No one disagrees with that, and so it is unhelpful because it does not tell us how to access what God is saying.
His WORD is orthodoxy whether Scripture or via Holy Spirit.
Again, I think we all agree with that statement. The problem, however, as I have pointed out a number of times now, is this; whose interpretation of Scripture is authoritative, and who has the Holy Spirit? There are 20,000+ sects that each claim to have the correct interpretation and the Holy Spirit. How do we determine which is right? It does not do any good to reply: Go to the Word and listen to the Spirit. That is exactly what we are trying to determine: which interpretation of the Word is correct and what the Spirit is saying?
Laity are called, challenged, exhorted, led to hear God moment by moment; praying always . . . as are all humans . .
Catholics agree.
. and to walk in the personally delivered Biblical orthodoxy God communicates to each individual in their individual dialogue. ONE mediator between God and man--JESUS THE CHRIST. Period. THAT'S the BIBLICAL model of orthodoxy.
Even Presbyterians, Lutherans and Anglicans would disagree with your rejection of the role of Church leaders (deacons, presbyters, elders). They keep watch over our souls (Heb 13:17), and in that way are "mediators" of God's grace to us. That in no way contradicts the uniqueness of Christ's sole mediatory role as taught by Paul in 1 Tim 2:5.
THROUGHOUT HISTORY--ESPECIALLY IN THE !MORE! INSTITUTIONAL OLD TESTAMENT . . . abuses of authority carried on long enough or serious enough . . . resulted in a jerking of the anointing and eventually of the authority. Usually the authority went with the anointing to some degree.
But Christ has promised that this will never happen to His Church. He has and He will continue to lead her into all truth, to ensure that the gates of hell do not over her, and that He will be with her to the end of the age. Even when certain leaders abuse their authority and tarnish the Church, yet Christ will not leave her. Nor does the gift given in ordination leave. To deny that is to make the mistake of the Donatist heresy.
Quix: AND, HE TOOK THEM OUT OR REMOVED THE ANOINTING from every remotely long line of them sooner or later
A8: And how do you know this? This is the sort of deism we see in Mormonism.
Quix: UTTER HOGWASH. Nothing to do with Mormonism.
The deism that assumes Christ abandoned His Church, only to restore it at some later time, is found both in Mormonism and in claims such as yours that Christ "lifted" or "removed" His anointing from the Church.
Just Biblical fact.
The Bible never shows Christ lifting His anointing from the Church.
Show me ONE Biblical line of succession of authority that was NOT broken, removed by God Almighty in the Old Testament. I can't recall one.
The line established by the incarnate Christ, and sanctified by the Holy Spirit sent by Christ, will never be destroyed. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
I think that's mixing apples and cacti at some point. The irrevocable nature of gifts and callings does not necessarily have anything to do with whether the anointing or the authority remain with the 'gifted' one.
It has everything to do with it. The gift given in sacramental ordination is a divine gift. Like baptism, it can never be repeated, because it can never be removed.
Re-baptism etc. gets into a whole 'nother order of issue not central to this thread.
It is central to the Donatism that you are proposing. The very same reason why we cannot be re-baptised is the very same reason why ordination cannot be repeated; it is indelibile and irrevocable.
A8: Please name one 'flipflop' in Catholic *dogma*. Just one.
Quix: I think eggregious indulgences would be one. Papal philandering outside of marriage could be construed as another. ... There were variouis pollitical land grabs at various points in history that were not at all Christ-like--or even remotely moral.
A8: None of those are Catholic dogma.
Quix: Ahhhhhhhhhhh, but Roman dogma was characteristically used to justify such at the time . . . in one form or another. The Roman hierarchy is still guilty as charged and the so called saintly dogma is still as tainted as the rest of the whole mess.
Whether or not any Roman dogma was used to justify some error is irrelevant to whether or not the Catholic Church has ever "flipflopped" on a matter of *dogma*. It has never done so, and never will.
-A8
Qx: Orthodoxy is determined by God.
A8: No one disagrees with that, and so it is unhelpful because it does not tell us how to access what God is saying.
QxNew: I've touched on that more than a little. Haven't observed a lot of listening, hearing in the Roman camp on that score.
Qx: His WORD is orthodoxy whether Scripture or via Holy Spirit.
A8: Again, I think we all agree with that statement. The problem, however, as I have pointed out a number of times now, is this; whose interpretation of Scripture is authoritative, and who has the Holy Spirit? There are 20,000+ sects that each claim to have the correct interpretation and the Holy Spirit. How do we determine which is right? It does not do any good to reply: Go to the Word and listen to the Spirit. That is exactly what we are trying to determine: which interpretation of the Word is correct and what the Spirit is saying?
QxN: The 20,001 sects [including the Roman one] as well as the millions of individuals are called to dialogue with God and to LISTEN TO, HEAR HIS VOICE. Those that don't miss out.
QxN: Sure, life is messy. Spirituality is messy. Lots of folks get things wrong in their kindergarten. But in my experience, individuals and even small groups getting things wrong END UP with a LOT LESS DESTRUCTIVENESS than when institutions get it wrong--especially the fossilized ancient large ones.
Qx: Laity are called, challenged, exhorted, led to hear God moment by moment; praying always . . . as are all humans . .
A8: Catholics agree.
Qx: and to walk in the personally delivered Biblical orthodoxy God communicates to each individual in their individual dialogue. ONE mediator between God and man--JESUS THE CHRIST. Period. THAT'S the BIBLICAL model of orthodoxy.
A8: Even Presbyterians, Lutherans and Anglicans would disagree with your rejection of the role of Church leaders (deacons, presbyters, elders). They keep watch over our souls (Heb 13:17), and in that way are "mediators" of God's grace to us. That in no way contradicts the uniqueness of Christ's sole mediatory role as taught by Paul in 1 Tim 2:5.
QxN: Sounds nice. I haven't observed it to work out that way. Sheep AND shepherds have great compulsions to INSTALL RATHER VIGOROUSLY AND FIRMLY flawed men in God-like positions to be treated with God-like respect and even adoration and defference. And from there, the pride and other evils following flood like a dam bursting. No thanks.
QxN: I'm happy to submit to proper spiritual authority AS PAUL SAID--AS THEY FOLLOW CHRIST. Otherwise--they can do their own thing and I'll ignore them and/or leave.
Qx: THROUGHOUT HISTORY--ESPECIALLY IN THE !MORE! INSTITUTIONAL OLD TESTAMENT . . . abuses of authority carried on long enough or serious enough . . . resulted in a jerking of the anointing and eventually of the authority. Usually the authority went with the anointing to some degree.
A8: But Christ has promised that this will never happen to His Church. He has and He will continue to lead her into all truth, to ensure that the gates of hell do not over her, and that He will be with her to the end of the age. Even when certain leaders abuse their authority and tarnish the Church, yet Christ will not leave her. Nor does the gift given in ordination leave. To deny that is to make the mistake of the Donatist heresy.
QxN: Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh Christ has NOT left HIS CHURCH UNIVERSAL. He has repeatedly or at least wholesale for long periods and great major blocks, the majority? of the Roman sect pulled HIS ANOINTING AND HIS AUTHORITY OUT OF AND AWAY FROM IT.
QxN: Probably for major portions of history there have been scattered remnants here and there who were essentially the only vibrant, Biblical, active demonstrations of Holy Spirit's/God's active involvement with man on earth. In some periods, such small groups were probably sparsely located, for sure.
Quix: AND, HE TOOK THEM OUT OR REMOVED THE ANOINTING from every remotely long line of them sooner or later
A8: And how do you know this? This is the sort of deism we see in Mormonism.
Quix: UTTER HOGWASH. Nothing to do with Mormonism.
A8: The deism that assumes Christ abandoned His Church, only to restore it at some later time, is found both in Mormonism and in claims such as yours that Christ "lifted" or "removed" His anointing from the Church.
QxN: Equating Christ abandoning or withdrawing the anointing from a Roman hierarchy of a given period and location . . . or wholesale . . . with Christ removing such from HIS CHURCH UNIVERSAL is a grossly eroneous assumption.
Qx: Just Biblical fact.
A8: The Bible never shows Christ lifting His anointing from the Church.
QxN: See above. Never said He did.
Qx: Show me ONE Biblical line of succession of authority that was NOT broken, removed by God Almighty in the Old Testament. I can't recall one.
A8: The line established by the incarnate Christ, and sanctified by the Holy Spirit sent by Christ, will never be destroyed. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Qx: I was under the impression that logic rules required folks to avoid non-sequiters; arguments from silence and the like. Guess I was wrong.
Qx: I think that's mixing apples and cacti at some point. The irrevocable nature of gifts and callings does not necessarily have anything to do with whether the anointing or the authority remain with the 'gifted' one.
A8: It has everything to do with it. The gift given in sacramental ordination is a divine gift. Like baptism, it can never be repeated, because it can never be removed.
Qx: Re-baptism etc. gets into a whole 'nother order of issue not central to this thread.
A8: It is central to the Donatism that you are proposing. The very same reason why we cannot be re-baptised is the very same reason why ordination cannot be repeated; it is indelibile and irrevocable.
QxN: Hogwash. Not my construction on reality at all. I do not receive the Donatism label.
A8: Please name one 'flipflop' in Catholic *dogma*. Just one.
Quix: I think eggregious indulgences would be one. Papal philandering outside of marriage could be construed as another. ... There were variouis pollitical land grabs at various points in history that were not at all Christ-like--or even remotely moral.
A8: None of those are Catholic dogma.
Quix: Ahhhhhhhhhhh, but Roman dogma was characteristically used to justify such at the time . . . in one form or another. The Roman hierarchy is still guilty as charged and the so called saintly dogma is still as tainted as the rest of the whole mess.
A8: Whether or not any Roman dogma was used to justify some error is irrelevant to whether or not the Catholic Church has ever "flipflopped" on a matter of *dogma*. It has never done so, and never will.
QxN: Sounds like historical revisionism, to me.