It seems to me that the old faith is the revelation of Christ once made to the saints,Scripture and Councils, The Apostolic Succession in effect! Christ taught and we are enabled to achieve the New Jerusalem through this revelation. You and others might have another way, but I've followed this one for years and I can't see it it failing us!
Well then you should be able to point to the actual language of Scripture and Creeds to prove sacerdotal succession. Be my guest, but my view is that Scripture and Creeds exist to disprove the traditions of men and make them accountable to clear, written, objective standards. Also, what exactly does it mean "to achieve the New Jerusalem through this revelation [Apostolic Succession]" Is it not the case that you believe "Apostolic Succession" to be a new revelation given to the Apostles and the ancient church, yet never written down in either Scripture or the Creeds?
AB, I am all for the objective accountability to Scripture and the Creeds, but what is this term "sacerdotal succession"? It seems to me people are still confusing the ROMAN view of the apostolic succession with the proper, original meaning of that term. Even the Presbyterians teach apostolic succession in the form of, the minister is invalid if he wasn't ordained by those who've been proper ministers before him. I KNOW the Presbyterians hate calling it that, but it is what it is. This by definition implies a succession all the way back to the Apostles, and the invalidity of any minister who hasn't been ordained this way. I see no need to be afraid of an important term, solely because of Roman errors.
It's almost like you've never read Scripture or the Creeds. I am uncomfortable with this talk of 'objective standards' because the holy mysteries of Christian Dogma cannot really be considered objects that can be considered. Not simply because they are fundamentally above the reaches of human knowledge, but also because the category of 'object' is a false one to apply to the Trinity, it cannot be known independent of the subject, it cannot be 'known' at all. It cannot be spoken of, thus Scripture and Creeds give us only the weakest of understandings. But more pragmatically,you surely must appreciate that Scripture is a kaleidoscope of viewpoints, some parts contradicting others, its historically conditioned and many parts of it are obscure or downright offensive- the point of unity for the canonical texts cannot be found at the level of the writing itself. With the creeds, I'm glad you have the superior insight that renders something like Chalcedon, a principled fudge of two contradictory viewpoints as actually being something of an analytic proposition...or that would have been welcomed I'm sure within the decades that followed Nicaea and the meaning of homoousios. And how much these of course, rely on terms borrowed from 'pagan' greek philosophy. It's almost as if the traditions of men were being utilised rather than 'disproved' by the Early Church.
Patrick. I'm not allowed to use the name of certain schools of religious philosophy in this forum, so tell me, what school of religious philosophy says that God "cannot be known at all"? What do you think Paul meant and to whom do you think he was speaking when he went into the Areopagus and said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious.For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,nor is he served by human hands..." Acts 17 Now notice if you will that both the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds begin with similar statements about God making the world and not living in men's hands.
I believe it commonly goes by the name of Christianity. It is acknowledged when Isaiah says: 'As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts' and the reply of the Psalms 'Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, it is too high, I cannot attain it' and in Paul when he observes that God's folly is wiser than man's wisdom. But indeed, it seems like a relatively simple conclusion to make from the obvious imbalance of the relationship between God and humans, which in fact you (somewhat ironically) touch upon: This is exactly why those who tread the christian path say that God is unknowable, for to know something is to grasp it fully with the mind, which means it must have some kind of boundary upon it. As if God could possibly be exhaustively understood by a frail human mind. Any God that is fully comprehensible is no God but an idol. However it runs deeper than this, for how can anything created living in a created world possibly be able to describe the uncreated creator? Every term, every word, every idea is compromised by being drawn from the world of sense, or else by inability to imagine infinitude or eternity. It is strictly speaking, wrong to say God even exists, because we only understand existence in a creaturely way- primarily as a 'something' among other 'things'. Well first I would point out that 'made the world' 'does not live in temples' 'Lord of heaven and earth' and 'not served by human hands' does not count as an exhaustive description, and does not in any attempt to explain God, or describe his essence but merely mentions some perceived actions of him. These words do not capture God-as-he-is- they are analogies God is strictly unknowable in nature; discursive thought cannot grasp him, and its limited understanding must eventually melt away into the epistemologically superior faith and love, which in the divine darkness, such as their was for Moses on Mt. Sinai gives us a sense of the true God. By quietening rationalisations, and the self-will, by moral effort and interior prayer we may hope to experience God, but such a situation will be strictly unspeakable- as Paul tells us: 'I know a person in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows. And I know that such a person—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows— was caught up into Paradise and heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat.' This way has been part of the Church and informs the great writings of St. Gregory of Nyssa, Pseudo-Dionysios the Areopagite, St. John of the Cross, The anonymous author of 'the Cloud of Unknowing', Meister Eckhart, St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Gregory Palamas most prominently. However it is at the heart of the Church for the great revelations of Christianity- of the Trinity and of the Incarnation rely precisely on the understanding that we cannot think of God's existence in terms of our own. Those who tried to explain God in terms understood by the rational human mind eventually were proclaimed heretics- Arius, Eunomius, Sabellius, Nestorius etc. The defence mounted by St. Basil the Great, or St. Cyril of Alexandria or St. Athanasius rubbished their opponents views for thinking in terms of common human wisdom and philosophy- God is clearly a mystery first a foremost to the human mind- how does one intend to grasp the three in one or the divine and human as they are? But they known to be true through the real experience of the process of salvation and of the life of worship of the Church. It continues to have life in the Church today via Jean-Luc Marion, All theologians of the neo-patristic synthesis (lossky, florovsky, Louth, Ware, Behr etc.), aspects of Karl Rahner, Denys Turner, and our very own Rowan Williams. Of course, whilst God is still strictly unknowable, the experience strictly unspeakable, this makes terrible material for revealing oneself to humans, we need to say something, and indeed because God creates ex nihilo; he is the progenitor of everything that exists and they find themselves sustained by his creative principle we can predicate earthly terms upon him, as long as we're always aware that it is metaphor, symbol or when it comes closest of all, analogy (something that speaks truthfully and meaningfully of the analogue without actually describing its essence- as I believe St. Athanasius put it: 'God is light, but he is unlike any light we know of'). All Words are ultimately inadequate, partial truths that point the way to the true and direct relationship with the Godhead. Hope that clears up your questions.
After reading your reply it seems that when we say "know" there's 2 different levels of the knowledge of God. #1 -- Is can we know him "exhaustively", i.e. can we know the mind of God -- no we cannot. #2-- can we know God in the sense of having a relationship with him -- Yes. Those that have seen Jesus have seen the Father. We can love Jesus and he can love us.
.Also, what exactly does it mean "to achieve the New Jerusalem through this revelation [Apostolic Succession]" Is it not the case that you believe "Apostolic Succession" to be a new revelation given to the Apostles and the ancient church, yet never written down in either Scripture or Creed. Aaytch Barton. Answer: The New Jerusalem, which has also been called the Tabernacle of God, the Holy City, the City of God, the Celestial City, and Heavenly Jerusalem, is literally heaven on earth. It is referred to in the Bible in several places (Isaiah 52:1, Galatians 4:26, Hebrews 11:10, 12:22-24, and 13:14), but it is most fully described in the 21st chapter of the book of Revelation. Neither do I believe that ,"Apostolic Succession,'to be a New Revelation. it is the transmission of the Revelation of Christ and of Catholic Orders, (two separate items,) through the transmission of hands by the means of Catholic Bishops for the use of the One, Holy catholic and Apostolic Church.
Patrick Sticks... Thanks for posting the link to the Anglican Catholic Future, located in England. I like the Statement and the Events. ...Scottish Monk
Well, to be honest, the way western society is now and the fact that liberalism has ravaged almost every portion of the Christian Church, when I think of "Ancient Church" I just have to think 60 years back when there was still some kind of normalcy and at least an appearance of orthodoxy. Now, it's everything goes under the sun.
I imagine the conservative wing of the Church said as much about St. Paul's theology and the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem. The idea that there is a normative and static 'Christianity' that exists for 1900-odd years that suddenly crumbles around the time of the 60s is hardly a historically credible position to take, a bit of a self-indulgent fantasy.
"Appearance" is the operative word, unfortunately. Rome began losing the orthodox faith in the 9th century by its additions and perversions. Many of us believe that the Eastern "Orthodox" corrupted the ancient truth by enshrining the veneration of images in 787. Something clearly happened to Christian antiquity in the 600 year period between the abdication of Augustulus and the schism of East and West. When I think of the Ancient Church, I think of an interior Reformation of the Heart without Protestantism; Catholicism without Romanism; and Orthodoxy without Orientalism. I think of a reverent liturgy that worships Christ without feeling the need to worship the bread and wine, nor to elevate them like pagan sacrifices. I think of a theology that is Arminian as to Free Will, and Calvinist as to the sovereignty, glory, and majesty of God's providence. I think of an equality of bishops under no one but the authority and headship of Christ Jesus via His Vicar, the Holy Spirit. I think, most of all, of a Christocentric view of the Cosmos, battling the world instead of totally embracing it.
Well, certainly the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem or St. Paul's theology did not include the blessing of sodomy, the "ordination" of women, attacks on the inerrancy of the scriptures, a pathetic acceptance of every new fad in scholarship, etc. There were always problems in the Church, for sure, but I just the resent modern ones.
Just because the early Church was like that, and is our ideal, does not mean that there are any chruches around like it today. Ideal very rarely correlates with reality, sadly. Anglican Episcopacy comes closest to the ancient model which is attested by all the Fathers and Councils for 400 years, however. It is within that framework that we are best able to bring the ancient faith back into life, love, and practice. I think I'm in love!
Ah yes, because a prurient obsession with a spot of the bum tickle or the number of testicles on a priest are the eternal, abiding first order problems of Christianity, the Arians were nothing on today's sinners and heretics eh? Is it possible that you resent the modern debates because you simply happen to be alive whilst they're being discussed? And actually on that note, I think the Theology of St. Paul may well prove in the future to be used to assist the cases you've outlined as problematic. But of course we have the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, from which the rest presumably flows. Though iI'd be intrigued to understand precisely what you mean by this term, before I say something too hastily.
Well, I wouldn't call condemning the acceptance of homosexualism as a "prurient obsession," nor the pathetic attempt to appease feminism by ordaining women a mere question of worrying about "the number of testicles on a priest." I never said a word about the Arians or any other heretics of times past. If you had read what I said, you would've noticed that I admitted to the fact that there has always been problems in the Church. Yes, I resent modern apostacy because I happen to be alive today. A man only lives once. Biblical inerrancy means that the Holy Scriptures are devoid of error, be it theological, historical, factual, etc.