would you then affirm the converse feature of that sentence? eg That the Ritual of the Laying on of Hands IS the proper means of Biblical Ordination into the Priesthood?

I personally think not... But am very eagerly hoping to be contradicted in this thought!

Arsenios

The Ritual of the Laying on of Hands IS in-deed the proper means of Biblical Ordination into the presbytery by the church! What's your objection now?