St. Basil's epistles stem over a fairly long period of time and it is true that he was dealing in the earlier years with the ariyan heresey -- which was a problem specifically to the eastern churches (This is clearly define in his early letters -- but when you read on you will find that they go past that, that that problem was on the mend -- and he gets together with eusebius the bishop of Antioch and a few others and he is clearly speaking of the Church and the church leadership in Rome -- and understandibly he is choseing his words carefully -- he is not trying to be seditionist he is trying to right a ship that was floundering and in the later letters these is a desperation he seems to feel that there was a closing window of oportunity to fix things -- his health is bad in the letters he can't travel -- the person he says that is the churches only hope is up in age -- I beleive they were going to try to put this guy in as pope --- It would take me a bit to tell if they succeeded I am fairly sure that they did not because of letters from other saints. that indicate that they felt as Basil wrote that the catholic church had been subverted,
Now if we were to deal with this like a forensic scientist rather than sports fans there is a fair amount of information availible for this particular period of time we would be able to piece together a much better picture of what was actually taking place -- and make a more informed judgement based on availible information rather than Catholic -- good or Rome -- bad.
As you know I am a protestant so we have two different points of view and this is what is fueling this discussion.
I am not trying to put words in your mouth but as a faithful catholic you generally have a standpoint that the catholic church is that pure thing that was given to St. Peter roughly 1975 years ago. And that all that has traspired and been taught has not changed the purity of the church since its inseption.
Now in your 30 -40 year experiance you have a conflict and you see what you and your friends rightly call corruption specifically of the mass, specifically for some of the last three popes, specifically of vatican II and the priest in the mass turning from facing the altar with his back to the laity to taking "Luthers stance" of facing the laity from behind the altar (This is hard for me to picture as I have not bee in a mass since the mid 1960's I am only spitting out articles I have read on FR)
In other words the traditions are bing changed now before your eyes -- and you don't like it -- you want the old ways but the leadership is moving the direction and as you and others have stated this had far reaching implications.
Can you by your current experiance say that there have been other periods in the catholic churches history where the traditions were changed and not for the good or the better? Can in your mind there have been people bishops and others that would have tried to fix things? It is my understanding that you can legally read these people writings -- and see what was changed that they were so appaulled with in their day and St. Basil because he was sick for so many years has a body of writing and clearly documents the changing of traditions during his life and intimates that the changes happened before him and that only a few remained in his day that kew of what was done and he perceived them to how the power to restore the church.
Lets now talk about me as a protestant and an ex-Lutheran obviously I have a certain baggage -- And let me say that as a child I never heard anything bad said about catholics. I grew up in Larchmont new york which was a predominantly Catholic and Jewish town -- my father worked for the larchmont jewish temple and I walked past St. Augustine's every day to school many of my friends went to CCD
And in the lutheran church in sundays school and later confirmation class nothing bad was said about catholicism. I then came in contact with Billy Graham and house prayer meetings and house bible studies and they never spoke against catholics and as I mentioned I attended catholic charimatic meetings at St. Bernards in white plains new york -- I was then 15 -16 and I rode my bicycle for twelve miles up hill all the way from larchmont to white plains to attend those meetings -- I really loved those people. It wasn't until sometime after that that I first began to hear from fundamentalist preachers and pentecostal preachers and evangelists the EVILS of the catholic church _ and I was educated about everything that you are already aware that is said. They have books perticularly the TWO BABYLONS by hyssop that is their holy grail
My knowledge and experiance with catholics told me different. And this has sustained me over the years from being swallowed hook line and sinker by these un-christian corrupt teachings.
One of the things that I have discovered that proved to have great power was to ask questions. Why do we beleive what we believe? Why do we do what we do? See in protestantism we follow also traditions but our guys take their made up traditions and wrap them in bible verses. And in these churches as catholics have correctly noted there is a doctrine of Sola Scriptura -- and corrupt individuals have also noted that doctrine and used it to say and do a grat number of things that are unscriptural. For a few decades i have been asking questions of men and of God about these matters and it has only been in the last year that I can say that I have been gettings answers and what I am seeing I am not likeing. But for bible beleiving protestants when someone opens a bible and hold up a verse of scripture it is like the cross to a vampire -- they are stopped and mollified --if they beleive in sola scriptura. So men make disciples of themselves instead of to Christ alone. So men preach that is Gods will for christians to be wealthy and have everything in the world instead of praying for their daily bread -- you get the idea -- in my church there has been a great corruption since the 1950's, In baptist and fundamentalist churches there has been a great corrupion since 1910 and i could go on but I won't
I am on a quest to come into what Christ and the Apostles described as the normal experiance of beleivers. That is a truly personal relationship with Christ, that I could hear his voice and see the works that he and the father are doing in heaven and do them here on earth -- this may be a bit too much for you.
So I have been following corruption In Luther in Menno Simons in John calvin -- in the apostollic fathers writings __ I have been trying to pinpoint these times of change, which I think we can agree occurred. Now where we do not agree is the meaning of these changes and I think that is largely do to the fact that these changes are largely ambiguous because no one really cares about church history we live for the moment.
The real problem whether Protestant or Catholic is that we all live within our experiance. We use as our primary measuring stick what we see feel and hear. Abd this is our frame of reference -- in the churches I have gone to and the bible school I went to I have discovered that this is a false frame of reference. I will attempt to explain when someone gets saved, it is in experiance like being born again and so the things you did or beleived pass away and you start more or less with a clean slate to you go to a church or house meeting or what not and line on line a new life in God is created -- the false frame is that the new beleiver beleives that the church and pastor the come up under is perfect and they are the voice and manifestation of God -- so whatever doctrine or tradition they spout that is God. And for most they can never see past this point and in the churches I have been to these people are disciples of the pastor or their church or denomination as opposed to being a disciple of Christ -- these places claim to be christ's surrogates -- but by enlarge they are not they are merely self serving men.
We are called as believers to be overcomers that is to be transcendant above out circumstances to be transcendant above the beleifs of our day and to seek God beyond all we see with our eyes and hear with our ears. Those that are taken with the eyes and ears and fall prey to that are not transcendant they are lost sheep.
In the book of revelation in the beginning with the seven churches -- the over comers are not overcomers because they leave or abandon their churches -- they are overcomers because they transend those in their churches leadership and the laity -- they are overcomers because they let their light shine and help others within their churches to find their way -- but first we have to see beyound the box we live in and the cards we have been handed we have to read scripture for our self we have to pray for your self and we have so see that Jesus Christ is the root source and that he alone in the bible is the way to the father and through him alone we pass from death to life. And then we can truly begin to help those around us.
In st. Basil I see corruption and I see it in the ariyan heresy but his writing go beyound and he documents for those who what to see something else and he calls for the ancients -- Basil was friends with eusebius who wrote Eusebius's the ecclesiatical history. Eusebius spoke of the ancients and I would belive Basil is using his definition. They are at very least leaking about the doctrines held prior to the third century. The ancients was used by eusebius to describe those in the first century the Church in egypt cited from Philo and of the apostles.
These people were historians and they knew the truth and that which was lost -- but untimately in that day their words of repentance were rejected. And in your experiance today you see something similar and I have seen this same thing in the churches I have been to -- all march on to the drummer they hear.
The call As I see it is not to a church or denomination but to christ -- If I would get you to convert what would really happen is I would take from one tradition and have you follow another and for reason that one might convert the same things hold true in what they would convert to -- perhaps a little better hidden or more subtle but they still are exactly what they are.
"The commentaries writer say Basil uses hyperbole -- he exagerates -- that is to say he lies -- that is to say he words don't mean crap -- that is to say we will tell you what he he means ignore his words". That was not logic that was Hyperbole on my part and I think it was effective.
Otherwise, explain Jesus Himself using it "...If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell..." Mt 5:29.
Jesus spoke in parables proverbs and dark sayings -- the proof text is that we did not have a bunch of one eyed apostles in the new testament -- see if we do not understand that words of Christ which I increasingly beleive that men do not -- that is preachers teachers etc. we have the lives of Christ and the Apostles to look at. -- If we don't undertand Christ and the apostle's words we can imitate their lives so that we are at least on the right path. If we reject their words or replace them with traditions and or of we ignore their lives and have people instead imitate corrupt men we are shipwrecked. And why do these people believe these
One of the things I want to say is that these were good sincere people and they had severe problems to deal with. Many of these problems which were increasingly created by
Thanks for your extensive post. There really is too much to address, some of it goes beyond the title of the thread. But I will try to address a few points you make.
First, Basil. As it turns out, he was VERY pro-Apostolic Tradition. Rather than type them out, I will give you some of the letters and you can look at them:
XXVII.65 Here, he says "...all of these (church teachings, both written and oral) have equal authority in relation to piety...for if anyone should attempt to remove non-written customs as being without force, that person would damage, albeit unknowingly, the Gospel on some essential points."
He goes on to explain the various rites, although not Scriptural, are teachings of the Church, and are to be kept. We do things in the liturgy, without knowing why. You are aware, no doubt, of lex orandi, lex credendi. Basil is expressing this relationship. If you recall, Arianism is thoroughly refuted by Athanasius by referring to this formula. How can you say Christ is not God, yet you worship Him in your liturgy??? That was the gist of Athanasius argument. And Basil, fighting those who would twist Scripture to fit their preconceived notions (yea, people did that even back then), had to defend the notion of Apostolic Tradition.
XXVII.66 more on the above..example. why do we pray standing on Sunday yet not know why?
XXVII.67 more on the above..first line: A whole day would not be enough for me to discuss the mysteries of the Church which are not written down!
XXIX.71
All quite interesting.
"The real problem whether Protestant or Catholic is that we all live within our experiance"
I disagree with that - That is not a problem, but a necessity! Faith is not merely limited to the intellectual. It also depends on experience. The Hebrews did not come to faith in God by philosphizing, like the Greeks, but they experience God's saving love through the Exodus experience. We as Christians, must also realize that Christianity calls us to be another Christ - to experience Him and be transformed into Him, not to follow the commandments, exhibit virtue, etc. Becoming another Christ naturally leads to the above, but focusing on that turns Christianity into legalism. So experience within the framework of our culture is very important. Vatican 2 in The Church in the Modern World states this unequivocally.
I am not of the mind that I believe the Latin Mass will solve anything. So I prefer not to be lumped into that group. Basil, I think, is probably upset about the state of the Church, in that there was much division due to Arianism. Being human AND divine, the Church will continue to have such problems. I don't see it as the beginning of the end - recall that Jesus promised the Church would exist for all time. So despite some of the bad people in the Church, the Church will continue to exist. Those who aren't sure have limited faith in God's Providence.
Please continue commenting, but keep your post subjects more limited. I am not able to address all of your concerns this way.
Regards