Mr. Rogers:
Every heresy starts with someone reading the scriptures and coming up with an interpretation. In this sense, you are no different from Arius. The entire question was due to Arius view of Proverbs 8:22-31.
“Part of the folly of man is trying to use the Scripture for purposes it was not meant for, such as a systematic theology text. One can debate free will vs election till the cows come home, but God hasn’t chosen to reveal every detail to us - and as men, we need to submit to His discretion. The scriptures are not meant so fools can analyze God.”
So from this text, you are implicitly criticizing the Protestant position of the priesthood of all believers to read the bible and interpret it for themselves apart from the Larger Church.
So if the Church can’t reflect on the Scriptures to understand the Nature of God, the Relationship among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit [Trinity], the Person of Christ, then what is it you believe about those because they are not explicitly defined in the Bible. That is where the Church reflecting on the those Scriptures, The Councils an the Tradition of the Church as expressed by the orthodox Church Fathers comes into to play.
As for your take that the Wisdom there is referring to the Wisdom that God gives to men, nobody ever interpreted that passage to mean what you want it to mean. Everybody in the early Church saw it as referring to Christ, even Arius did, but in what fashion did it refer to Christ. It seems you are now admitting that reading the Bible on ones accord can lead to heresy!!, even though you want probably admit that here on FR. It is the logical consequence of Protestantism’s sola scriptura and all believers reading the Bible for themselves. This results each individual become the authority.
And as for the Title, no, the title is incorrect, if what is being implied is that Catholics think the Fathers are Apostles. The Fathers and their writings reflect orthodox writings to the degree that they stated in communion with the Church. WHile no individual Father is infallible, the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, reflected on their writings to help formulate orthodox doctrine and not just rely on the individual scriptural interpretations of men like Arius. In some sense, Arius is more philosophically a Protestant in that he read the Bible on his own and came to a doctrinal conclusion that the Church rejected. Every heresy before him and after starts with one Man reading some text of Sacred Scripture and coming up with some novel notion that leads into some new theological movement and church group.
So let me get this straight, as I don’t want to put words in your mouth, which I might have done before. Question, 1 You reject the Council of Nicea and most of its decrees, is that Correct?,
Question 2. You reject Saint John Chrysostem’s interpretations in his Commentaries on Saint Pauls Epistles that I put forth earlier in favor of your own? Do I have this correct?
I am referring back to the discussion on the notion of Bishop/Presbyter/Deacon and the functions/ministries that those 3 orders of Church office performed and how they were understood by the early Church, in particular, in the case of John Chrysostem, from the East/Greek speaking part of the Church.
“Question, 1 You reject the Council of Nicea and most of its decrees, is that Correct?,
Question 2. You reject Saint John Chrysostem’s interpretations in his Commentaries on Saint Pauls Epistles that I put forth earlier in favor of your own? Do I have this correct?”
1 - I don’t care about the Council of Nicea. I’ve never read its pronouncements, nor am I tempted to do so. The Creed of 325 looks fine, but the Creed of 381 added “we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins” - which is fine if it refers to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, done by Jesus and sealing us in Him, but erroneous if it means, as I suspect, that water baptism remits sin - and yes, I’m a Baptist.
According to Wiki, here are its 20 canons:
1. prohibition of self-castration
2. establishment of a minimum term for catechumen (persons studying for baptism)
3. prohibition of the presence in the house of a cleric of a younger woman who might bring him under suspicion (the so called virgines subintroductae)
4. ordination of a bishop in the presence of at least three provincial bishops and confirmation by the Metropolitan bishop
5. provision for two provincial synods to be held annually
6. exceptional authority acknowledged for the patriarchs of Alexandria (pope), Antioch, and Rome (the Pope), for their respective regions
7. recognition of the honorary rights of the see of Jerusalem
8. provision for agreement with the Novatianists, an early sect
9–14. provision for mild procedure against the lapsed during the persecution under Licinius
15–16. prohibition of the removal of priests
17. prohibition of usury among the clergy
18. precedence of bishops and presbyters before deacons in receiving the Eucharist (Holy Communion)
19. declaration of the invalidity of baptism by Paulian heretics
20. prohibition of kneeling on Sundays and during the Pentecost (the fifty days commencing on Easter).
This may come as a shock, but I’ve never been tempted to castrate myself, nor have I ever needed to talk someone out of it. And if someone wants to kneel and pray on Sunday, I’m just glad they wanted to pray!
And speaking of Paulian heretics, here is the Wiki article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Samosata
“But Paul considered the service of the church as a very lucrative profession. His ecclesiastical jurisdiction was venal and rapacious; he extorted frequent contributions from the most opulent of the faithful, and converted to his own use a considerable part of the public revenue. By his pride and luxury the Christian religion was rendered odious in the eyes of the Gentiles.”
In most Baptist churches, he’d be tossed out on his ear in about 30 minutes. It took 12 years for the other “Church Fathers” to take definitive action.
2 - I haven’t read much of “Saint John Chrysostem’s interpretations”, nor do I feel a pressing need to do so. I have read a variety of the church fathers, and find them largely absurd. They pretty much believed whatever they wanted to believe, and at councils they excommunicated each other left & right.
I suspect I would disagree with his positions on Jews:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.asp
“So from this text, you are implicitly criticizing the Protestant position of the priesthood of all believers to read the bible and interpret it for themselves apart from the Larger Church.”
Not at all. I don’t think all the priests & bishops of 300 AD were Christians, and there is no sign they were all led by the Holy Spirit, or even gave a rat’s rear about anything besides their power and philosophy. I believe all should read the scriptures, and the Holy Spirit will lead those He indwells to understand. By understand, I do not mean they will be ready to count the angels on the head of a pin, but rather that they will be better able to serve God.
I would greatly prefer for Christians to read the Word of God than to not do so, although the position of the Catholic Church for hundreds of years opposed commoners doing so.
“As for your take that the Wisdom there is referring to the Wisdom that God gives to men, nobody ever interpreted that passage to mean what you want it to mean.”
Then they are stupid. Proverbs 8:
“1 Does not wisdom call?
Does not understanding raise her voice?
2 On the heights beside the way,
at the crossroads she takes her stand;
3 beside the gates in front of the town,
at the entrance of the portals she cries aloud:
4 “To you, O men, I call,
and my cry is to the children of man.”
Oh golly, is Jesus now a girl?
“10 Take my instruction instead of silver,
and knowledge rather than choice gold,
11 for wisdom is better than jewels,
and all that you may desire cannot compare with her.”
Is that poetry discussing the nature of the Trinity? Is it meant to be a description of Jesus Christ? I think not...but you believe what you will.