S
steido01
Guest
On one hand, I see the wisdom to your point. On the other, a benevolent tyrant remains a tyrant regardless of how he chooses to delegate his power.
- Status
B
Butzi
Guest
At the risk of jumping in the middle of the fray, this article by Fr. Sergius Bulgakov is very good on this topic. It had a big impact on me eventually looking towards the East. It is quite lengthy, but well worth the time to read. It sheds some light on some historical points that most Catholics are unaware of.
orthodoxchristianity.net/articles/39-the-vatican-dogma
orthodoxchristianity.net/articles/39-the-vatican-dogma
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Yes brother. But it remains discretionary.
D
Denise1957
Guest
Isaiah,
Do you understand that the documents of the Joint Commission do not carry the authoritative weight that you seem to be looking for? They are not official Church teaching.
Do you understand that the documents of the Joint Commission do not carry the authoritative weight that you seem to be looking for? They are not official Church teaching.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
A convenient out. If something is not “official” then we don’t have to pay much attention to it.
The reality is those documents represent the thought of serious theologians discussing deep issues. I think it’s a bad idea to discount them.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
That doesn’t take away from the fact the the Vatican recognizes the facts of history.
Also, you should actually be pushing for the Joint Commission because later in the documents, Rome stresses the supremacy.
But hey, more power to you
D
Denise1957
Guest
No, the Vatican doesn’t necessarily recognize anything. It’s putting up the documents of the Joint Commission. I’m not interested in pushing for the Joint Commission. The Vatican (or rather those who were, or will be in the future, appointed to dialogue with the EO on the Joint Commission) will work with the EO in further dialogue as they see fit.That doesn’t take away from the fact the the Vatican recognizes the facts of history.
Also, you should actually be pushing for the Joint Commission because later in the documents, Rome stresses the supremacy.
But hey, more power to you
As yet, there’s no unity without the EO, so I don’t think that those on the Latin side who are, or were, on the Commission came to a consensus with the EO. It seems that the main roadblock has to do with accepting the authority of the Pope, though this doesn’t seem to have been mentioned explicitly, unless I missed it. The Catholics on the Commission have likely been very diplomatic in their discourse with the EO, so they are not likely to use language on the document that may cause offense.
It was the same, I think, with the dialogue (Joint Commission) between Rome and the Lutherans. The main problem with the Lutherans was also one of authority, which is what those who aren’t in Communion with Romw will likely have to accept. Or maybe not…we’ll have to wait and see how it develops further. With the EO, there’s other issues like to Filoque (sp?). I think the situation is more complicated with the EO than the Lutherans.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
So when the Vatican says this:
"Both sides agree that this canonical taxis was recognised by all in the era of the undivided Church. "
It really means that they don’t necessarily recognize anything?
Ok, I’m about to lose it.
So far:
*]Any doesn’t really mean any.
*]Freely doesn’t really mean freely.
*]To recognize doesn’t really mean to recognize.
And you all wonder how come I don’t get it?
D
Denise1957
Guest
So when the Vatican says this:
"Both sides agree that this canonical taxis was recognised by all in the era of the undivided Church. "
It really means that they don’t necessarily recognize anything?
Ok, I’m about to lose it.
So far:
*]Any doesn’t really mean any.
*]Freely doesn’t really mean freely.
*]To recognize doesn’t really mean to recognize.
And you all wonder how come I don’t get it?
No need to lose it, Isaiah. This is just an internet forum, and it needen’t be taken so seriously that it causes great anger. Take a deep breath. It’ll be alright.
Both sides of the Commission agree and recognize. Okay. Do you think that a commission made up of two religious groups who are not in communion with one another bears the weight of a synod or council? It’s not anything even close. It’s dialogue. It’s not meant to determine doctrine.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
It’s not a council and it’s not meant to determine doctrine. But it does address some facts that do show the thought process.
It’s similar to quoting letters and homilies of ECF’s. They are not determining doctrine and are not councils but they do present a thought process.
Notice that one of the things I am NOT arguing is primacy. Or that some ECF’s expressed their opinion about the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. I’d be a fool to deny those letters as well.
In Spanish we have a saying: “Del dicho al trecho, hay un largo trecho”
Meaning that it’s one thing to say something and another for said thing to be done/present.
What I’m presenting is the consistent exercised for Church practices for over a thousand years. Anyone who denies this is as foolish as I am, if I were to deny ECF’s quotes.
The problem with quote mining is that they can be manipulated for both sides of an argument, because they had various ideas and opinions.
So the best compass to look into things is the Church.
What has the Church as Whole said?
How did the Church as Whole act?
It’s the same error as denying that Peter is the rock. His faith is the rock but he is the rock as well. Whenever someone has his name changed by God, something significant happened.
The other factor to take into consideration is how things came to be in the Church. Is it the Whole Church or a particular group of the Church? Is it born out of division?
D
Denise1957
Guest
Is the above quote taken from the document by the Joint Comminssion? If so, how do you know that the Vatican said it? Who is the Vatican, exactly?So when the Vatican says this:
"Both sides agree that this canonical taxis was recognised by all in the era of the undivided Church. "
It really means that they don’t necessarily recognize anything?
As far as I know, the document contains a summary of the dialogue between Representatives of Rome, and representatives of the EO. We don’t even know who wrote the document. It could have been anyone, even an EO. It’s not accurate, IMO, though, to say that the “Vatican” wrote it.
D
Denise1957
Guest
A reasonable post. I can’t address much of what you have proposed above, partly out of ignorance of the subject matter (most Catholics haven’t spent a great deal of time on these issues), and also because I have to make dinner. I might be able to comment later. Maybe others here can tackle what you’ve written.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Isaiah-
As I said previously, I’m done with the discussion. However, I do have a few questions, I will look for your response.
As I said previously, I’m done with the discussion. However, I do have a few questions, I will look for your response.
- Did the papacy develop in any way between AD 100 and AD 1000?
- a. If so, how?
- b. Can this development be traced through church/council documents from that millennium?
- Is there any reason to conclude that development would, could or should NOT continue after the schism (ca. AD 1054)? Yes or no. Explain.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Like I have said in this thread and the other thread that deals with Peter’s headship.
There are inconsistencies in the development of the Papacy between the first millenium and the second millenium. Starting with the Gregorian Reform (What I have referred to as the Investiture Controversy) with Gregory VII ~1070’s.
There is no need for me to explain anything that I have already posted. The presence of these questions only mean that said posts and their references and historical background have not been read.
Great chatting with you :tiphat:
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And you.
If the papacy developed in the first 1000 years as seen in the documents of Church councils, then we know that development is acceptable.
And if there doesn’t seem to be any real basis for stating that development cannot take place after AD 1054, development which continues to this very day is not a problem.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Doesn’t development need to be looked at through Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium?
Can development depart from the historical exercise of Sacred Tradition?
What’s the point of Sacred Tradition if not to hold all developments to the deposit of faith?
There is really nothing for us to talk about, Randy. A conversation has to have a receiver and a transmitter, who exchange the roles as the conversation progresses.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
“Development of doctrine” is defined by Catholics as the increase in understanding–by means of the teaching of the Holy Spirit, prayer, theological study, and the reflection of the Body of Christ as a whole–of Christian doctrines that originated from the Lord Jesus himself and which have been passed down through the Apostles, the Fathers, the councils, and the Catholic Church in general. The meaning of doctrines unfolds over time, but the essence or substance of any particular doctrine remains unchanged. Our extent of knowledge or subjective grasp of any given dogma is what changes. Doctrines thus achieve more clarity and depth as well as certitude in the minds and hearts of believers. The Bible is not absolutely clear, even in the “essentials,” and requires developing interpretive wisdom of the Church.
"The Catholic Church maintains that no new public revelation has been received by the Church since the time of the Apostles, and “private revelations” such as Marian apparitions are not at all binding on the faithful, even though many of these have been recognized by the Church as worthy of pious belief.
"The description of the Christian Church as the “Body of Christ” in the Bible presupposes the ability to grow actively. The Church, according to many, resembles a statue more than a living organism. Once the biblical metaphor is consistently applied, it also makes no sense to say that growth (development) stopped in the third, fourth, fifth, eleventh or at some other arbitrary point.
"Doctrines agreed upon by virtually all Christians develop, too. The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ was not formally defined until the Council of Nicaea in 325, and the divinity of the Holy Spirit was proclaimed at the Council of Constantinople in 381. The canon of the New Testament was also very much a developing doctrine finalized only in 397. The dogma os the two natures of Christ was made official at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
"Why should non-Catholics accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject similar proclamations on Church government, the papacy, Mary and purgatory?
"St. Augustine wrote:
While the hot restlessness of heretics stirs up questions about many things belonging to the Catholic Faith, in order to provide a defense against these heretics, we are obliged to study the points questioned more diligently, to understand them more clearly…and thus the question raised by the adversary becomes the occasion of instruction. (Augustine, City of God, bk. 16, ch. 2, no. 1.)
“Obviously, if Augustine held such a view in the fifth century, development of doctrine is no new “Romish” corruption of recent times. It has been present in the Church from the very beginning.”
"The Catholic Church maintains that no new public revelation has been received by the Church since the time of the Apostles, and “private revelations” such as Marian apparitions are not at all binding on the faithful, even though many of these have been recognized by the Church as worthy of pious belief.
"The description of the Christian Church as the “Body of Christ” in the Bible presupposes the ability to grow actively. The Church, according to many, resembles a statue more than a living organism. Once the biblical metaphor is consistently applied, it also makes no sense to say that growth (development) stopped in the third, fourth, fifth, eleventh or at some other arbitrary point.
"Doctrines agreed upon by virtually all Christians develop, too. The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ was not formally defined until the Council of Nicaea in 325, and the divinity of the Holy Spirit was proclaimed at the Council of Constantinople in 381. The canon of the New Testament was also very much a developing doctrine finalized only in 397. The dogma os the two natures of Christ was made official at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
"Why should non-Catholics accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject similar proclamations on Church government, the papacy, Mary and purgatory?
"St. Augustine wrote:
While the hot restlessness of heretics stirs up questions about many things belonging to the Catholic Faith, in order to provide a defense against these heretics, we are obliged to study the points questioned more diligently, to understand them more clearly…and thus the question raised by the adversary becomes the occasion of instruction. (Augustine, City of God, bk. 16, ch. 2, no. 1.)
“Obviously, if Augustine held such a view in the fifth century, development of doctrine is no new “Romish” corruption of recent times. It has been present in the Church from the very beginning.”
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Now, let’s not treat development with such a wide brush.
Development needs to be looked at through the lens of Sacred Tradition and many other factors.
If there are contradictions and inconsistencies, those developments need to be looked at closely. Which is what this thread is about.
Sola Scriptura is a development. Is it consistent with Sacred Tradition?
Keep in mind that supremacy is only 100 years older than Sola Scriptura
Development needs to be looked at through the lens of Sacred Tradition and many other factors.
If there are contradictions and inconsistencies, those developments need to be looked at closely. Which is what this thread is about.
Sola Scriptura is a development. Is it consistent with Sacred Tradition?
Keep in mind that supremacy is only 100 years older than Sola Scriptura
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Saint Vincent of Lerins on Development of Doctrine (AD 434)
Is there to be no development of religion in the Church of Christ? Certainly, there is to be development and on the largest scale.
Who can be so grudging to men, so full of hate for God, as to try to prevent it? But it must truly be development of the faith, not alteration of the faith. Development means that each thing expands to be itself, while alteration means that a thing is changed from one thing into another.
The understanding, knowledge and wisdom of one and all, of individuals as well as of the whole Church, ought then to make great and vigorous progress with the passing of the ages and the centuries, but only along its own line of development, that is, with the same doctrine, the same meaning and the same import.
The religion of souls should follow the law of development of bodies. Though bodies develop and unfold their component parts with the passing of the years, they always remain what they were. There is a great difference between the flower of childhood and the maturity of age, but those who become old are the very same people who were once young. Though the condition and appearance of one and the same individual may change, it is one and the same nature, one and the same person.
The tiny members of unweaned children and the grown members of young men are still the same members. Men have the same number of limbs as children. Whatever develops at a later age was already present in seminal form; there is nothing new in old age that was not already latent in childhood.
There is no doubt, then, that the legitimate and correct rule of development, the established and wonderful order of growth, is this: in older people the fullness of years always brings to completion those members and forms that the wisdom of the Creator fashioned beforehand in their earlier years.
If, however, the human form were to turn into some shape that did not belong to its own nature, or even if something were added to the sum of its members or subtracted from it, the whole body would necessarily perish or become grotesque or at least be enfeebled. In the same way, the doctrine of the Christian religion should properly follow these laws of development, that is, by becoming firmer over the years, more ample in the course of time, more exalted as it advances in age.
In ancient times our ancestors sowed the good seed in the harvest field of the Church. It would be very wrong and unfitting if we, their descendants, were to reap, not the genuine wheat of truth but the intrusive growth of error.
On the contrary, what is right and fitting is this: there should be no inconsistency between first and last, but we should reap true doctrine from the growth of true teaching, so that when, in the course of time, those first sowings yield an increase it may flourish and be tended in our day also.
Is there to be no development of religion in the Church of Christ? Certainly, there is to be development and on the largest scale.
Who can be so grudging to men, so full of hate for God, as to try to prevent it? But it must truly be development of the faith, not alteration of the faith. Development means that each thing expands to be itself, while alteration means that a thing is changed from one thing into another.
The understanding, knowledge and wisdom of one and all, of individuals as well as of the whole Church, ought then to make great and vigorous progress with the passing of the ages and the centuries, but only along its own line of development, that is, with the same doctrine, the same meaning and the same import.
The religion of souls should follow the law of development of bodies. Though bodies develop and unfold their component parts with the passing of the years, they always remain what they were. There is a great difference between the flower of childhood and the maturity of age, but those who become old are the very same people who were once young. Though the condition and appearance of one and the same individual may change, it is one and the same nature, one and the same person.
The tiny members of unweaned children and the grown members of young men are still the same members. Men have the same number of limbs as children. Whatever develops at a later age was already present in seminal form; there is nothing new in old age that was not already latent in childhood.
There is no doubt, then, that the legitimate and correct rule of development, the established and wonderful order of growth, is this: in older people the fullness of years always brings to completion those members and forms that the wisdom of the Creator fashioned beforehand in their earlier years.
If, however, the human form were to turn into some shape that did not belong to its own nature, or even if something were added to the sum of its members or subtracted from it, the whole body would necessarily perish or become grotesque or at least be enfeebled. In the same way, the doctrine of the Christian religion should properly follow these laws of development, that is, by becoming firmer over the years, more ample in the course of time, more exalted as it advances in age.
In ancient times our ancestors sowed the good seed in the harvest field of the Church. It would be very wrong and unfitting if we, their descendants, were to reap, not the genuine wheat of truth but the intrusive growth of error.
On the contrary, what is right and fitting is this: there should be no inconsistency between first and last, but we should reap true doctrine from the growth of true teaching, so that when, in the course of time, those first sowings yield an increase it may flourish and be tended in our day also.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Matthew 13:31-32
31 He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32 Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches.”
John 14:26
26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
John 16:12-13
12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
Ephesians 4:13-16
13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. 16 From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.
31 He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32 Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches.”
John 14:26
26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
John 16:12-13
12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
Ephesians 4:13-16
13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. 16 From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.
- Status