Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

I have been following your arguments MLG, if I can call them that. They are straw men. The Apostolic and Church Fathers are not considered inspired; only the Apostles.

It was not my argument. "Kolokotronis" said they were both inspired, therefore I was questioning " Kolokotronis".

His comments are contrary to yours:

The Apostolic and Church Fathers are not considered inspired;

"Kolokotronis", said otherwise.

So, which of you is presenting the correct EO position?

[Forest Keeper]

Under Reformed theology we get that which He has foreordained whether we pray for it or not. Therefore we must come back to the premise that petition is useless if one is Reformed; a mechanical exercise only.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that the Reformed approach, our getting exactly what God wants us to have, is a "bad" thing. :) And knowing that I have already described many uses of prayer other than getting stuff, how would you then describe the "use" of prayer and how is this superior to the Reformed approach?

Jesus taught us to petition God. Calvin teaches us that God has set everything in stone and nothing that we do can change that. I see it as a philosophical divide between them.

Well, did Jesus also teach that God has no idea what He wants to do and is waiting to be led by us through our prayers? :) That seems like the inevitable conclusion. Either that, or that God has an idea of what is best for us, but then we correct Him with our prayers. Neither option sounds appealing to me. :)

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

Also, when Moses and Elijah appeared at Jesus’ transfiguration, were they not alive in God or where those simply manifestations that Jesus called forth? It’s clear they were alive.

THAT is very interesting because I recently had a conversation with Kosta and Kolo about this, but in the context of where the OT righteous went immediately after they died. My contention was that they went straight to Heaven, and offered the evidence of the Transfiguration. IOW, I agree with you that they WERE real and alive. In order to support the Orthodox position that no one went to Heaven before the crucifixion (anyone correct me if I'm wrong), I remember the response being that Moses and Elijah possibly were indeed manifestations, and not real or alive. So, my question is: does Catholicism support that the OT righteous went directly to Heaven upon death, and that Jesus' sacrifice retroactively applied to them at the time of their deaths?

I don't think there is any doubt that Moses and Elijah were real at the Transfiguration, and not manifestations, or spiritual apparitions.

While the OT and the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, as well as Peter in his 2nd Epistle are clear that prior to the Crucifixion, the spirits of the OT saints went to Abraham's Bosom, which was one compartment of "sheol", with "hades" being the other where the rich man was, I don't see where it is neccesary to think Moses and Elijah were manifestations, and not real.

Angels are noncoporeal beings, however, in many of the examples of angelophanies in Scripture, they appear in real bodies looking like men, in bodies God prepared for them for the specific purpose God sent them for.

I have no problem at all seeing that the God who created the entire Cosmos, ex nihilo, could have temporarily given Moses his body for the purpose of Moses being present at the Transfiguration. Since Elijah was taken without dying, he would have still had a body.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: :::His sacrifice WAS “good enough” for all mankind, but it was only efficacious, only made FOR, the elect.:::

The two ideas seem in conflict, don’t they?

I don't think so. One thing that leads me to think that His sacrifice was sufficient for everyone is hypothetically imagining what would happen if God decided to save one more person beyond the original plan. Would Jesus then have to do something more to cover him? Obviously not. However, since we know that His sacrifice was only efficacious for some we have to decide whether that was by plan, or is that just the way it turned out based on man's decisions. The Reformed believe that God has a fully comprehensive plan for the universe and He is executing that plan flawlessly within time. If that is true, and if God is free to decide whom He wants to be with Him in Heaven, then it MUST have been by design that the sacrifice was only intended to be efficacious for some, i.e. only FOR some.

God's plan governs to whom the sacrifice applies without regard to how powerful the sacrifice actually was.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

:::Origen says nothing of the kind, not even close. Origne says that the angels and the “saints at rest” pray along with us, being the saints on earth.:::

Uh huh.

Again, that is not saying there is license to pray to angels. RCism reads that into it where it does not exist.

“Raphael himself, when explaining his angelic commission at God’s command to help them, says:

“Even now when you prayed, and Sarah your daughter-in-law, I brought the memorial of your prayer before the Holy One,” and shortly after, “I am Raphael, one of the Seven angels who present the prayers of saints and enter in before the glory of the Holy One.”

So Raphael catches prayers directly to God in some sort of heavenly bucket and then presents them to God? I thought that Jesus was the only intermediary in Reformed doctrine. This gets better and better.

You are confusing the role Christ stands in as the Intermediary as a defense attorney for the Redeemed, with those who offer intercessory prayer, and then twist the meanings for license to practice necromancy and the invoking of angels, both of which are forbidden by God.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

You clearly are ignorant of the Reformed positions.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

No Calvinist has ever replied directly to that question, so it comes as no surprise that you have not either. The good St. F. is either of the elect or not. If he is not of the elect, what good would it do for him to repent of any evil? Why should he?

Try to answer the question, if you would.

I already did. I cannot help the fact that you are having a hard time comprehending a straightforward answer.

I suggest you read the answer already given again and again, and again until you get it.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

..." and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Cornelius Jansen and George Le Mesurier and...

Don't forget pope Mike.

[irishtenor]

***When people privately interpret Scripture; hunting and pecking verse in order to construct a theology that is different from all previous theologies, it seems to me that this is constructing one’s own personal god.***

Name someone who did this. I can think of a couple, but neither name is Calvin. Who did you have in mind?

[HarleyD]

I think that he was referring to his Manichaean phase of nine years duration and the works that he wrote then, not his Catholic works.

That makes no sense. A Treatise of Predestination was one of Augustine's last works. He had been a Catholic for a long time.

All Catholics that I know understand that that all grace comes from God and that without His saving grace, we cannot have everlasting life.

And all Catholics that I have talked to here have told me (consistent with Roman's teaching) that man must "co-operate" with God. God shed His light and man must accept that grace, over and over and over through various acts of kindness.

All men here means all men period.

And, "You did not chose me but I've chosen you." doesn't really mean what it says.

[kosta50]

The problem I see with your theology is that when there appears to be a conflict, the favored verse (Gospels) is declared correct [in the way it is interpreted], and the disfavored verse (Paul, or almost anything in the OT) is declared wrong. OTOH, the Spirit shows us a way that both verses are completely true

I don't think the Church ever says that any part of the Bible is "wrong." Misinterpreted, yes, imperfect, yes, but wrong, no.  I must remind yout of how the Church understood and still to this day understand the nature of the scriptures (my emphases):

[T]he Holy Spirit inspires, and the sacred author follows the Holy Spirit's injunctions, utilizing his own human and imperfect ways to express the perfect message and doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

In this sense, we can understand possible imperfections in the books of the Bible, since they are the result of the cooperation between the all-perfect and perfecting Divine Author, the Spirit, and the imperfect human author. Biblical textual criticism is completely normal and acceptable by the Orthodox, since they see the Bible in this light. Nothing human is perfect, including the Bible, which is the end product of human cooperation with the divine Spirit.  [from Greek Orthodox Archidiocese of America]

If the Bible is "perfect" than the Bible is "God." That leads to another Protestant error: bibliolatry.

the Apostles quoted from both the Septuagint and the Masoretic text

They used the Septuagint in over 93% of the cases, FK.  The ratio is very lobsided in favor of the Septuagint. How can you compare this to the Protestant's innovation of 0% Septuagint and claim they did not introduce anything new and heretical? Is that  not the same as saying the Apostles were "wrong?" Luther knew better?

Reformers do not use private interpretation any more than you do today

You must be joking! Being a Protestant is not subscribing to or eschewing "traditions of men"(except one's own).

 And regardless of what you think of Protestants and private interpretation, you cannot possibly assert that we introduced it

Well, the New Testament prohibits it, and yet the entire Protestant movement is based on one's private interpretation, so someone had to introduce it, and it wasn't the Church. :)

[kosta50]

"Kolokotronis", said otherwise. So, which of you is presenting the correct EO position?

I doubt it. I know Kolokotronis better than you and he would not say something like that. What exactly did Kolo say? And if he did say what you claim, I am pinging him for the benefit of his own doubt, so that he may elaborate.

[kosta50]

Plus, when is the prayer of a righteous man ever "done"?

Why, the saints pray incessantly, as the Bible teaches.

[HarleyD]

You’ll find there are a wide variety of Baptists. Some Baptists believe there was always a “shadow” church apart from the official Catholic Church going all the way back. There is some evidence to this effect but I’ve never been interested in following it. There is no paper trail; it’s all conjecture. Also, to me it’s a bit pointless because I’m not interested in tracking groups of Christians as much as I’m interested in tracking the development of theology.

The Anabaptists were not well liked by the Protestants or the Catholics during the Reformation. I don’t know a whole lot about them except to say they held some rather strange views. However, I’m not sure that the Anabaptists isn’t a splinter group from other Baptists. If you compare the London Baptist confession against Anabaptist beliefs, they sound like two separate groups.

I’m not defending them, simply stating that I wouldn’t lump all Baptists into the same mold. Both John Piper and Rick Warren are Southern Baptist and they are like night and day.

[kosta50]

It is because His glory cannot be contained in heaven that it flows into our lives

Oh, please, if God wanted to contain His glory He could. That is just one of those "who's gonna outdo himself glorifying God" phrases.  If God doesn't need anything then He certanily doesn't need our praise either.

Obviously, He desires good for us, but He doesn't force Himself on us.

 Please remember that the person who wrote this also wrote the following:

1Cr 4:10 We [are] fools for Christ's sake, but ye [are] wise in Christ; we [are] weak, but ye [are] strong; ye [are] honourable, but we [are] despised.

Starving/raped children in Darfur are fools for Christ's sake? Please get real.

[Kolokotronis]

“”Kolokotronis”, said otherwise. So, which of you is presenting the correct EO position?

I doubt it. I know Kolokotronis better than you and he would not say something like that. What exactly did Kolo say? And if he did say what you claim, I am pinging him for the benefit of his own doubt, so that he may elaborate.”

Ah, Kosta mou, here’s what I said, at 10146:

“HD, where did you get that idea? The Church proclaims the inspiration of the Fathers throughout the liturgical year in Apolytikia and Kontakia. For example, this Kontakion from the feast of +Cyril of Jerusalem:

“With your lips, O wise Cyril, And through divine inspiration You enlightened your people To the worship of the one Trinity, Undivided in essence, yet divided in Hypostases. Wherefore rejoicing, we celebrate your all-holy memory, Offering you as our intercessor before God.”

I also said this, at 10198:

“Are you putting their writings on par with the Scriptures?”

Am I? Its not my place to put the writings of the Fathers anywhere save before my eyes. I will say that I think the Fathers are often far more clear than the scriptures, but that’s a personal opinion. For example, look at this, Homily XX on Ephesians Of +John Chrysostomos:....”

And this at 10216:

“Well I don’t know if there are gradations of divine inspiration. I doubt it, but The Church determined what would be scripture and what isn’t. Scripture is divinely inspired and so is the work of the Fathers. But the writings of the Fathers are not considered scripture (they are about scripture) and aside from +John Chrysostomos’ Pascal Sermon, I don’t think any of the writings of the Fathers are read at the Divine Liturgy. I suspect that divine inspiration alone isn’t what qualifies a writing as scriptural.

All in all, I’d say divine inspiration is divine inspiration and there are no gradations of it. The Church, however, understands what is scripture and what is not and has proclaimed what is and is not scriptural.”

Personally, I think the Protestants use the word inspired differently than we do, or ascribe more “importance to it” than we do. Given the way they regard the Bible, I suppose I can understand how that can be.

[HarleyD]

If God doesn't need anything then He certanily doesn't need our praise either.

Sorry, but God was doing very nicely for the gazillions years before we came along. He has His angels to praise Him-He doesn't need us.

Starving/raped children in Darfur are fools for Christ's sake? Please get real.

Well, why don't you just throw the bible in the trash and make up your own religion if you're not going to believe the scriptures? After all, that's what the Gnostics did. Just call it "Kosta's Orthodox Church of Brotherly Love" or something like that.

Man is inhuman to man; it doesn't matter whether one is a non-Christian and the other is. The book of Philemon is written to a slave owner about his runaway slave. Paul didn't criticize either one. Man's inhumanity to man doesn't negate God's love. God doesn't promise any of us a rose garden and we are all fallen creatures so we can be nasty to other at times.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

"Kolokotronis", said otherwise. So, which of you is presenting the correct EO position?

I doubt it. I know Kolokotronis better than you and he would not say something like that. What exactly did Kolo say?

Here is his initial statement apeaking of the writings of the church fathers, that led to mine and others questions:

To: HarleyD; stfassisi; Missey_Lucy_Goosey

"While they give insight into great theological truths their writings are not and never were considered "inspired" by the Church.

HD, where did you get that idea? The Church proclaims the inspiration of the Fathers throughout the liturgical year in Apolytikia and Kontakia. For example, this Kontakion from the feast of +Cyril of Jerusalem:

"With your lips, O wise Cyril,
And through divine inspiration
You enlightened your people
To the worship of the one Trinity,
Undivided in essence, yet divided in Hypostases.
Wherefore rejoicing, we celebrate your all-holy memory,
Offering you as our intercessor before God.

10,146 posted on 10/30/2007 7:11:00 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)

[stfassisi]

“”If he is of the Elect, he will repent, as all are called to repent.”

Wonderful! considering that I went to confession yesterday and spent time in Eucharistic Adoration praying for people like you,I guess that makes me the elect in your world
I don’t know my future and I want to be humble with the hope that God may accept me into heaven

I refuse to spend time thinking about if I am the elect or not and simply “try” and love ,live in the truth .The more I interact with people such as yourself ,the more God shows me that I need to sacrifice my time to pray for people such as yourself

My prayer for you is to pick up the cross instead of attacking the Catholic Church out of your ignorance.

Good Night !

I wish you a blessed evening!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

One thing that leads me to think that His sacrifice was sufficient for everyone is hypothetically imagining what would happen if God decided to save one more person beyond the original plan. Would Jesus then have to do something more to cover him? Obviously not. However, since we know that His sacrifice was only efficacious for some we have to decide whether that was by plan, or is that just the way it turned out based on man's decisions. The Reformed believe that God has a fully comprehensive plan for the universe and He is executing that plan flawlessly within time. If that is true, and if God is free to decide whom He wants to be with Him in Heaven, then it MUST have been by design that the sacrifice was only intended to be efficacious for some, i.e. only FOR some.

AMEN! Very well stated.

"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call." -- Acts 2:39

---

"The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:

That I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot: then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulders.

This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth: and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations.

For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?" -- Isaiah 14:24-27