Did Jesus Care about the New Testament?

[Della]

Hmmm…

Some basis for following comments:

1. The Church is organic.
2. From #1, we know that the Church changes over time, it develops, it matures.
3. The Church speaks and writes many words - some of which is the NT.
4. People come to believe by written and spoken words from the Church.
5. Not always is their belief founded on (or strictly on) the NT.

The point of this thread for me is to ask the question if Jesus (prior to his Crucifixion and Resurrection) cared all that much exactly how the Church developed. He knew it would be organic (mustard seed, for example).

I assert:

1. Sin alters the direction and growth of the Church. The creeds, for example, were a type of “immune response” to people twisting the proper teachings of the Church. The Church responds by fighting against error in the form of the creeds.
2. Sin is never desired by God.

St. Paul sinned greatly against God in his persecution of the Church. Through God’s intervention and grace (and St. Paul’s conformity to that grace), St. Paul ends up writing a great deal of the NT. But, to say that the NT is exactly as it is - and it was desired by Christ to be exactly this way - I think goes against some of my basic understanding. (The poster “Timothy” earlier makes a case that the NT was foreshadowed by the two swords in the upper room during the Last Supper.) So, maybe Christ did desire a New Testament.

I freely admit I can be very wrong, and I prefer that actually because once I understand my errors, I get to learn more Truth and shed more error. That’s a great benefit.

I will respond to the part I bolded, if that’s all right.

Nowhere does the Church teach that the NT is exactly what Jesus would have wanted written. That doesn’t mean, of course, that the NT isn’t inspired by the Holy Spirit, of course it is. Rather, the NT was written by men, using their gifts and faith, for specific reasons that they wised to address. God worked through them in this, but if other circumstances had been in play we might have had a very different set of writings, and perhaps none at all. Our Lord certainly would have known that his words would be written down–it would be a natural part of teaching that he commissioned the Apostles to do. We have what we have because that’s what was written. Jesus never said he had any written material in mind, but that doesn’t mean he had no idea written works would be done. Or am I missing your question entirely?

 

[in_servitude]

I will respond to the part I bolded, if that’s all right.

Fine by me!

Nowhere does the Church teach that the NT is exactly what Jesus would have wanted written.

OK. Does it teach that Jesus wanted a NT in any form?

That doesn’t mean, of course, that the NT isn’t inspired by the Holy Spirit, of course it is. Rather, the NT was written by men, using their gifts and faith, for specific reasons that they wised to address.

Yes, I agree. The Holy Spirit also inspired the creeds, and many other council documents.

God worked through them in this, but if other circumstances had been in play we might have had a very different set of writings, and perhaps none at all.

This is my also my opinion. It could have been different. Still inspired. Still Truth, but different.

Our Lord certainly would have known that his words would be written down–it would be a natural part of teaching that he commissioned the Apostles to do.

I’ve come to accept this.

We have what we have because that’s what was written.

Sort’a… It was written (along side other books filled with garbage and error) - and only that which was inspired was then later raised up by other inspired men.

Jesus never said he had any written material in mind, but that doesn’t mean he had no idea written works would be done.

I agree. But, how many times have I heard people equate the NT with God Himself! As if the two are indistinguishable. The truth is that the growth of the Church could have twisted and turned in an infinitely varying number of ways. Each variation is would still profess 100% Truth - I’m not arguing against that. But it could have been different.

Or am I missing your question entirely?

You’re on it. Thanks.

 

[Della]

Fine by me!

OK. Does it teach that Jesus wanted a NT in any form?

We cannot know what Jesus might have wanted since he didn’t ask anyone to write anything. However, St. Paul mentioned receiving God’s word either orally or in written form. The message is more important than the means by which it is/was conveyed, yes?

Yes, I agree. The Holy Spirit also inspired the creeds, and many other council documents.

Indeed. This is the charism Jesus promised to his Church.

This is my also my opinion. It could have been different. Still inspired. Still Truth, but different.

Yes, but only in the issues that came up. Every age has it’s own issues, which is why we have a living Magisterium and not just a book.

I’ve come to accept this.

Well, it’s only logical that the Apostles would write things down–it’s common sense, and Jesus was certainly wise enough to understand that.

Sort’a… It was written (along side other books filled with garbage and error) - and only that which was inspired was then later raised up by other inspired men.

Well, yes and no. One of the criteria for a writing to be considered inspired is that it have apostolic origins. The ones that were rejected came later, in most cases. The Didache wasn’t included merely because there were no extant copies at the time the NT was being compiled, but it is certainly orthodox in every way. Even modern writings can be fully orthodox, is not considered Holy Writ.

I agree. But, how many times have I heard people equate the NT with God Himself! As if the two are indistinguishable. The truth is that the growth of the Church could have twisted and turned in an infinitely varying number of ways. Each variation is would still profess 100% Truth - I’m not arguing against that. But it could have been different.

Yes, this is called biblodolatry–worship of the Bible. This does not mean that the Bible isn’t the written word of God, but we cannot substitute it for Christ, nor does it explicitly contain everything we need to believe. The Bible is the witness to God working with man down through the ages, from Adam to Jesus and on to the Church. It’s not a theology book, per se. Nor was it meant to be parsed as one.

You’re on it. Thanks.

Good. I hope my poor words help you.

 

[PJM]

=in_servitude;11463711]Hmmm…

Some basis for following comments:

1. The Church is organic.
2. From #1, we know that the Church changes over time, it develops, it matures.
3. The Church speaks and writes many words - some of which is the NT.
4. People come to believe by written and spoken words from the Church.
5. Not always is their belief founded on (or strictly on) the NT.

The point of this thread for me is to ask the question if Jesus (prior to his Crucifixion and Resurrection) cared all that much exactly how the Church developed. He knew it would be organic (mustard seed, for example).

.

And here dear friend is your ANSWER

1. God is ALWAYS in charge; even when we wish He wasn’t
2. Christ loved us enough to become like us in EVERY WAY BUT SIN
3. Christ Proves His Love for us by His Passion; Death and Resurrection

43 Christ CONTINUES to prove His Love [and concern] for us Through the seven sacraments He instituted:thumbsup:

Nothing; ABSOLUTELY NOTHING happens that God does nor either:
Cause
Permit
Tolerate

In Mt. 28:19-20 and AGAIN in Mk 16:14-15 and again John 21 Christ MANDATES Teaching what HE had taught the Apostles:

cf. “Go into the ENTIRE WORLD and teach THEM ALL that I taught to you”

Then in 2nd Tim. 3:16 God affirms this mandate

So YES my friend; the NT exist because Christ desired that it exist. AMEN!

God Bless you!
Patrick

 

[in_servitude]

And here dear friend is your ANSWER

Thanks!

1. God is ALWAYS in charge; even when we wish He wasn’t

Yes, this knowledge makes my life less stressful.

1. Christ loved us enough to become like us in EVERY WAY BUT SIN

Agreed.

1. Christ Proves His Love for us by His Passion; Death and Resurrection

Agreed.

1. Christ CONTINUES to prove His Love [and concern] for us Through the seven sacraments He instituted:thumbsup:

Agreed.

Nothing; ABSOLUTELY NOTHING happens that God does nor either:
Cause
Permit
Tolerate

Yes. I believe that God **permits **His Church to grow and develop within the envelope of Truth. He will not **tolerate **error in His Church’s teachings. That is a large envelope. There is room for many variations, and I think that means many variations on the NT. There will be new teachings coming our way (still consistent with the same Truth) as new errors come to light.

In Mt. 28:19-20 and AGAIN in Mk 16:14-15 and again John 21 Christ MANDATES Teaching what HE had taught the Apostles:

cf. “Go into the ENTIRE WORLD and teach THEM ALL that I taught to you”

Then in 2nd Tim. 3:16 God affirms this mandate

So YES my friend; the NT exist because Christ desired that it exist. AMEN!

Why does St. Paul make a point to say that what he is writing is something that he did not get from other apostles? Rather, St. Paul asserts he heard this directly from God during his years on the desert [after Jesus died]? This is not consistent with your quote from Matthew, because St. Paul wrote much of the NT.

God Bless you!
Patrick

And you too!

 

[Della]

Yes. I believe that God **permits **His Church to grow and develop within the envelope of Truth. He will not **tolerate **error in His Church’s teachings. That is a large envelope. There is room for many variations, and I think that means many variations on the NT. There will be new teachings coming our way (still consistent with the same Truth) as new errors come to light.

What new errors and what new teachings do your foresee? And what do you base this idea on? There have been no new teachings since Jesus commissioned the Apostles and called St. Paul. Nor will there be. Doctrines are developed and sometimes declared dogmas, but they were always believed not invented along the way.

Why does St. Paul make a point to say that what he is writing is something that he did not get from other apostles? Rather, St. Paul asserts he heard this directly from God during his years on the desert [after Jesus died]? This is not consistent with your quote from Matthew, because St. Paul wrote much of the NT.

It is important to know what St. Paul was saying here. He was not claiming that he had secret knowledge that the other Apostles did not have nor that he was preaching another Gospel from theirs. He was merely establishing the fact that, like the other Apostles, he was directly called to be an Apostle by Jesus himself. St. Paul visited the other Apostles who affirmed him in his position. St. Peter wrote that St. Paul’s writings were Scripture. There was no disparity between St. Paul and the other Apostles.

 

[in_servitude]

What new errors and what new teachings do your foresee? And what do you base this idea on? There have been no new teachings since Jesus commissioned the Apostles and called St. Paul. Nor will there be. Doctrines are developed and sometimes declared dogmas, but they were always believed not invented along the way.

How about: the Apostle’s Creed?
How about: the canon of scripture? the NT?

Why would there ever be a teaching on the infallibility of the pope? That would be pointless if you say that there is no new teaching (we are simply filling out - we’re not upending existing teaching.)

The Apostle’s Creed is contained within the envelope of Truth - it is true, and always was true. But, it was not always taught (thus, it is what I call a new teaching). This is different than saying that there is a divergent teaching. I am not arguing that the Church will have divergent teaching down the road.

A possible future error that the Church might have to address in the future? I would have to make something up. Let’s say that twins are in utero, but one will die without a liver transplant of the other baby in the womb. New technology makes that possible. This might not be far out enough, because I believe the Church already says informed consent is required for organ donation. But, with science tinkering endlessly with the basics of life, we will probably see many issues that need to be addressed.

It is important to know what St. Paul was saying here. He was not claiming that he had secret knowledge that the other Apostles did not have nor that he was preaching another Gospel from theirs. He was merely establishing the fact that, like the other Apostles, he was directly called to be an Apostle by Jesus himself.

Yes. I agree.

St. Paul visited the other Apostles who affirmed him in his position.

Yup, he formally entered the Church.

St. Peter wrote that St. Paul’s writings were Scripture. There was no disparity between St. Paul and the other Apostles.

Yes, they were all in the Church - and the Church developed through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As I understood the point from PJM, the NT is the only way to properly deal with the command given to them by Christ. St. Paul’s impact on the NT creates a problem (not to mention that the other apostles did not write any NT.)

I am becoming increasingly comfortable in saying that the Church continues to develop within the framework of the Truth.

 

[Della]

How about: the Apostle’s Creed?
How about: the canon of scripture? the NT?

Why would there ever be a teaching on the infallibility of the pope? That would be pointless if you say that there is no new teaching (we are simply filling out - we’re not upending existing teaching.)

The Apostle’s Creed is contained within the envelope of Truth - it is true, and always was true. But, it was not always taught (thus, it is what I call a new teaching). This is different than saying that there is a divergent teaching. I am not arguing that the Church will have divergent teaching down the road.

No, the Creeds were not “new” teachings based on “old” teachings, they merely formalized what was already believed. The canon of Scripture is not “new” teaching, either. It only means that a set of writings were approved as inspired to be used in the Church’s liturgies, for study, and for private devotion. You are misunderstanding and misapplying what is meant by “new” teachings if that is what you think it is. Neither the creeds nor the canon of Scripture were “filling out” of anything, but only setting down what already existed.

A possible future error that the Church might have to address in the future? I would have to make something up. Let’s say that twins are in utero, but one will die without a liver transplant of the other baby in the womb. New technology makes that possible. This might not be far out enough, because I believe the Church already says informed consent is required for organ donation. But, with science tinkering endlessly with the basics of life, we will probably see many issues that need to be addressed.

In reality all errors are the same old errors reapplied in new situations. There are no new sins, only old ones applied in new ways. The Church is well equipped to handle any vagaries that man might invent.

Yup, he formally entered the Church.

No. St. Paul didn’t “enter the Church” when he visited the other Apostles. He was already a member of the Church through his baptism.

Yes, they were all in the Church - and the Church developed through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Developed in size, but the authority and teachings were already there.

As I understood the point from PJM, the NT is the only way to properly deal with the command given to them by Christ.

I think you are misunderstanding PJM here. The NT isn’t the only way to “properly deal with” anything having to do with the commands of Christ to the Apostles. You are spouting Bible-onlyism here, which the Church does not teach.

St. Paul’s impact on the NT creates a problem (not to mention that the other apostles did not write any NT.)

Again, no. The number of St. Paul’s writings have nothing to do with the effectiveness of the NT. And no St. Paul didn’t write the whole NT. Some of the other Apostles wrote parts of the NT, as well, specifically, Matthew, Peter and John. Luke and Mark, both disciples of Apostles wrote other books of the NT.

I am becoming increasingly comfortable in saying that the Church continues to develop within the framework of the Truth.

That all depends on what you mean by that. From what I’ve read from your posts, you have a very skewed understanding of what that ought to mean.

 

[Abu]

in_servitude #67
Why would there ever be a teaching on the infallibility of the pope? That would be pointless if you say that there is no new teaching

A lack of knowledge of what the Church teaches can only lead astray, unless accompanied by a desire to learn the truth. To learn the truth you have to listen to those who point you to it.

There is no new doctrine ever. There is only a development of doctrine which means a greater understanding of what has always been present as the need arises for the answer to some challenge to truth.

Fr John A Hardon, S.J., enlightens the confused:
What Vatican I did in its dogma on papal infallibility was to meet and defeat the error of Gallicanism in the nineteenth century which “asserted the more or less complete freedom of the Catholic Church from the ecclesiastical authority of the bishop of Rome.” The result of this error “was widespread confusion among the faithful, especially in the realm of doctrine, where the Pope had for centuries exercised supreme teaching authority in full accord, it was assumed, with the premises of revelation.

“When the First Vatican Council met in 1869, Gallicanism was answered in a way that left no doubt about the main issues under controversy, namely, who possesses the gift of infallibility, when is it exercised, and what is the scope of infallible teaching.”
The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p228-9].

St. Paul’s impact on the NT creates a problem (not to mention that the other apostles did not write any NT.)

False.

There is no problem, except misinformation, over St Paul.

Secondly, of course Christ’s Supreme Vicar, St Peter, has two epistles; St Matthew and St John wrote Gospels, St James wrote an epistle.

 

[in_servitude]

No, the Creeds were not “new” teachings based on “old” teachings, they merely formalized what was already believed.

Then, how do you explain that it took a great deal of time and argument to come to an agreement?

We even see this in Acts 15 - it wasn’t that everyone knew that the Gentiles were not required to live under Mosaic law. Far from it.

The canon of Scripture is not “new” teaching, either.

Here again, the canon of scripture was not simply known by all and simply formalized. There were arguments. There are books in the NT that many objected to.

It only means that a set of writings were approved as inspired to be used in the Church’s liturgies, for study, and for private devotion. You are misunderstanding and misapplying what is meant by “new” teachings if that is what you think it is. Neither the creeds nor the canon of Scripture were “filling out” of anything, but only setting down what already existed.

Let me ask you this, then. Is Mary the Mediatrix? Do all graces flow from God through Mary? What if a council decides that yes, Mary is the Mediatrix 200 years from now? Is that something that everyone always knew since the time of Christ? Would this be a “new” teaching?

In reality all errors are the same old errors reapplied in new situations. There are no new sins, only old ones applied in new ways. The Church is well equipped to handle any vagaries that man might invent.

I view that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit in these matters.

No. St. Paul didn’t “enter the Church” when he visited the other Apostles. He was already a member of the Church through his baptism.

Alright. But, I do not believe that he could fill the role of Bishop without the laying of hands.

Developed in size, but the authority and teachings were already there.

Size - yes. Authority - yes, always there. Would you say that the Church has “always taught” that Mary’s conception was Immaculate? If so, then yes, I do have a different understanding of the word “new” and “teaching.”

I think you are misunderstanding PJM here. The NT isn’t the only way to “properly deal with” anything having to do with the commands of Christ to the Apostles. You are spouting Bible-onlyism here, which the Church does not teach.

In my experience, the phrase, “you are spouting” is a pejorative. I’m not insulting anyone here - I’m asking and discussing this topic with sincerity and honesty.

I didn’t say that the NT was the only way to “properly deal with” anything. As I understand PJM, he was making the point that when Jesus commanded his apostles to go and teach the whole world - that implies that the NT be written.

Again, no. The number of St. Paul’s writings have nothing to do with the effectiveness of the NT. And no St. Paul didn’t write the whole NT. Some of the other Apostles wrote parts of the NT, as well, specifically, Matthew, Peter and John. Luke and Mark, both disciples of Apostles wrote other books of the NT.

? St. Paul wasn’t there when Jesus gave the command to the Apostles to go and teach the whole world.

That all depends on what you mean by that. From what I’ve read from your posts, you have a very skewed understanding of what that ought to mean.

I said that the Church develops within the framework of the Truth. Please explain how that can be “skewed”.

I am not saying that the Church changes teaching over time. I’m not saying that it tosses out certain teaching in favor of new and different teaching. However, what is obvious to us now was not obvious to the Apostles on the day after the Resurrection. Otherwise, Acts Ch 15 would look very different.

 

[Della]

Then, how do you explain that it took a great deal of time and argument to come to an agreement?

You apparently know little of the history of the creeds. The Church went through endless persecutions until Emperor Constantine, making it difficult for the Church to meet in councils. He ordered that a creed be done so that there could be no doubt about what the Church taught–to fight against heresies. But, that doesn’t mean that those teachings were new or unknown or in debate, only that they hadn’t been formally written down.

We even see this in Acts 15 - it wasn’t that everyone knew that the Gentiles were not required to live under Mosaic law. Far from it.

It didn’t take them a long time to decide what should be done. This was the First Council of Jerusalem. Many other councils have bee convened since to formalize doctrines to fight against heresies, but those teachings were not new.

Here again, the canon of scripture was not simply known by all and simply formalized. There were arguments. There are books in the NT that many objected to.

But the canon of Scripture is not doctrine or dogma. It’s simply a list of approved inspired writings.

Let me ask you this, then. Is Mary the Mediatrix? Do all graces flow from God through Mary? What if a council decides that yes, Mary is the Mediatrix 200 years from now? Is that something that everyone always knew since the time of Christ? Would this be a “new” teaching?

It would not be new teaching, merely a title not formally given to Mary. Mary’s role has not changed–she always was a mediatrix, but then so are we all as co-workers with Christ. That she is a channel of God’s grace has always been believed.

I view that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit in these matters.

Yes, it is. Some teachings are generally held without any formal definitions and others are. The Church only formalizes doctrines/dogmas when it sees the necessity.

Alright. But, I do not believe that he could fill the role of Bishop without the laying of hands.

But you didn’t mention that. You wrote that St. Paul entered the Church when he visited the other Apostles. I cannot read your mind.

Size - yes. Authority - yes, always there. Would you say that the Church has “always taught” that Mary’s conception was Immaculate? If so, then yes, I do have a different understanding of the word “new” and “teaching.”

It was generally believed, but debated by theologians–they were merely trying to understand how/if this teaching fit into God’s plan of salvation. The Church settled the matter by the pope declaring this teaching as dogma.

In my experience, the phrase, “you are spouting” is a pejorative. I’m not insulting anyone here - I’m asking and discussing this topic with sincerity and honesty.

I meant no pejorative. Rather, I was stating how your statement came across–as a Protestant argument.

I didn’t say that the NT was the only way to “properly deal with” anything. As I understand PJM, he was making the point that when Jesus commanded his apostles to go and teach the whole world - that implies that the NT be written.

Does it? That is mere speculation. The point is, with or without a NT, the Church existed and would have continued to exist because of apostolic succession and not because the Church had the NT.

? St. Paul wasn’t there when Jesus gave the command to the Apostles to go and teach the whole world.

Jesus himself commissioned St. Paul, which is why he could claim to be an Apostle.

I said that the Church develops within the framework of the Truth. Please explain how that can be “skewed”.

Because you have been stating that there could be “new” teachings. I have been trying to disabuse you of this idea, since it’s simply not the case.

I am not saying that the Church changes teaching over time. I’m not saying that it tosses out certain teaching in favor of new and different teaching. However, what is obvious to us now was not obvious to the Apostles on the day after the Resurrection. Otherwise, Acts Ch 15 would look very different.

You are confusing the development of doctrine with formulating new doctrines. There are no new doctrines/dogmas. There are only statements/declarations that clarify and deepen our understanding of the same truths the Church has always taught or been generally held true by all the faithful. You might want to take a course on how doctrine is developed so you will understand this issue.

 

[PJM]

=Della;11463741]I will respond to the part I bolded, if that’s all right.

But, to say that the NT is exactly as it is - and it was desired by Christ to be exactly this way - I think goes against some of my basic understanding

. (The poster “Timothy” earlier makes a case that the NT was foreshadowed by the two swords in the upper room during the Last Supper.) So, maybe Christ did desire a New Testament.

Della’a reply

Nowhere does the Church teach that the NT is exactly what Jesus would have wanted written. That doesn’t mean, of course, that the NT isn’t inspired by the Holy Spirit, of course it is. Rather, the NT was written by men, using their gifts and faith, for specific reasons that they wised to address. God worked through them in this, but if other circumstances had been in play we might have had a very different set of writings, and perhaps none at all. Our Lord certainly would have known that his words would be written down–it would be a natural part of teaching that he commissioned the Apostles to do. We have what we have because that’s what was written. Jesus never said he had any written material in mind, but that doesn’t mean he had no idea written works would be done. Or am I missing your question entirely?

SORRY to disagree with both of you; however 2nd. Timothy TEACHES VERY clearly and precisely:

Second Tim 3:16-17
“[16]** All scripture, inspired of God**, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, [17] That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.”

Were this NOT TRUE then the bible would be worthless to TEACH or LEARN ones Faith in ACCORD to God’s Divine Will’

Further evidence is in Mt. 28:19-20

“Going therefore,** teach ye all nations**; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold** I am with you** all days, even to the consummation of the world” AMEN:thumbsup:

Patrick
God Bless you both!.

 

[Della]

=Della;11463741]I will respond to the part I bolded, if that’s all right.

 

[in_servitude]

You apparently know little of the history of the creeds. The Church went through endless persecutions until Emperor Constantine, making it difficult for the Church to meet in councils. He ordered that a creed be done so that there could be no doubt about what the Church taught–to fight against heresies. But, that doesn’t mean that those teachings were new or unknown or in debate, only that they hadn’t been formally written down.

From Wikipedia in regards to the Nicene Creed (325AD)

The Nicene Creed was adopted in the face of the Arian controversy. Arius, a Libyan presbyter in Alexandria, had declared that although the Son was divine, he was a created being and therefore not co-essential with the Father, and “there was when he was not,”[13] This made Jesus less than the Father, which posed soteriological challenges for the nascent doctrine of the Trinity. Arius’s teaching provoked a serious crisis.
The Nicene Creed of 325 explicitly affirms the co-essential divinity of the Son, applying to him the term “consubstantial”. The 381 version speaks of the Holy Spirit as worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son. The Athanasian Creed describes in much greater detail the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Apostles’ Creed makes no explicit statements about the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, but, in the view of many who use it, the doctrine is implicit in it.

I took a Church history class this year (through Gonzaga University), and this is what I was referring to when I said that the creeds were written in response to error.

I do understand and agree that councils couldn’t meet previously due to persecution. I do also agree that Constantine made the order for the creed to be written. The creed did address the big issue of the day.

I’ll change what I’m saying at this point - I will discard “new teaching” and use “formalized-and-confirmed-through-papal-authority teaching”. When I have been saying “new teaching,” I meant what I was saying above.

It didn’t take them a long time to decide what should be done. This was the First Council of Jerusalem. Many other councils have bee convened since to formalize doctrines to fight against heresies, but those teachings were not new.

I think the term above agrees with what you are expressing here. Agree?

But the canon of Scripture is not doctrine or dogma. It’s simply a list of approved inspired writings.

Are you saying that “teaching” = “dogma and doctrine”?

It would not be new teaching, merely a title not formally given to Mary. Mary’s role has not changed–she always was a mediatrix, but then so are we all as co-workers with Christ. That she is a channel of God’s grace has always been believed.

Formalized, then.

Yes, it is. Some teachings are generally held without any formal definitions and others are. The Church only formalizes doctrines/dogmas when it sees the necessity.

Yes. There is too much to do than to address non-problems.

But you didn’t mention that. You wrote that St. Paul entered the Church when he visited the other Apostles. I cannot read your mind.

I used the wrong words in this case.

It was generally believed, but debated by theologians–they were merely trying to understand how/if this teaching fit into God’s plan of salvation. The Church settled the matter by the pope declaring this teaching as dogma.

As time goes by, the amount of formalized material will grow. In a class I had last year, the text book argued for women’s ordination. The instructor asked us to disregard that portion of the book “because it was written before JPII said we couldn’t discuss that idea.” I don’t know that the women’s ordination issue rises to the level of dogma or doctrine. However, I use this as an example to say that I think that each time the teachings are formalized, there is less room/opportunity for people to slip into error.

I meant no pejorative. Rather, I was stating how your statement came across–as a Protestant argument.

OK. My Protestant friends are of the opinion that Sacred Scripture materialized outside the context of a Church. My impression is the opposite. My thoughts are that the Church is a developing entity and the NT is a product of the Church - something that flows from the Rock. My only thought here is that we are not going down the road with every single action taken by the ordained of the Church being tightly scripted on their formalization activities. The Church responds to the present.

Does it? That is mere speculation. The point is, with or without a NT, the Church existed and would have continued to exist because of apostolic succession and not because the Church had the NT.

OK, we agree.

Jesus himself commissioned St. Paul, which is why he could claim to be an Apostle.

I also agree.

Because you have been stating that there could be “new” teachings. I have been trying to disabuse you of this idea, since it’s simply not the case.

I think I understand your point here, unless you disagree with my modified statement above.

You are confusing the development of doctrine with formulating new doctrines. There are no new doctrines/dogmas. There are only statements/declarations that clarify and deepen our understanding of the same truths the Church has always taught or been generally held true by all the faithful. You might want to take a course on how doctrine is developed so you will understand this issue.

I do intend to take such a class, but it is out in 2015.

When doctrine is developed and formalized, people then have a different kind of access (text) to the Truth that was always been there anyway.

 

[Della]

I think you hit on it, in_servitude when you stated that “there is too much to do than to address non-problems.” Not everything we believe needs to be formally defined or declared. Usually, only when heresies pop up or challenges are made to existing doctrine/dogma that the Church bothers to define/declare doctrine/dogma.

And yes, “teachings” means doctrine and/or dogma.

I hope you do get the chance to further your education. It helps to put such things into their proper perceptive.

 

[PJM]

=Della;11470748]

2Tim does not say that it Scripture is necessary to the survival of the Church nor to our salvation. Nor did Jesus ever command Epistles and Gospels be written. The verse you cite claims it is “profitable.” Profitable does not mean indispensable.

 

[Della]

=Della;11470748]