Peter Waldo and St. Francis of Assisi

[LaymanX]

The truly Evangelical person, submits, because he acknowledges that he or she is not in authority (humility) and he surrenders his desire to enforce his opinion or his point of view (poverty), because this is how Christ behaved before Pilate. The universal call to holiness is the call to conform to the Crucified Christ in hope of the Resurrection. This is the theology that was handed down to us by Francis of Assisi, which was handed down to him by the first 1200 years of Christian Tradition. However, it is not something that is easily understood, not even by Catholics and certainly not easy to live by. For me, it’s a daily challenge that I take, one step at a time. My prayer is that of Augustine “I believe, help my unbelief.”

I agree with everything you say. I do believe in infallibility of the Petrine office. I honor everything the apostolic bishops have to say regarding all matters of faith over my own opinions. When I am uncertain, I definitely rely on my apostolic teachers to guide me infallibly so that my actions will promote the kingdom of God, whether in my lifetime or next. The issue has always been the same for me. What do we mean by Petrine office? When in doubt, does infallibility derive from the Brotherhood of Bishops being in humble obedience to mind of Peter, or does infallibility derive from Peter being in humble obedience to the mind of the Brotherhood? Even the model you explained for the Franciscan model bears resemblance to the latter!

If true biblical leadership is fluid, and not grounded in St Peter (e.g., St James, St Paul, St John, St Nestorious, St Eutyches, St Photios, etc.), then St Peter has been wrongly maintaining absolute authority, when in reality leadership can change from one primate/metropolitan to another, depending on the “mysterious” movement of the Spirit. Remember in John chapter 3:8, Nicodemus asks about those who are born of the Spirit. Jesus tells Nicodemus that we can’t really know with certainty how the Spirit indwells certain people. We can apply this principle in leaders who have varying intensity of the Spirit (i.e., degrees of infallibility). Leadership (or rather, the infallibility of the Spirit) can spontaneously change from Antioch to Alexandria, from Alexandria to Rome, from Rome to Constantinople and Canterbury, depending on what the Spirit of God deems is necessary for the building up of the Kingdom of God, not Kingdom of Peter. Have you read the views on leadership from Syriac communities belonging to those of Theodoret and Aphrahat? Or from Coptic communities?

Personally, I think the primacy of St Peter seems to be the biblical ideal, but it is inconclusive in Scripture. I think the true deciding factor will come from studying Patristics. I am still in the process of reading Patristics with special attention to the Syriac Fathers and Coptic Fathers because they left the Communion (later of course Orthodox as well) for this exact reason. Patristics have relied too much on merely Greek and Latin Fathers. Syriac and Coptic traditions are just as important, and these seem to support a shifting view of leadership. And yes, this view makes things very nerve racking. How can we trust spontaneous movement of the Spirit in anointing the popes? But perhaps we’ve not been trusting the Spirit enough. Perhaps we are being like the Israelites who demanded that God set up a King (Saul) instead of shifting leaderships. Isn’t this the model of the selection process amongst the College of Cardinals? What if the College of Cardinals is supposed to be the hierarchical model (without the seat of Peter)? Have you ever thought about that?

I hope you understand where I am coming from. I still believe in infallibility of the church and the episcopate model of Church. I am genuinely seeking the brightest church with the most intensive level of the Spirit and infallibility. My central concern has always been about what Jesus and the early apostolic Father really had in mind regarding a permanent leadership focused on St Peter.

Regards,

Francis

P.S. I do love Francis and his democratic model of leadership. Seems to be that, if Francis had access to Syric and Coptic Fathers, he may have changed to a more “shifting papal” seat view.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi Radical, The repetition is what you view from the surface, but the fact remains the written and oral Traditional teachings from the apostles have not and cannot change. Man has polluted this fact with false interpretations of scripture and recorded history. The eye witnesses to the resurrection, persecution of the body Christ are the ones who were there and lived them out. One cannot view this recorded history from one who has never lived it. The Catholic church is the one who can attest to this history because she was there.

Radical;7505866]Hello again
apparently the (now) bold bit in this last sentence of yours simply cannot be repeated too often

I must correct you here about the Church’s understanding of the doctrines of Jesus Christ and the teachings of the apostles handed down, throughout every age to the present in the Catholic church are never in need of reform, as you implied. What you deemed reforming to this time (of St. Francis) period deals with political and disciplines never doctrine. I challenge you to revisit this history and you will find the Catholic Church defending the already believed doctrines against protesters wanting to reform what God had already revealed through His Son Jesus by rejecting “some” (if not all) of the teachings handed down to the Catholic Church, by reforming them to a new doctrine invented by men (protestants) not God.

The church was never reforming Church doctrine as protestants were, she was reforming disciplines and the political structures set in place from a past time period in a changing world by men. Via within the hierarchical structures, or political governments and empires who had an influence over the Church’s flock on faith and morals. Let us not deceive or muddy the history from those who lived it, from those who view opinions from afar of this history with a developed thinking foreign to those Catholics and protestants who lived then.

What might be lost on some of the Catholics who are inclined to heap praise on Francis is that after 300 years of his influence, the Catholic Church was still in desperate need of reform. In fact, the need may have been greater than when Francis started. In contrast, with the appearance of Protestantism, the CC finally had no choice but to substantially reform itself.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont;

No, you have the wrong impression of “development” here. You are applying a positive notation of a change here, which is never the case in Catholic history. I call your attention here, that the Catholic Church always responds from a “negative” when she protects, defends the teachings of Jesus and the apostles handed down to her. You are incorrect in your view of Cardinal Newman and the Catholic church’s definition of “development” of the already “doctrine” of the Church.

What you are failing to see is, that the Church never makes a doctrine, she only defines (developed) what was handed down to her in the Holy Spirit when these apostolic revelations of Jesus Christ are protested against or denied by her shepherds and flock, thereby separating the sheep from the goats. Just because the seed has blossomed into a life giving source of food to humanity does not mean that the Tree did not come from its own seed, the (“Rock”)

Anytime you find a teaching of Jesus Christ being made doctrine = binding on all believers, is because she (the Catholic Church) is defending what is already believed to those new in every age against heretics, apostates and heresies. The so called development gets revealed never changed to a new people, new language, new (age) thinking and understanding that developed so that the Church can reveal Jesus Christ’s teaching in what has “developed” against these Apostolic teachings from man, thus a development of language, understanding the “Rock” teachings of Jesus Christ. I have only introduced this “development” from the Catholic Church defending what is already believed and practiced. A good example is the “doctrine of the Trinity” which the Catholic Church believed long before heretics and heresies attacked this apostolic revelation which “trinity” is not recorded in scripture, and made the Trinity a doctrine =binding on all those who follow Jesus and His apostles teachings.

The development “defining” of Church doctrine by protecting them from heretics and heresies has never changed from its written and oral apostolic teaching and practices. The development begins with the original teaching defined to a new language, cultural understanding and mans developed thinking, so as to understand these teachings and revelations from God. The Holy Spirit has proved these Catholic defined, defended doctrines with signs and wonders.

Well here is the thing, there is an undeniable difference between the doctrine of the early church and the doctrine of the Catholic Church. That difference is why those such as Newman proposed the idea of “development of doctrine”. One can look at the difference and (like Newman) presume that all Catholic doctrines were present at the start (in a simpler form) and then only underwent a legitimate development, or one can conclude that innovation and error was introduced. Notwithstanding the almost endless repetition of the “CC can’t err”, theme I’ll continue to believe the latter (understanding that you believe the former).

Protestants at this time period was not wanting to return to the apostolic church, they were removing themselves from the apostolic teachings and doctrines by every wind of new age thinking and understanding and applying man made theologies to them calling them “things of the spirit” in order to justify them.

This I believe, had they (protestants) tried to begin a new reformed orders of disciplines as did the Catholic saints who remained obedience to the apostolic teachings and reformed in disciplines to the word of God without rejecting the already believed Church doctrines. Then we would not have today “protestants trying to eliminate error from God’s revelation” as you stated, but disciplines reformed to remain obedient to what God has revealed.

Your “walking in the spirit” has heretical tones to it which the Church defeated long before the protestant reformation. It appears your “walking in the spirit” needs more clarification because it never exists in sacred scripture nor sacred Tradition therefore could be a new “spiritual” teaching invented by men. A branch belonging to the vine cannot reject the vine from which it came from otherwise the owner will remove the branch not needed and burn it. The vine and the branches are development of doctrine in the Church, when pruning is needed for the growth.

Peace be with you

…or they are trying to return to what was revealed 2000 years ago
Again, the reasoning from a Protestant point of view is that the CC of Francis’s day had indeed changed the original deposit of faith (Catholic assertions to the contrary notwithstanding) That is why there was a need for something other than mere obedience…the moral corruption was evidence that the CC wasn’t walking with the Spirit. No Protestant is trying to reinvent God’s revelation, instead he is trying to eliminate error from God’s revelation.

It seems that the intended purpose of this thread is to declare that Francis’s obedience was good is all respects and that any comment by me only leads to a chorus of further declarations that “the CC can’t err.” There doesn’t seem to be much of a point to my continued involvement here…I am sure I’ll see you on another thread. Cheers.
and also with you

 

[Radical]

Hi Radical, The repetition is what you view from the surface, but the fact remains the written and oral Traditional teachings from the apostles have not and cannot change.

I don’t think there is any point in reading beyond than this sentence. It repeats the faith that has been declared by the Catholics on this thread in two parts, namely that the written and oral Traditional teachings from the apostles:

a) have not changed; and

b) can not be changed (by the CC)

You can’t offer anything that establishes (a) b/c very learned and reputable scholars have come to the opposite conclusion after examining the evidence. Instead you hold to (b) by faith (and necessity?) and therefore pound round pegs into square holes so you can continue to make your declarations.

 

[PbloPicasso]

I don’t think there is any point in reading beyond than this sentence. It repeats the faith that has been declared by the Catholics on this thread in two parts, namely that the written and oral Traditional teachings from the apostles:

a) have not changed; and

b) can not be changed (by the CC)

You can’t offer anything that establishes (a) b/c very learned and reputable scholars have come to the opposite conclusion after examining the evidence. Instead you hold to (b) by faith (and necessity?) and therefore pound round pegs into square holes so you can continue to make your declarations.

And very learned and reputable scholars have come to the same conclusion as presented in “a)” and “b)”.

You apparently, in my view, are trying to pound rectangular pegs through tiny round wholes. Let’s use a Lincoln Log metaphor next time… or maybe a LEGO one. That would be fun.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

On the other side of your coin, all I ever hear from non catholics is that the Catholic Church changed its belief’s without any proof. Because Christian history comprises of many centuries different cultures and languages it is easy to misjudge the ongoing development of doctrine being defended by the Catholic Church so that the core (Rock) teaching from Jesus revelation never gets removed. A simple study of the Church councils prove from history the Catholic Church always came to the defense of the revelations of God.

The Catholic faith is summed up in our Creedo (profession of faith). Nothing has changed or added to this foundation. What has developed from this profession of faith ( Rock) is defined to those who oppose them. Disciplines which are subject to change is not considered doctrine as protestants confuse these two including very learned men who protest Catholic doctrine. So it would suffice to know what your learn men are describing as “change” to development to outright misunderstanding of what is written, professed, practiced and handed down from the apostolic church from antiquity and practiced today unchanged.

Another is the Eucharist. This Catholic faith in the True presence remains since the last supper instituted by Jesus Christ himself. Protestants have “Changed” this fundamental teaching from antiquity so far as to deny the Eucharist. You may view “Transubstantiation” definition as changing it is not, this is a development which defended the Eucharist against those who deny this revelation from God.

Can you offer any proof that the Catholic church has changed her doctrines revealed by God. Can any man change what God has joined together? History records Protestantism is the one that “Changed” its doctrine from the revelations from God since the resurrection and continues down this path.

Would you like proof that protestantism denies and removed itself from the original apostolic teachings both written and Oral Tradition?

I don’t think holding to ones position always and reject another’s position without truly understanding the language, definition being used in any interpretation gives justice to the misunderstandings, here is where lines are drawn mistakenly. I hope to give clarification for the Catholic church cannot change what God has revealed to her through her head Jesus Christ.

Peace be with you

Radical;7521277]I don’t think there is any point in reading beyond than this sentence. It repeats the faith that has been declared by the Catholics on this thread in two parts, namely that the written and oral Traditional teachings from the apostles:

a) have not changed; and

b) can not be changed (by the CC)

You can’t offer anything that establishes (a) b/c very learned and reputable scholars have come to the opposite conclusion after examining the evidence. Instead you hold to (b) by faith (and necessity?) and therefore pound round pegs into square holes so you can continue to make your declarations.

 

[LaymanX]

cont;

No, you have the wrong impression of “development” here. You are applying a positive notation of a change here, which is never the case in Catholic history. I call your attention here, that the Catholic Church always responds from a “negative” when she protects, defends the teachings of Jesus and the apostles handed down to her. You are incorrect in your view of Cardinal Newman and the Catholic church’s definition of “development” of the already “doctrine” of the Church.

What you are failing to see is, that the Church never makes a doctrine, she only defines (developed) what was handed down to her in the Holy Spirit when these apostolic revelations of Jesus Christ are protested against or denied by her shepherds and flock, thereby separating the sheep from the goats. Just because the seed has blossomed into a life giving source of food to humanity does not mean that the Tree did not come from its own seed, the (“Rock”)

Anytime you find a teaching of Jesus Christ being made doctrine = binding on all believers, is because she (the Catholic Church) is defending what is already believed to those new in every age against heretics, apostates and heresies. The so called development gets revealed never changed to a new people, new language, new (age) thinking and understanding that developed so that the Church can reveal Jesus Christ’s teaching in what has “developed” against these Apostolic teachings from man, thus a development of language, understanding the “Rock” teachings of Jesus Christ. I have only introduced this “development” from the Catholic Church defending what is already believed and practiced. A good example is the “doctrine of the Trinity” which the Catholic Church believed long before heretics and heresies attacked this apostolic revelation which “trinity” is not recorded in scripture, and made the Trinity a doctrine =binding on all those who follow Jesus and His apostles teachings.

Nicely put. The idea of progressive development of doctrine is an innovation of the modern period. The Church has always affirmed what it has also known since the time of Jesus Christ and the Apostles. There is nothing “new” to teach in the ultimate sense, because the Church only teaches what has always been taught in new situations. Reminds me of a novel someone wrote about one experience of one moment of one day in life of the author; it filled over 800 pages. Think about all that Jesus taught in three years. I think St John is correct that “not all the libraries in the world could contain all that needs to be written about Jesus’ teaching (John 21:25).” I paraphrased it.

Francis

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Thank you very well put, Catholics have known this these past 2000 years since the resurrection as Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Lets not forget the third pedestal leg with the divine authority given by Jesus himself in the keys to the kingdom of God with the binding and loosing of the Popes and Magisterium which Sacred Scripture speaks of, who defended the revelations of God in every age, these apostolic Oral Traditions were defended and continue to be defended by every wind of doctrine that comes from man not God. In this defense is where your development of doctrine derives from Sacred Tradition which did not get recorded in scripture but only introduced implicitly because the foundation of God’s revelations rests upon the Catholic church defending these revelations from God unchanged.

LaymanX;7533432]Nicely put. The idea of progressive development of doctrine is an innovation of the modern period. The Church has always affirmed what it has also known since the time of Jesus Christ and the Apostles. There is nothing “new” to teach in the ultimate sense, because the Church only teaches what has always been taught in new situations. Reminds me of a novel someone wrote about one experience of one moment of one day in life of the author; it filled over 800 pages. Think about all that Jesus taught in three years. I think St John is correct that “not all the libraries in the world could contain all that needs to be written about Jesus’ teaching (John 21:25).” I paraphrased it.

Francis

 

[LaymanX]

Thank you very well put, Catholics have known this these past 2000 years since the resurrection as Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Lets not forget the third pedestal leg with the divine authority given by Jesus himself in the keys to the kingdom of God with the binding and loosing of the Popes and Magisterium which Sacred Scripture speaks of, who defended the revelations of God in every age, these apostolic Oral Traditions were defended and continue to be defended by every wind of doctrine that comes from man not God. In this defense is where your development of doctrine derives from Sacred Tradition which did not get recorded in scripture but only introduced implicitly because the foundation of God’s revelations rests upon the Catholic church defending these revelations from God unchanged.

Yes, the Pope and Magisterium. I am one of the few Anglicans that hold to papal authority (i.e., I subscribe to the CCC and CIC). The only reason I have yet to embrace full infallibility is because of the excommunications. I’m still out here reaching out to the lost sheep in a slightly “rebellious way” I suppose. I personally think the excommunications were primarily against Arianism, Nestorianism, Eutychism, Photianism, Hussites, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, etc.), not the individual reformers themselves. The pope knows deep inside that many of those “-isms” do not do justice to the complexity of each individual’s thought.

Nestorius, Eutyches, Photius, Luther, Calvin, and Cranmer all had to take the fall because either, the bishops or emperors in charge of their dioceses weren’t vigilant enough to see all the sin going around the church, or their foolish students got trigger happy and said/wrote/did some radical things. All those Joint Declarations on Christology and Justification, and even the most recent “personal ordinariate” seem to be an indirect way for the pope to exonerate the original reformers who were living during rough times when leaders were making lot of mistakes (so the reformer has to choose between the lesser of two evils - disobedience to negligent bishops or saving the souls of the lay). I guess I am doing the same for remaining in the Anglican Communion (choosing lesser of two evils - disobedience vs. passive “soul murder” by excommunication).

I see full communion in the near future for all the mainline churches (Assyrian, Coptic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, and Methodist). I just chose to wait out here with the “outcasts” in the meantime. I’ll be back in Rome soon, when the Spirit nudges me back home. Meanwhile, I shall continue to do dialogue in their homes, feasting on their “dirty” Eucharist, instead of waiting for them to humbly walk into my home, repent, and join in the “pure” Eucharist.

Francis

 

[JReducation]

Thank you very well put, Catholics have known this these past 2000 years since the resurrection as Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Lets not forget the third pedestal leg with the divine authority given by Jesus himself in the keys to the kingdom of God with the binding and loosing of the Popes and Magisterium which Sacred Scripture speaks of, who defended the revelations of God in every age, these apostolic Oral Traditions were defended and continue to be defended by every wind of doctrine that comes from man not God. In this defense is where your development of doctrine derives from Sacred Tradition which did not get recorded in scripture but only introduced implicitly because the foundation of God’s revelations rests upon the Catholic church defending these revelations from God unchanged.

I just wanted comment that the phrase, “development of doctrine” can be used in different ways. The way that it was used by Bl. John Newman and now by Pope Benedict XVI does not mean that doctrines are appearing out of nowhere.

What they are speaking about is the progressive understanding of Christian doctrine and how each generation sees more clearly what was revealed to the early Church. Pope Benedict once explained that even the early Church, while it posessed the fullness of revelation, did not have an understanding of these truths as we do today. Doctrine has layers and layers, it has consequences and effects, it implies duties and rights. All of these things become more clear with the passing of time. The doctrine itself has always been there, but doctrine is not a once sentence or one word idea. It’s really a mystery that man unwraps little by little. That’s what lead to the many early councils, to clarify and explore the words of doctrine, such as God-Man or hypostatic union, etc.

While it is true that there are no new doctrines, there is a development of doctrine or as Bl. John Henry Newman wrote, a development of Christian Doctrine. One of the examples that he uses in his writings is the whole issue of papal infallibility. It had been held by the Church since the age of the Apostles. Yet, it was misunderstood. These misunderstandings triggered schisms and heresies. By the time that Vatican I comes along, the doctrine of papal infallibility is developed clearly enough that the Council can proclaim it and declare that the discussion is closed. It does not mean that papal infallibility was created at Vatican I. It means that it was finally understood correctly and Vatican I put closure on the discussion (at least among Catholics).

The other form that this phrase (development of doctrine) is used is highly incorrect. It implies that truth changes as man changes. That’s inaccurate. Truth never changes. Man’s understanding changes. But there are those who believe that doctrines change and what was once a doctrine no longer applies or something today should be a doctrine, even though it never existed before. That kind of development is not what John Henry Newman and Pope Benedict have in mind. What they have in mind is what I explained above. Doctrine is a mystery whose meaning is understood more clearly with each passing generation.

I’m trying to remember where he said this. It may have been in either Light of the World or Teachers of the Church

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[GaryTaylor]

I just wanted comment that the phrase, “development of doctrine” can be used in different ways. The way that it was used by Bl. John Newman and now by Pope Benedict XVI does not mean that doctrines are appearing out of nowhere.

What they are speaking about is the progressive understanding of Christian doctrine and how each generation sees more clearly what was revealed to the early Church. Pope Benedict once explained that even the early Church, while it posessed the fullness of revelation, did not have an understanding of these truths as we do today. Doctrine has layers and layers, it has consequences and effects, it implies duties and rights. All of these things become more clear with the passing of time. The doctrine itself has always been there, but doctrine is not a once sentence or one word idea. It’s really a mystery that man unwraps little by little. That’s what lead to the many early councils, to clarify and explore the words of doctrine, such as God-Man or hypostatic union, etc.

While it is true that there are no new doctrines, there is a development of doctrine or as Bl. John Henry Newman wrote, a development of Christian Doctrine. One of the examples that he uses in his writings is the whole issue of papal infallibility. It had been held by the Church since the age of the Apostles. Yet, it was misunderstood. These misunderstandings triggered schisms and heresies. By the time that Vatican I comes along, the doctrine of papal infallibility is developed clearly enough that the Council can proclaim it and declare that the discussion is closed. It does not mean that papal infallibility was created at Vatican I. It means that it was finally understood correctly and Vatican I put closure on the discussion (at least among Catholics).

The other form that this phrase (development of doctrine) is used is highly incorrect. It implies that truth changes as man changes. That’s inaccurate. Truth never changes. Man’s understanding changes. But there are those who believe that doctrines change and what was once a doctrine no longer applies or something today should be a doctrine, even though it never existed before. That kind of development is not what John Henry Newman and Pope Benedict have in mind. What they have in mind is what I explained above. Doctrine is a mystery whose meaning is understood more clearly with each passing generation.

I’m trying to remember where he said this. It may have been in either Light of the World or Teachers of the Church

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I believe your referring to “Teachers of the Church”. JR, I just read “Reluctant Saint, Francis of Assisi” Could you recommend another reading so I can compare this to something?

“Light of the World” I did think was informative, I’m looking foward to Benedicts upcoming release of “Jesus of Narareth” which would be part-II. The first 10 chapters he wrote were amazing, I think it was released in 07. I believe he just didn’t have the time to finish which is why there is part I and II. Or I should say, there will be a part II.

Thank You, GT

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Peace be with you and may God keep you and bless you on your journey;

It should be noted that the Catholic Church does not excommunicate those outside the body of Christ. She places an anathema on her members who fall into these “ism’s” of their own freewill after understanding both the Church’s position and the “ism” position.
Thereby separating the sheep from the goats, by her divinly given power by God to bind and loose on earth.

I believe it does not do justice to members of these “isms” of “no fault of their own” belonging to such groups outside of Catholicism to be considered as personally “excommunicated” from the body of Christ. Vatican II documents and the CCC is clear on this statement.

There is much to disclose in regards to the former Catholics who founded these new “ism’s” by men during the reformation or any other heretical period. Because the excommuncation is directed to those who know the Truth and chose to remove themselves from the (teachings of Christ) revelations of God to a their own understanding deriving from man made theological interpretations from the Word of God.

This excommunication does not apply to those members who followed these fallen away Catholics from no fault of their own. Thus the “greater sin belongs to one who handed over” these man made “christian” teachings to others.

I must agree with you although, that the magisterium while being attacked politically by secular powers did not operate with divine wisdom in protecting her flock from thieves. It is here when the Words of our dear Lord Jesus Christ reveal themselves “give to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar and give to God what belongs to God”. Had the magisterium operated on this simple platform during the reformation period and followed the example of St. Francis of Assisi and others in the “blessed is the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven”.

The political powers and secular wealth should of been easy for the magisterium to act by applying the disposition of St. Francis obedience and poverty to these unfortunate times, yet this changing time period found the magisterium in a political arena that was contiunously changing faster than what the magisterium could keep pace.

I do hope you should look more into the official understanding of the Church in regards to excommunication.

Iam hopeful with you in the full communion someday

LaymanX;7533849]Yes, the Pope and Magisterium. I am one of the few Anglicans that hold to papal authority (i.e., I subscribe to the CCC and CIC). The only reason I have yet to embrace full infallibility is because of the excommunications. I’m still out here reaching out to the lost sheep in a slightly “rebellious way” I suppose. I personally think the excommunications were primarily against Arianism, Nestorianism, Eutychism, Photianism, Hussites, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, etc.), not the individual reformers themselves. The pope knows deep inside that many of those “-isms” do not do justice to the complexity of each individual’s thought.

Nestorius, Eutyches, Photius, Luther, Calvin, and Cranmer all had to take the fall because either, the bishops or emperors in charge of their dioceses weren’t vigilant enough to see all the sin going around the church, or their foolish students got trigger happy and said/wrote/did some radical things. All those Joint Declarations on Christology and Justification, and even the most recent “personal ordinariate” seem to be an indirect way for the pope to exonerate the original reformers who were living during rough times when leaders were making lot of mistakes (so the reformer has to choose between the lesser of two evils - disobedience to negligent bishops or saving the souls of the lay). I guess I am doing the same for remaining in the Anglican Communion (choosing lesser of two evils - disobedience vs. passive “soul murder” by excommunication).

I see full communion in the near future for all the mainline churches (Assyrian, Coptic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, and Methodist). I just chose to wait out here with the “outcasts” in the meantime. I’ll be back in Rome soon, when the Spirit nudges me back home. Meanwhile, I shall continue to do dialogue in their homes, feasting on their “dirty” Eucharist, instead of waiting for them to humbly walk into my home, repent, and join in the “pure” Eucharist.

Francis

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Thank you very much for that most informative post I raised the position of why the Apostolic Teachings and revelations of Jesus Christ became a “doctrine” in the Catholic Church because these teachings came under attack.

Thus the Catholic Church “developed”, defined, clarified to mans new way’s of understanding and interpretation of what was handed down to her from both written and Oral Tradition, from these new winds of doctrine (from men) attacked the Catholic Church’s very foundation of the apostolic faith.

For example the nature of Christ comes under attack, the result the Catholic Church made binding on all followers of Jesus Christ and the apostles the “doctrine of the Trinity”. Another doctrine that never gets changed is the Eucharist. The Fourth Lateran Council that gave an official explanation for the action of the Eucharist in “Transubstantiation”. This is never an exhausted definition of the Eucharist as some falsely claim, and it is never a change in the already believed True presence of Jesus body, blood soul and divinity. "Transubstantiation defends the True presence doctrine of the Catholic Church never a change occurs in her apostolic doctrine of the Eucharist, only a developed understanding of what is already believed, revealed by God and practiced by the apostles and their successors to today.

Now we are moving from a mechanical age into a computer age which will require new words and developed interpretation in understanding to an unborn people who will hear this Gospel message of Jesus Christ again proclaimed unchanged, but development of doctrine so that every tongue, nation, tribe and people in every age can hear the “Truth” (Gospel) unchanged being proclaimed by the Catholic Church until Jesus returns, “Christ crucified” a stumbling block to the wisdom of the world in every age. Thus the seed of the fig tree will continue to grow, blossom and get pruned by the owner so as to give fruit in season and out of season = development of doctrine is never a change but a wealth of growth in understanding.

Peace be with you

I just wanted comment that the phrase, “development of doctrine” can be used in different ways. The way that it was used by Bl. John Newman and now by Pope Benedict XVI does not mean that doctrines are appearing out of nowhere.

What they are speaking about is the progressive understanding of Christian doctrine and how each generation sees more clearly what was revealed to the early Church. Pope Benedict once explained that even the early Church, while it posessed the fullness of revelation, did not have an understanding of these truths as we do today. Doctrine has layers and layers, it has consequences and effects, it implies duties and rights. All of these things become more clear with the passing of time. The doctrine itself has always been there, but doctrine is not a once sentence or one word idea. It’s really a mystery that man unwraps little by little. That’s what lead to the many early councils, to clarify and explore the words of doctrine, such as God-Man or hypostatic union, etc.

While it is true that there are no new doctrines, there is a development of doctrine or as Bl. John Henry Newman wrote, a development of Christian Doctrine. One of the examples that he uses in his writings is the whole issue of papal infallibility. It had been held by the Church since the age of the Apostles. Yet, it was misunderstood. These misunderstandings triggered schisms and heresies. By the time that Vatican I comes along, the doctrine of papal infallibility is developed clearly enough that the Council can proclaim it and declare that the discussion is closed. It does not mean that papal infallibility was created at Vatican I. It means that it was finally understood correctly and Vatican I put closure on the discussion (at least among Catholics).

The other form that this phrase (development of doctrine) is used is highly incorrect. It implies that truth changes as man changes. That’s inaccurate. Truth never changes. Man’s understanding changes. But there are those who believe that doctrines change and what was once a doctrine no longer applies or something today should be a doctrine, even though it never existed before. That kind of development is not what John Henry Newman and Pope Benedict have in mind. What they have in mind is what I explained above. Doctrine is a mystery whose meaning is understood more clearly with each passing generation.

I’m trying to remember where he said this. It may have been in either Light of the World or Teachers of the Church

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I believe your referring to “Teachers of the Church”. JR, I just read “Reluctant Saint, Francis of Assisi” Could you recommend another reading so I can compare this to something?

There are three books that I like very much:

1. Brother Francis by Ignacio Laranaga – He gets into the mind of Francis by analyzing the circumstances of his life and he is very good at it.
2. The Perfect Joy of St. Francis by Jorgensen – It’s a wonderful biography that reads like a novel.
3. The disciple and the master: St. Bonaventure’s sermons on St. Francis of Assisi by Bonaventure and OFM, trans. Eric Doyle

“Light of the World” I did think was informative, I’m looking foward to Benedicts upcoming release of “Jesus of Narareth” which would be part-II. The first 10 chapters he wrote were amazing, I think it was released in 07. I believe he just didn’t have the time to finish which is why there is part I and II. Or I should say, there will be a part II.

Thank You, GT

All of his books are excellent. While you’re waiting for Part II of Jesus of Nazareth there are two that I would strongly suggest:

1. The Fathers
2. Theology of History in St. Bonaventure

These are awesome.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[DebChris]

As Francis stood in the ruins of San Damiano, he received the mission to rebuild God’s church. He was not called to abandon it, or build a new one.

 

[GaryTaylor]

There are three books that I like very much:

1. Brother Francis by Ignacio Laranaga – He gets into the mind of Francis by analyzing the circumstances of his life and he is very good at it.
2. The Perfect Joy of St. Francis by Jorgensen – It’s a wonderful biography that reads like a novel.
3. The disciple and the master: St. Bonaventure’s sermons on St. Francis of Assisi by Bonaventure and OFM, trans. Eric Doyle

All of his books are excellent. While you’re waiting for Part II of Jesus of Nazareth there are two that I would strongly suggest:

1. The Fathers
2. Theology of History in St. Bonaventure

These are awesome.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks JR, I’ll give them a go.