Sunday, June 11, 2017
... on St. Basil
HGL's F.B. writings : What St Basil Was and What he Was Not Against · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on St. Basil
Who was Basil?
Reasons to Believe
Dr. Zweerink, while giving lip service to the credentials of St Basil, how about accepting with him that the six days were calendar days?
"Not so fast, he's just a doctor of the Church, that is just a RC title ..."
Lip service, as said ... not sure you will even admit it as candidly as I just put it for you!
1) The language in this video sounds supportive of Catholicism. Is this a Catholic channel? Let us know, so the knowledgeable ones can move along and not waste our time on the heretical Catholic Church. Besides, the mother church is above scripture, right? Who needs to follow scripture with that kind of logic?
2) Saints are not people "The Church" elects to be special people. There is no Bible for this practice.
Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Ephesians 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Here, we see contextual evidence that "saints" are not a specially elected people, but another name for "believers".
If one does a search of all instances where "saints" appears in the N.T., the overwhelming context points to this. Saint is another term for believer.
3) There is no Bible for the concept of "The Church":
Acts 9:31 Then had the CHURCHES rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria
Romans 16:4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the CHURCHES of the Gentiles.
1 Corinthians 7:17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all CHURCHES.
Galatians 1:2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the CHURCHES of Galatia:
1 Thessalonians 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the CHURCHES of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus
And on, and on...
Noble LaRocco Masi
+COMB0RICO Hey dude, here are some answers
1. This is not a Catholic Channel actually protestant, but dealing with pre-15th century church = Catholic Church
2. Of Course, but some were named Saints officially by the Catholic Church in the old days. When talking about history you inevitably have to talk about the Catholic Church
3. Actually, The Church is the Bride of Christ, look at Revelations!!! R
"Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;"
Indeed, saint is not a title you can have while you live on earth, unlike above list (some of them you can no longer have, evangelist refers to four people who are all in Heaven now). One can say the above list has mainly been simplified to the Catholic title "bishop". All or most of above had episcopal consecration, and the diversifications like being an original disciple for "apostle" or writing a Gospel for "evangelist" are gone.
Or if evangelist was one who brought the Gospel to any people who had not yet received it, that means an overlap with apostles (which you have in the other option too) and the modern term is "missionary bishop".
"Ephesians 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:"
The saints refer to all of the Church collectively.
But on earth, we don't know who is going to persevere. Therefore we don't refer to people alive as saints, since they may not be among the finally elect. In theory, someone in Purgatory would be as much as saint as someone in Heaven, but in practise not all particulars who are either placed are down here known as saints, and those who are are basically those who made it to Heaven immediately - one exception of a saint who prayed to be in Purgatory and was there three days - because those are the people God singles out as models for us, by working miracles in connection with their names, asked for intercessions, relics.
This means a declaration of the Church someone is a saint is very different from an ordination of a living person to an office. The office can be abused, the office can be lost. What God guarantees by miracles cannot be either. And, yes, this means the Catholic Church is able to discern true miracles from God from the false miracles worked with the power of Satan.
"Here, we see contextual evidence that "saints" are not a specially elected people, but another name for "believers". If one does a search of all instances where "saints" appears in the N.T., the overwhelming context points to this. Saint is another term for believer."
Rather, the saintS (plural) is another term for the Church - believers and sanctified such as to the living members.
The one usage does not prove the other usage wrong.
"There is no Bible for the concept of "The Church":"
It is also a synonym for "Kingdom of God" or "Kingdom of Heaven".
Christ said "on this rock, I will build my Church" - not "my Churches".
"Acts 9:31 Then had the CHURCHES rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria"
Refers to sees, each with its bishop (except Jerusalem where the Apostles were a college of bishops).
They are parts of the Church as well as images of Her.
"Romans 16:4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the CHURCHES of the Gentiles."
" 1 Corinthians 7:17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all CHURCHES."
So, both Peter and Paul commanded in all sees - not just one or two. And guess where both died? Rome.
"Galatians 1:2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the CHURCHES of Galatia: 1 Thessalonians 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the CHURCHES of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus"
"When talking about history you inevitably have to talk about the Catholic Church"
Yep. "To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant" John Henry Cardinal Newman. Forgot exact reference.
The Writings of Basil
Reasons to Believe
Yes, as a Catholic I cannot consider original carnivorousness outright heretical, I can just consider it less probable.
However, not sure if St Basil can be cited as authority for original carnivorousness, unlike St Augustine and St Bede, who may have misundestood him.
The context in which he says those teeth he doesn't deem were created for nothing ... I recall he may have been doing an excursion mentally to some post-Fall conditions, but let's see.
Note, there are other Church Fathers more clearly against original carnivorousness : Sts Justin and Irenee.
Looking at text now : it seems he is taking modern zoological observations as proof that original creation was very good - which it was and which those denying original carnivorousness agree on.
So, while you can cite Sts Ausgustine and Bede more directly for your purpose, you cannot do so with St Basil.
NOW, if you go to St Augustine, his view on original carnivorousness clearly excludes any unnecessary suffering before Adam fell. Adam would order a rabbit to go to the mouth of a wolf who would thankfully to Adam and mercifully to the rabbit go about and kill it swiftly (while its vain struggle to preserve life remains a good thing) and then eat all, letting nothing go to waste.
NOT exactly what you find if you go to rock records of carnivorous dinos, do you?
So, even on the view of St Augustine, who believed in original carnivorousness, you can't say the fossil record is older than Adam's sin - even theologically, ignoring the chronological implications for Biblical history.
"To carnivorous animals He has given pointed teeth which their nature requires for their support. Those that are only half furnished with teeth have received several distinct receptacles for their food."
Actually a vegetarian lion (yes, there are examples) had another digestion than a ruminant. So, the observation remains essentially true if in transposing it back to Eden we take away the element of carnivorousness.
2:20 "designed to be carnivores in the first place"
It is not a mere chance which animal is a carnivore after the fall and which isn't. Certain ones were at least designed to become carnivores quicker than others.
There is a deer somewhere in Asia which is a carnivore, even if deers in general aren't. Modern city conditions push doves to eat chicken meat and pork - more often at least than earlier conditions where the near exclusive diet would be bread crumbs and worms.
Or one could say, God had already designed the processes by which carnivorousness would begin, when and if it did.
I actually did look further down, and here is what I find:
"And let nobody accuse the Creator of having produced venomous animals, destroyers and enemies of our life. Else let them consider it a crime in the schoolmaster when he disciplines the restlessness of youth by the use of the rod and whip to maintain order."
In other words, like St Augustine's view of thorns and certain insects, certain things would have remained dormant if God had had no sin to punish.
They were there as potentialities in the original creation, but would not have come to fruition.
Psalm 103:21 is even a parallel to 144:15, which is part of monastic saying grace before meals.
Yes, after the fall, when carnivorousness is condition of many animals, God earns glory for giving them their prey. But any way, God earns glory for giving anyone the food they need when they need it.
Btw, Ps 103 contradicts the idea of "survival of the fittest", since it teaches "survival by Providence".
It also contradicts a few other modern scientific ideas. Like rejection of "animism". Like rejection of geostationary cosmology - both of which are taught here:
 qui facis angelos tuos spiritus, et ministros tuos ignem urentem.
 Qui fundasti terram super stabilitatem suam, non inclinabitur in saeculum saeculi.