Known for all ages?? NOT

[Rick Otto]

romancing the stone

 

[sunlover1]

Note for laconic student, who seems to be having an off night:

[Quoting some RC thingy] "... Peter ... presides and "exercises judgment in his successors" the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his [Peter's] blood"



To go there: an idiom of speech, referring to their intent. In this case, conflating the blood of a very fallible mortal with that of the Lamb of G-d. As in - -

do NOT go there!

consecrated with his own blood?
shoooot.

romancing the stone

Same stuff different day

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

consecrated with his own blood?
shoooot.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

In all seriousness, this is the problem I have w/ Catholicism. If heresy is anything that didn't originate with the Apostles, what good are "understandings that came later?"

Because there is a difference between a fuller understanding of what we already believe and innovation.

Bl. John Henry Newman -- An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine

 

[razeontherock]

Ok, but when that "fuller understanding of what we already believe" becomes pages and pages that the Apostles never wrote nor said - how does one differentiate that from innovation?

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

And we do the laying on of hands in my church as well .

There are a number of reasons to lay hands on someone, some good, some bad.

This is a false and dangerous way to lay hands on someone:

This is the laying on of hands that we are talking about:

Laying on of hands also happens at Confirmation.

 

[laconicstudent]

There are a number of reasons to lay hands on someone, some good, some bad.

This is a false and dangerous way to lay hands on someone:

This is the laying on of hands that we are talking about:

Laying on of hands also happens at Confirmation.

*agrees*

 

[sunlover1]

There are a number of reasons to lay hands on someone, some good, some bad.

This is a false and dangerous way to lay hands on someone:.

You have no way to know such a thing.

 

[laconicstudent]

You have no way to know such a thing.

Yes, we can. For one thing, it is a bunch of wild-eyed, sweaty, middle-aged men clumped around what appears to be a kneeling, young girl, all reaching out to put their hands on her. Its inappropriate just in that.

Somehow I doubt the Apostles looked more like the former then the latter.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Ok, but when that "fuller understanding of what we already believe" becomes pages and pages that the Apostles never wrote nor said - how does one differentiate that from innovation?

[54.] But some one will say, perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ's Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.

[55.] The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide difference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. An infant's limbs are small, a young man's large, yet the infant and the young man are the same. Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children; and if there be any to which maturer age has given birth these were already present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress, this the established and most beautiful order of growth, that mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant. Whereas, if the human form were changed into some shape belonging to another kind, or at any rate, if the number of its limbs were increased or diminished, the result would be that the whole body would become either a wreck or a monster, or, at the least, would be impaired and enfeebled.
...
[59.] But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view—if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined, to keep and guard it. Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,— this, and nothing else—she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name.

.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Yes, we can. For one thing, it is a bunch of wild-eyed, sweaty, middle-aged men clumped around what appears to be a kneeling, young girl, all reaching out to put their hands on her. Its inappropriate just in that.

Yes. It is kind of dirty and pedophilic. But the other sense was the one I was talking about -- spiritually dangerous.

Have you read Fr. Seraphim Rose's book on the Charismatic movement? He fought diligently to keep it from infecting the Orthodox Church just as it had infected the Catholic Church.

 

[laconicstudent]

Yes. It is kind of dirty and pedophilic. But the other sense was the one I was talking about -- spiritually dangerous.

Oh I definitely agree, but we'd all argue ourselves blue in the face, I thought I'd just point out the issue that would be blatantly obvious even to someone non-religious.

Have you read Fr. Seraphim Rose's book on Charismaticism?

I haven't. What's the title?

 

[razeontherock]

It is kind of dirty and pedophilic. But the other sense was the one I was talking about -- spiritually dangerous.

As Sunlover posted, you have no way of knowing if there was anything dirty or pedophilic going on, nor if there was anything Spiritually dangerous. All we see from you and LS is an affinity for old men w/ beards and fancy clothes. Old men that have a rabid history of pedophilia, we need to add ...

 

[laconicstudent]

As Sunlover posted, you have no way of knowing if there was anything dirty or pedophilic going on, nor if there was anything Spiritually dangerous. All we see from you and LS is an affinity for old men w/ beards and fancy clothes. Old men that have a rabid history of pedophilia, we need to add ...

There is a bunch of adult men, all touching a little girl, with no chaperon in sight. That = unacceptable.

 

[razeontherock]

Quite full of yourself, aren't you? How can you tell from the picture who might or might not be "the chaperon?" Why wouldn't the entire congregation serve that function?

If that were really your objection you wouldn't voice it, because it is functionally inseparable from Liturgy.

 

[laconicstudent]

Quite full of yourself, aren't you?

Yes, I am. You as well.

How can you tell from the picture who might or might not be "the chaperon?" Why wouldn't the entire congregation serve that function?

Generally, women serve that role with young girls in the company of a bunch of men.

If that were really your objection you wouldn't voice it, because it is functionally inseparable from Liturgy.

Really? That isn't a Liturgy taking place in that picture though.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

I haven't. What's the title?

It's called Charismatic Revival: As a Sign of the Times

I am not saying I agree with everything he has written (and I mean that not just with him as an Eastern Orthodox Christian but as someone who is sometimes "out there" compared to other Orthodox writers) but he sure is an interesting character and I'm sure he is better off now having become an Orthodox monk rather than a gay-hippie-Buddhist-whatever in San Francisco.

Somewhere I have a printed copy of one of a couple sermons my priest has given on the Charismatic Movement. I also recall that Fr. Chad Ripperger, FSSP, has also spoken on it (I have listened to essentially all of his sermons available online so I'd have to track down which one it is).

Also, read by Fr. Seraphim Rose: Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future and Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age.

 

[razeontherock]

Generally, women serve that role with young girls in the company of a bunch of men.

So what you're really saying is those dirty Pr's can't be trusted because they're not practicing Divine Liturgy. How loving of you! Besides, everybody knows Pr services separate their women, putting them off somewhere else. I mean, how else could you possibly explain the picture in question?

Either that, or just use your head.

 

[laconicstudent]

So what you're really saying is those dirty Pr's can't be trusted because they're not practicing Divine Liturgy.

No, I think what I said is: "Generally, women serve that role with young girls in the company of a bunch of men." I didn't say a thing about "dirty pr's"

How loving of you!

How loving of you to put words in my mouth.

Besides, everybody knows Pr services separate their women, putting them off somewhere else. I mean, how else could you possibly explain the picture in question?

Good question. Where is her chaperon?

Either that, or just use your head.

My head says that I would never put my little girl in that situation, not even taking the spiritual danger into consideration.

 

[laconicstudent]

It's called Charismatic Revival: As a Sign of the Times

I am not saying I agree with everything he has written (and I mean that not just with him as an Eastern Orthodox Christian but as someone who is sometimes "out there" compared to other Orthodox writers) but he sure is an interesting character and I'm sure he is better off now having become an Orthodox monk rather than a gay-hippie-Buddhist-whatever in San Francisco.

Somewhere I have a printed copy of one of a couple sermons my priest has given on the Charismatic Movement. I also recall that Fr. Chad Ripperger, FSSP, has also spoken on it (I have listened to essentially all of his sermons available online so I'd have to track down which one it is).

Also, read by Fr. Seraphim Rose: Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future and Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age.

Ah yes, thanks for those. I haven't really read much of him, but he was a great man.