Angels, Hierarchies, Tradition, Resurrection

When an Anglican asks a Catholic priest about the ranking of the angels, is that all in the Bible?
Christians on Youtube | 20 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFREKMNot2s

"this has been my mission in 2:55 the last couple of years to try and 2:58 discover what is what is is true what is 3:00 God's will what is the kind of 3:03 accretions of various you know people 3:05 who've come after Christ to some of 3:08 invented stuff for political reasons you 3:09 know what's real and what's not real"

This is kind of a Protestant obsession.

There is a pretty simple shortcut. If all the Churches that have come from the Apostolic Church in what would seem seamless ways to at least some localities (Monophysites of two or three obediences, Nestorians, even more Orthodox and Catholics), it has to be either real, or so compatible with what is real that it is unimportant in what ways it isn't.

Suppose the nine choirs were somehow not real, I think that would be kind of unimportant. I don't know the passages from diverse books that Fr. Lampert is referring to, so far neither has mentioned the Elephant in the Room. Celestial Hierarchy (Περὶ τῆς οὐρανίου ἱεραρχίας) by Dionysius the Areopagite.

Now, the Protestants have their agenda in calling these writings Pseudo-Dionysus, denying the author was the disciple of St. Paul. But if he was the disciple of St. Paul, the work would be what St. Paul taught St. Dionysus, mentioned in the last verse of Acts 17 and so obligatory. Whether St. Paul had it from a vision or from pre-Christian and good rabbinic tradition.

The Protestant agenda would be very clear insofar as Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (Περὶ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱεραρχίας) would refute quite a lot of Protestant Church structures, and also would refute some Protestant ideas of what a priest exactly is.

3:52 "early Christians"

This is not all there is of tradition.

You do have the consensus of post-Nicene Fathers too.

"the third leg"

The magisterium is not quite on par with the other two, it's a means for them.

HAL9000

@HAL9000-su1mz

You keep saying this. Do you actually believe it?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@HAL9000-su1mz If I didn't — what would my motive be?

HAL9000

@hglundahl Self aggrandizement?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@HAL9000-su1mz Having to abide by the dogmas of a Church, whichever I find would give me that how ?

So, next question : supposing I have some other reason than self aggrandisement to be Catholic, what would you feel about answering the argument given above instead of trying analyses ?

@HAL9000-su1mz Plus another question.

"You keep saying this" — in lots of contexts when reacting to Protestant videos stating otherwise, yes.

But have you been following that material for some time now?

If so, you should know that I also keep saying Evolution (Big Picture version) is false, Six Day Creation and Global Flood within thousands of years, both of them are true, which is the traditional Catholic view by the way, and that I keep saying it when reacting to evolutionist content.

I might have chosen the path of Apologist for self aggrandisement. Given the stupidity of so many opponents, it's definitely gratifying. Or the self aggrandisement I get from it is a side issue from the fact Apologetics are needed now. I hope the latter!

HAL9000

@hglundahl I cannot argue with your ego - only with your intellect.

@hglundahl Pure ego.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@HAL9000-su1mz Oh, nice cop-out.

You pretend my intellect is off and my ego on?

Nice cop-out.

No, as I said, my line of work may be ego, what I say in it is intellect.

If you can't respect that, get lost.

HAL9000

@hglundahl We succeed only to the degree to which we combat our egos. What is your authority for your strange teachings?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@HAL9000-su1mz My teachings are not strange, they are Catholic, my authority is the Church that Jesus founded, unless it's a lower level of "teaching", opinion or technical explanation rather than dogma, or non-religious subject altogether.

St. Paul called Her the ground and pillar of truth.

As to success, it's in God's hand, and your view on it is not in the Bible any more than in Church Tradition.

HAL9000

@hglundahl OK. Define "Catholic"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@HAL9000-su1mz Catholic can be defined primarily about Church, but also about teaching.

About Church: the undivided Church that Jesus founded. If one is not sure where it is, the most realistic option for it will do.
About teaching: quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus. If one is not sure what that is, the most realistic option will do.

"The Church accumulated false teachings until a Reformation was necessary" is not the most realistic option on Church.
"This is what the first Church taught, even if no one or very few taught so later before the Reformation" is not the most realistic option on teaching.

I can relate to someone who says "Russian Orthodox Church" though I think he's wrong. I am Catholic in the sense of Roman Catholic. More precisely one of the guys who think Bergoglio is not a Roman Catholic and therefore not the Pope.

HAL9000

@hglundahl Oh. Sorry for any offense. I am confounded by his lack of clarity, but do concede that he is the Holy Father. Why? Because he was elected by the College of Cardinals - AND - because God has the right to test us. Tobit 12:13 (Vulgate). He will be replaced and I would rather suffer for obedience than for disobedience.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@HAL9000-su1mz It is a longstanding theological meme, held by prominent theologians and saints, like Sts Bellarmine, de Sales, Liguori, that a heretic is not a Pope.

While certain of his pastoral items could be put down to "it's generosity, not doctrine", he disbelieves Young Earth Creationism, therefore probably an Individual Adam. Or gets his relation to mankind wrong.

This brings us to Trent Session V.

HAL9000

@hglundahl Is that not a working rather than a legal doctrine? Patience my brother!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@HAL9000-su1mz Trent Session V on original sin are five canons with anathemas.

Deny a literal Adam, and I think you fall foul of the first three of them.

You may have thought of Trent Session IV, Bible and Church Fathers?

HAL9000

@hglundahl I do not necessarily like nuance, but it is sometimes necessary. I think it it is overused recently.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Was seemingly taken down

[I put it back]

@HAL9000-su1mz What is your nuance on a literal Adam not being necessary for canons 1, 2, 3 of Trent Session V on Original Sin?

Meanwhile Trent Session IV is confirmed in more stringent terms by Vatican Session III, 24 April 1870:

8 Now since the decree on the interpretation of holy scripture, profitably made by the council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that
in matters of faith and morals,
belonging as they do to the establishing of christian doctrine,
that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one,
which holy mother church held and holds,
since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture.

9 In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.

4. If anyone
does not receive as sacred and canonical the complete books of sacred scripture with all their parts, as the holy council of Trent listed them, or
denies that they were divinely inspired :
let him be anathema.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[added]

@HAL9000-su1mz "You keep saying this."
= despite your hiding behind an alias I cannot recognise from earlier, you have been around me before
"What is your authority for your strange teachings"
= you speak of several, meaning you have been around me or my writings before, and also you lump them together

In honest discourse, you could have actually asked on each why I think so, instead of waiting to have so to speak a "lump sum" of past "strange teachings" that you do not specify.

It is not a strange teaching that tradition does not end with early Church Fathers, and it is not a strange teaching that Magisterium is subservient to Bible and Tradition.

Both of these are traditional.

So, exactly how many other ones of my remarks have you lumped together into "strange teachingS"?

Plus, why the censoring of Vatican Council III Session, which doesn't speak in your favour? [It was taken down again]

HAL9000

@hglundahl OK, so I ask your forgiveness and will strive to understand. However, the Holy Spirit has placed a pope in Peters chair - regardless of whether we like him or not.

Again, God is testing us. Do we pass or fail Many times in life we must "suck it up" and carry on with perseverance.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@HAL9000-su1mz You find it acceptable that a man supposed to be "Pope" pretends it is acceptable to believe Adam was a representative, not just for all coming from him, but for all living beside him (polygenism)? Or that he was even a literary figure (polygenism once again)?

I agree there is a Pope. Michael II, residing in the Philippines.

So, what are you doing not obeying him?

HAL9000

@hglundahl He has not spoken ex cathedra. Would you prefer a Medici pope or three? I pray. That is my job before God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@HAL9000-su1mz A Medici Pope is preferrable to accepting a heretic as "pope" ...

Three Popes have upheld the "CCC" with its pretty blatant acceptance of Evolutionist error in §§ 283 and those around 390.

That's pretty magisterial if they had been Popes, even if it's not an ex cathedra definition with anathema.

Jimmy Akin did an excellent breakdown on what traditions we are confident as Apostolic and from God:

How Do You Know Which Traditions Are of God?
Jimmy Akin | 23 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkzhFZnnpBk