Prodigal's Isle

[Thing]

There is a difference between the Archbishop of Canterbury and me: For him, it was not that he couldn’t believe, it’s that he wouldn’t believe. For me, the converse is true: It’s not that i won’t believe, it’s that i cannot believe. I can only believe what i know is true. That’s why i’m asking. I want to know whether it’s true. Specifically, i want to know whether the Catholic Church is an authority i can trust to reveal the truth to me.

From what i gather from your remarks, Thing, you are into partisan religion. You are convinced you are right, it appears. Me, i’m into non-partisan religion. I’m not a partisan who is knows he has the truth; i’m a philosopher who is seeking the truth i know i don’t know. As Socrates said:
Now, the partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. And the difference between him and me at the present moment is merely this—that whereas he seeks to convince his hearers that what he says is true, I am rather seeking to convince myself; to convince my hearers is a secondary matter with me.

(Phaedo)

Just a thought.

Is the CC an authority you can trust? Yes.

Truth is not really something we can know by ourselves by proof. Sacred Tradition is our source of truth and our Sacred Tradition states that Christ left a Church which He said He would guide and protect to the end of the age. You trust that, or you don’t. But you don’t decide what the ‘real’ truth is yourself, as you do not believe in your own infallibility.

We are little sheep, …He leads His Church, we follow His voice…

…baaaa …baaaaaa…

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Is the CC an authority you can trust? Yes.

Truth is not really something we can know by ourselves by proof. Sacred Tradition is our source of truth and our Sacred Tradition states that Christ left a Church which He said He would guide and protect to the end of the age. You trust that, or you don’t. But you don’t decide what the ‘real’ truth is yourself, as you do not believe in your own infallibility.

We are little sheep, …He leads His Church, we follow His voice…

…baaaa …baaaaaa…

That’s all well and good for you, but not for me. I cannot rely on Sacred Tradition to prove Sacred Tradition is the source of truth. If i asked Tradition, “How do i know you are the truth?” and Tradition answers, “Because i said so!” She has not given me any good reason to believe her.

It seems then, that before i can accept her as the source of truth, i have to ask those whom i already trust if she is the source of truth. I have to ask Scripture, Reason, or the Holy Spirit.

See how my mind is trying to work through this?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… I agree with you we can see something like an alternative between the alleged “perspicuity of Scripture” and the Catholic Church. ( I would not like define Sacred Scripture “ambiguous”, in any case).

(BTW I feel the rescuing team is making progress , and I’d like to summarize the point you and we reached together, as I can see it, in a later post) …

P7:

I hope you don’t mind my pursuing two threads of thought with you, but your premise is something i have not been able to figure out. When you say that you do not find Sacred Scripture ambiguous, do you mean that it is irrational to interpret this passage1.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(Matthew 16:18)
to mean anything other than this?1a.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on** [you]** this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(Matthew 16:18)

That is, are you saying the rules of grammar, the immediate context of the passage, and the rules of logic dictate that this interpretation1b.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock **[of truth you spoke] **I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(Matthew 16:18)

or this interpretation1c.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock** [which is me]** I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(Matthew 16:18)
is logically, or grammatically, or contextually impossible?

 

[Thing]

That’s all well and good for you, but not for me. I cannot rely on Sacred Tradition to prove Sacred Tradition is the source of truth. If i asked Tradition, “How do i know you are the truth?” and Tradition answers, “Because i said so!” She has not given me any good reason to believe her.

It seems then, that before i can accept her as the source of truth, i have to ask those whom i already trust if she is the source of truth. I have to ask Scripture, Reason, or the Holy Spirit.

See how my mind is trying to work through this?

baa

 

[Pax]

It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. 2He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. 3When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

(Acts 12)

The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: “Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them.”

(Acts 14)

In the chronology of events recorded by the ancient historian Luke, James was put to death by Herod in Jerusalem prior to Barnabas being called an Apostle (Acts 14 follows Acts 12). Either your view or mine might be correct, however, since Luke does not cite the time or place when Barnabas was first recognized as an Apostle. Therefore, it is probable, but not conclusive, that there were only 11 Apostles at the time Barnabas was first recognized as the 12th.

Agreed…what you say is reasonable given what we can know from scripture. If your view is correct than this again speaks to succession.

 

[Pax]

Soc in Christ,

I’m going to try to take up where I left off in post #426.

We know from the Book of Acts that Matthias was chosen to replace Judas and that the position was referred to as an “office.” Scripture also refers to the position of “bishop” as an “office” within the body of Christ which is the Church.[See 1 Timothy 3:1]

Titus 1:7 refers to the bishop as “God’s steward.” We have already mentioned the connection of the “king’s steward” in Isaiah to Jesus words in Matthew 16:18. Bishops are stewards and the bishop of Rome is the chief steward/pope. Paul goes on in Titus 1:9-14 to make some very interesting and strongly worded statements concerning the office of bishop. In that passage he says:

…he[the bishop]** must hold firm to the sure word as taught**, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it. For there are many insubordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially the circumcision party; they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for base gain what they have no right to teach. One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, instead of giving heed to Jewish myths or to commands of men who reject the truth.

In asking for prayers for himself and other bishops/elders in the Church the author of Hebrews[most likely Paul] says the following in Heb 13:17-18:

Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you. Pray for us, for we are sure that we have a clear conscience, desiring to act honorably in all things.

So what can we learn from what has been given to us in scripture so far. It seems to me that we can be sure that:

1. The Church has leadership.
2. The leadership is passed on through the laying on of hands.
3. The leadership was made up of bishops/elders. These positions are “offices.”
4. Peter was the de facto leader among the apostles and elders.
5. Peter refers to himself as an elder [1 Peter 5]
6. The elders/bishops are stewards.
7. They have authority.
8. They are to hold firm to the true word “as taught.”
9. The bishop must be able to instruct according to the true word “as taught.”
10. The bishop must confute those that contradict the true word “as taught.”
11. We must obey our bishops and submit to them, for they are watching over our souls as men who will have to give an account.

It is important to note that we are not instructed anywhere in scripture to obey and submit to the word according to our personal interpretation guided by the Holy Spirit. We are supposed to submit to the true word “as taught.” The scripture is the true word. The true word is to be understood, however, “as taught” rather than as personally interpreted.

We know that Jesus makes promises concerning the Church that he established per Matt 16:18. We also know that Jesus promised to remain with the Church until the end of time. We also know that Jesus wants us to listen to the apostles and their successors so that we will know and follow the true word “as taught.” We know that Jesus promised the apostles that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide them/the Church into all truth. We know that at the Council of Jerusalem that the “whole Church” decided and agreed upon the issues of faith and morals that were under consideration. We know that this council was infallible in its declarations.

I am personally convinced that there is really no other way to reasonably understand and interpret all of this except by way of the Catholic view. Obviously, there are other understandings such as sola scriptura, but I cannot see how the scriptural evidence points in that direction. What do you think?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Agreed…what you say is reasonable given what we can know from scripture. If your view is correct than this again speaks to succession.

True. Even if the Apostles were trying to keep the number at 12, God had at least a baker’s dozen in mind!

http://onecutecookie.net/images/towerstack.jpg

Mmmmm. Cookies.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc in Christ,

Here is some more food for thought concerning Church authority.

In Matthew 18:15-18 it says:

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Yes, i can see that.

The very next thing that Jesus says is:[Matt 28:19-20]

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo,** I am with you always, to the close of the age.**

True. I see this, too.

The logical question to ask next is: What did the apostles do with this authority? Did they give authority to others? Clearly, the elders that were at the Council of Jerusalem had authority. We also know that there were at least two additional apostles chosen by the remaining apostles subsequent to Pentecost. Scripture also indicates that there were others that were given power and authority through the laying on of hands.

Still agreeing with you!

We know from Eph 1:22-23 and Eph 5:23 that the Church is the body of Christ, the fullness of Christ, and that Jesus, the Head, has physical and spiritual aspects, so the body, the Church has the same. These aspects of the Church do not end with the death of members. The Church continues with these features and characteristics even after the death of the last apostle. So did they give their authority to others?

We learn the answer to this question from the action of the elders at the Council of Jerusalem. We learn the answer to this question from the appointment additional apostles. We learn the answer to this question in the appointment of elders. We learn the answer to this question from the actions of Paul as well when he makes reference to the appointment of Timothy as a bishop through the laying on of hands. Likewise, Paul says the following:

2 Corinthians 1:19-22

For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom we preached among you, Silvanus

Thank you for doing the research for me! Now on to your next reply.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc in Christ,

I’m going to try to take up where I left off in post #426.

We know from the Book of Acts that Matthias was chosen to replace Judas and that the position was referred to as an “office.” Scripture also refers to the position of “bishop” as an “office” within the body of Christ which is the Church.[See 1 Timothy 3:1]

Titus 1:7 refers to the bishop as “God’s steward.” We have already mentioned the connection of the “king’s steward” in Isaiah to Jesus words in Matthew 16:18. Bishops are stewards and the bishop of Rome is the chief steward/pope. Paul goes on in Titus 1:9-14 to make some very interesting and strongly worded statements concerning the office of bishop. In that passage he says:

…he[the bishop]** must hold firm to the sure word as taught**

I’d like to pause a moment at premise (3) to consider what you are saying. The English translations i consulted use the word elder, rather than bishop. Nowhere in the New Testament of these translations is bishop used. However, if you want to say bishop is just term that means the same as elder, i have no objections.

The only question i have regarding this is this: Are the qualifications for a Catholic bishop today the same as the qualifications for a Catholic bishop at the time Paul wrote his epistles? For example, he writes that an elder (or bishop):… is entrusted with God’s work, [and] he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

(Titus 1:7-9)
I think that you are saying that the qualifications of the elders (or bishops) of today should be the same as those of the elders or bishops of yesterday. The text cites the qualifications of any good apostolic successor, such as a Catholic bishop or Pope. Am i understanding correctly?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

baa

http://i.ivillage.co.uk/uk_en/a_ukpix/article/goat.jpg

But your not all that ba-aa-aa-ad!

 

[Pax]

I’d like to pause a moment at premise (3) to consider what you are saying. The English translations i consulted use the word elder, rather than bishop. Nowhere in the New Testament of these translations is bishop used. However, if you want to say bishop is just term that means the same as elder, i have no objections.

The only question i have regarding this is this: Are the qualifications for a Catholic bishop today the same as the qualifications for a Catholic bishop at the time Paul wrote his epistles? For example, he writes that an elder (or bishop):… is entrusted with God’s work, [and] he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

(Titus 1:7-9)
I think that you are saying that the qualifications of the elders (or bishops) of today should be the same as those of the elders or bishops of yesterday. The text cites the qualifications of any good apostolic successor, such as a Catholic bishop or Pope. Am i understanding correctly?

Yes, I would agree with those statements concerning what the qualifications should be by way of morals, character etc. Unfortunately, that is not always what we get. This was even true within the early Church.

As far as the term bishop is concerned I would say this:

The term “bishop” is used in Philippians 1:1, 1 Tim 3:1 and 2, Titus 1:7, and 1 Peter 2:35 in the following non-Catholic translations:

KJV
American Standard
Revised Standard
and Websters Version

The Greek word from which it is taken is “episkope”. This word is the basis for the word episcopate which we use in reference to the office of bishop.

See:
Strong’s Number: 1984
Transliterated: episkope
Phonetic: ep-is-kop-ay’

Text: from 1980; inspection (for relief); by implication, superintendence; specially, the Christian “episcopate”: --the office of a “bishop”, bishoprick, visitation.

I hope this helps.

 

[pneuma07]

P7:

I don’t want to not address your question; just have not had time until now. I agree with your proposed steps. I believe the Protestant argument for step 3 is not only that it is so clear it does not need the Tradition nor the Magisterim, but that the Tradition and the Magisterium have been deceived, at some point, and a reform is necessary to restore the interpretation that the Tradition and Magisterium used to have, as cited by early Church Fathers. Hence, it’s not outside the context of the old Tradition and the old Magisterium (which used to have the correct interpretation). Rather it’s outside the context of the new Tradition and the new Magisterium. In other words, the Tradition and Magisterium have evolved in thought to the point of self-deception.

The Protestant argument for step 4, it seems to me, is that the context is not new, but old. It’s a restoration of the true context of the early Church that was later abandoned by the Tradition and Magisterium. Hence it is the original context that Christ intended.

Regarding step 5, i’m unsure what you mean by “variety of definitions and prescriptions” of new context. The context all Protestants appear to have in common is that of reason (using arts and sciences of logic and hermeneutics) and revelation (praying for and relying on the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth).

You ask:
Can the Defender , the Guardian of Sacred Scripture .ever be my self, or a denomination born _______________ ( fill the blank with a date, place, founder …). ?

The Protestant answer: No, not myself, but my reason, as guided by the Holy Spirit. This is why i propose, in my previous reply, that we compare

1. reason with tradition

and2. the Holy Spirit with the Magisterium
Now i’m willing to consider that the Protestant answer is wrong, but the only way it can be wrong is if i am correct in my conclusion that Sacred Scripture is ambiguous regarding important doctrines. Do you believe it is?
Also, if you think it wise, i think we should explore the proposed differences between Protestants and Catholics: Please tell me why you believe that when reason tells one that Tradition is deceived that one should ignore his reason and trust Tradition? Please tell me why you believe that the Magisterium is a necessary channel for the Holy Spirit and then one cannot be guided by the Holy Spirit apart from the Magisterium.

Dear Soc,

thanks for the thoughtful responses. (At present I’m having problems with connecting to the net, I do hope I can go on with our present dialog).

Comments.

On STEPS 3. So you put it, if I get, that there was on original uncorrupted Magisterium and Tradition.
Then deception and deviation crept in. My wonder about this sort of explanations is something like this:

• If there ever was a legitimate original Magisterium in the Church, why was it not protected by the Holy Spirit ? ( In particular, was the legitimate Magisterium outside the scope of matthew 28:20 ? )
• You quote the fathers: has, in your opinion, a branch of protestantism succeded in showing us all that it follows the teachings of the Church Fathers ? You will concur they have a formidable burden of proof, who claim what you describe about STEP 3. What is this branch ?
• How can I postulate and show that the Holy Spirit, after abandoning the (former ) magisterium settled by Jesus Himself, abides in me and just me ?

On STEP 4 I was not clear that it is just a negative one. “The CONtext” has to be outside the Catholic Church. If we have a restorarion, this is just its “pars destruens”. Now, as to the “pars costruens”, (STEP 5)
I have to show a positive CONtext

Now, at least since the definitive break between zwinglianism and Lutheranism in 1529, protestantisms have been proposing a growing variety of CONtexts, while what was allegedly to be restored was one. Who was assisted by the Holy Spirit, Zwingli in uncompromisingly denying Real Presence, or Luther in staunchly defending his own vision of Real Presence ?

Maybe the CONtext was not common between the two. It must have been reason and the ability to hear the Holy Spirit, you point out. IMHO it turned out there were two CONtexts: Luther’s reason and Luther’s ability to hear the Holy Spirit was one, the other being Zwingli’s reason and ability to hear the Holy Spirit.
Who had the best credentials to be considered the restorer of the original doctrinal purity ? And nowadays ?

 

[pneuma07]

That’s why i’m here–to learn!

• Worship the Pope? No. That’s why i wrote that the natives *appeared *to worship their Great Chief.
• **Exclude reason? **No. But where reason contradicts current Tradition and current teaching of the Magisterium, are you not required to believe your thinking to be wrong?
• **Rely on Traditions of men rather than the current Tradition of the Church? **No. Rely on Sacred Tradition above reason and personal revelation received from the Holy Spirit? Yes.

There was a time when i was a partisan a Protestant as they come. I believed there was not way i could be deceived, for the Holy Spirit would protect me from such. But then a Protestant pointed out how i was. That was an eye opener. Rather than doubt the Holy Spirit’s ability to protect and guide, i doubted my ability to accept and hear. What had i done wrong to be led into heresy?

I then began rereading Plato’s Socratic Dialogs and learned from Socrates that he always considered the possibility that he, and any self-proclaimed wise man he met, might be self-deceived. Reason, he believed, was the shield against such an evil state. Yet, Socrates was deceived about how knowledge is obtained and what transpires after death. Reason alone could not keep him from being self-deceived. What Socrates was lacking was revelation.

**My conclusion: **I need to not trust the Bible alone, but also trust (and develop) my reason, and continually pray and seek wisdom from the Holy Spirit. On these three i rely above all. That being said, if you can help me see that these three show me that the Tradition and Magisterium of the Catholic Church is trustworthy, then i will no longer have a three-legged stool, but a five legged one. As long as all five legs are sturdy, i’m sure it will hold me up!

You were humble and open minded in accepting doctrinal corrections by that person. The question is IMHO whether we can rely on a smart good-will guy to get to know what is orthodox. What about a meeting with another good-will and smarter guy ? Can that be a foundation of my way to receive Jesus’ message ?

You ask about reason and Sacred Tradition.

About the view of reason in Catholicism, your text IMHO is “Fides et Ratio”, by JPII, which you can of course google in a minute ( if you connection does work, that is ). If you can invest there some hours, I imagine it would be a fine experience for you. ( maybe you already know Fides et Ratio by heart ).

I’d like to propose some exceprts from the introduction, beginning from the very first words:

*Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2)…

Driven by the desire to discover the ultimate truth of existence, human beings seek to acquire those universal elements of knowledge which enable them to understand themselves better and to advance in their own self-realization. These fundamental elements of knowledge *spring from the **wonder **awakened in them by the contemplation of creation: human beings are astonished to discover themselves as part of the world, in a relationship with others like them, all sharing a common destiny. Here begins, then, the journey which will lead them to discover ever new frontiers of knowledge. Without wonder, men and women would lapse into deadening routine and little by little would become incapable of a life which is genuinely personal …

5. On her part, the Church cannot but set great value upon reason’s drive to attain goals which render people’s lives ever more worthy. She sees in philosophy the way to come to know fundamental truths about human life. At the same time, the Church considers philosophy an indispensable help for a deeper understanding of faith and for communicating the truth of the Gospel to those who do not yet know it.

Having passed through a fundamentalist experience, you may possibly confirm that the appreciation of reason and philosophy expressed here by the Church is not shared by all protestantisms.
.
If , on the other hand, what you have to compare between protestantisms and Catholicism is specifically
“private judgement” on doctrinal matters, I’d be glad to explore the issue together. …You get there, sooner or later, and your own questions here point to that IMHO.

On the concept of Sacred Tradition ( when you have some more time ) your text IMHO is the Constitution “Dei Verbum” issued by the Vatican II Council. As ( or if) I was able to understand it , Sacred Tradition is a concept which is not that obvious.
And it is fascinating.

Bless you
P7

PS Sorry Soc if there can be more errors and confusion than usual: i’m in a hurry before going possibly off again.

 

[pneuma07]

P7:

I hope you don’t mind my pursuing two threads of thought with you, but your premise is something i have not been able to figure out. When you say that you do not find Sacred Scripture ambiguous, do you mean that it is irrational to interpret this passage1.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(Matthew 16:18)
to mean anything other than this?1a.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on** [you]** this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(Matthew 16:18)

That is, are you saying the rules of grammar, the immediate context of the passage, and the rules of logic dictate that this interpretation1b.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock **[of truth you spoke] **I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(Matthew 16:18)

or this interpretation1c.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock** [which is me]** I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(Matthew 16:18)
is logically, or grammatically, or contextually impossible?

It seems I am still o line, so…

I do not mean that.

My incidental was a general one. Should we like to call Sacred Scripture an “ambiguous text”. ?
Maybe it depends on what you mean by “ambiguity”, whether that is compatible with inspiration.

anyway, on the specific pericope, my opinion is the contrary of what I have unfortunately let understand.

I guess that alongside 1a, the other two readings are there too. The Church fathers show us that.

My major dissent here with many protestant brothers is their picking up either 1b or 1c to the rigid exclusion of 1a.

BTW I’d like to underline that there was no uproar among the fathers about the three interpretations, we see harmony on that.among them. .

What we can conclude IMHO is that ( apart from seeing how rather nonsensical is “counting” how many fathers or passages of theirs support which of the three) :

1. none of those readings exclude the others (rather, we can see connections)
2. all of them are compatible, (or I’d say in support of), petrine primacy.

The pericope is rich and profound IMHO , rather than “ambiguous”.

Why can “Sola Fide” brothers quote several passages in seeming support of their doctrine ? ( Pax is a master in debating that ). I would not say " because Scripture is ambiguous". I’d say with saint Peter that it is not only difficult, but potentially dangerous
interpreting Scriptures (outside the proper CONtext).

In several passages of the OT we Christians see a prophetic anticipation of the messiah who is Jesus.
The passages can often ( in all cases ?) also be read as referred to the people of Israel. Many elder brothers seem, on account of that,
to exclude the messianic dimension in at least some of these pericopes. Does that mean Scripture is ambiguous ?
Or that there must not be an “aut… aut” but rather an “et …et” ?

I expect a Defender of the sacred text ( if we agreed there must be one) to respect its richness, and not to limit it.

P7:

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Yes, I would agree with those statements concerning what the qualifications should be by way of morals, character etc. Unfortunately, that is not always what we get. This was even true within the early Church. …

I suppose even a Pope (God forbid!) is susceptible to sin. But perfection is the goal, i think you’d agree, as does Jesus, who said:Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

(Matthew 5:48)

With perfection as the aim, do you think a priest, bishop, or Pope should try to perfectly obey these words?For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.

(Titus 1:7-9)

Or do you think he should be determine to obey some, but not all of these Sacred Scriptures? That is, should he be selfless, but quick to lose his temper? Or should he be a sober, yet violent? Or should he be generous, but inhospitable? Should such a double-minded state be the deliberate purpose of any Apostolic successor?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

thanks for the thoughtful responses. (At present I’m having problems with connecting to the net, I do hope I can go on with our present dialog).

Comments.

On STEPS 3. So you put it, if I get, that there was on original uncorrupted Magisterium and Tradition.
Then deception and deviation crept in.

Please don’t misunderstand. That’s not *my *belief, that’s what every Protestant i’ve ever heard teach on this subject has proposed. I don’t know if what they say is true. According to the Protestant argument, it’s not that the Catholic Church was deceived from the get go; the deception was gradual and only became pervasive and permanent centuries after Christ. However, in the Roman Catholic religion, there were always those who remained faithful to Christ, but rejected those doctrines of the church that were contrary to the true Gospel of Christ. That’s what they tell me. As evidence, they rarely point to Church history. Instead, they present Catholic doctrine and then compare it to Sacred Scripture as evidence that some established doctrines of the Catholic Church have become corrupted by error.

My wonder about this sort of explanations is something like this:

• If there ever was a legitimate original Magisterium in the Church, why was it not protected by the Holy Spirit ? ( In particular, was the legitimate Magisterium outside the scope of matthew 28:20 ? )

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

(Ecclesiastes 1:9)

There is a story in the Old Testament, where the Prophet Elijah is a hunted man. The king of the Jewish people has vowed to kill him when he catches up with him. He, like the majority of Israel, have turned from God to worship idols. Fleeing for his life, Elijah hides in the desert and desperately prays:“I have been very zealous for the LORD God Almighty. The Israelites have rejected your covenant, broken down your altars, and put your prophets to death with the sword. I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me too.”

(1 Kings 19:10)
God’s reply to the Prophet:“I reserve seven thousand in Israel—all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and all whose mouths have not kissed him.”

(v. 19)
To Protestants, Luther was their Elijah. The Tradition and Magisterium of the Catholic Church was the Baal worship they were protesting. And the 7,000 were those who left the Catholic Church when it’s bishops and Pope failed to reform as Luther said it must. That is, what had happened before had happened again.

• You quote the fathers: has, in your opinion, a branch of protestantism succeded in showing us all that it follows the teachings of the Church Fathers ? You will concur they have a formidable burden of proof, who claim what you describe about STEP 3. What is this branch ?

They go back further than the Church Fathers; they return to the genesis of the Catholic Church. The go to Jesus words in the Gospels and the Apostles words in the Book of Acts, and try to imitate these as much as possible.

• How can I postulate and show that the Holy Spirit, after abandoning the (former ) magisterium settled by Jesus Himself, abides in me and just me ?

But if God’s words to Elijah apply, then He never abandoned the people of the Church, just the corrupt doctrine of the Church (again, i don’t know if this is true, i’m just telling you what the Protestants tell me).

On STEP 4 I was not clear that it is just a negative one. “The CONtext” has to be outside the Catholic Church. If we have a restorarion, this is just its “pars destruens”. Now, as to the “pars costruens”, (STEP 5)
I have to show a positive CONtext

Sorry, i’m unfamiliar with the term* pars costruens* and the online translator i used came up with nothing. Please explain.

Now, at least since the definitive break between zwinglianism and Lutheranism in 1529, protestantisms have been proposing a growing variety of CONtexts, while what was allegedly to be restored was one. Who was assisted by the Holy Spirit, Zwingli in uncompromisingly denying Real Presence, or Luther in staunchly defending his own vision of Real Presence ?

Maybe the CONtext was not common between the two. It must have been reason and the ability to hear the Holy Spirit, you point out. IMHO it turned out there were two CONtexts: Luther’s reason and Luther’s ability to hear the Holy Spirit was one, the other being Zwingli’s reason and ability to hear the Holy Spirit.
Who had the best credentials to be considered the restorer of the original doctrinal purity ? And nowadays ?

True. And the reason for this is that the words of Christ are ambiguous and require interpretation. Which is why i’m here, to determine if the Tradition and Magisterium should be my interpreter. For example, when Jesus says this

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

You were humble and open minded in accepting doctrinal corrections by that person. The question is IMHO whether we can rely on a smart good-will guy to get to know what is orthodox. What about a meeting with another good-will and smarter guy ? Can that be a foundation of my way to receive Jesus’ message ?

Humble? Would you call a person who seeks treatment for cancer humble? Or would you call him prudent, or perhaps brave? Deception, it seems to me, is a kind of cancer of the brain.

You ask about reason and Sacred Tradition.

About the view of reason in Catholicism, your text IMHO is “Fides et Ratio”, by JPII, which you can of course google in a minute ( if you connection does work, that is ). If you can invest there some hours, I imagine it would be a fine experience for you. ( maybe you already know Fides et Ratio by heart ).

I’d like to propose some exceprts from the introduction, beginning from the very first words:

*Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2)…

Driven by the desire to discover the ultimate truth of existence, human beings seek to acquire those universal elements of knowledge which enable them to understand themselves better and to advance in their own self-realization. These fundamental elements of knowledge *spring from the **wonder ****awakened in them by the contemplation of creation: human beings are astonished to discover themselves as part of the world, in a relationship with others like them, all sharing a common destiny. Here begins, then, the journey which will lead them to discover ever new frontiers of knowledge. Without wonder, men and women would lapse into deadening routine and little by little would become incapable of a life which is genuinely personal …

5. On her part, the Church cannot but set great value upon reason’s drive to attain goals which render people’s lives ever more worthy. She sees in philosophy the way to come to know fundamental truths about human life. At the same time, the Church considers philosophy an indispensable help for a deeper understanding of faith and for communicating the truth of the Gospel to those who do not yet know it.

Having passed through a fundamentalist experience, you may possibly confirm that the appreciation of reason and philosophy expressed here by the Church is not shared by all protestantisms.
.
If , on the other hand, what you have to compare between protestantisms and Catholicism is specifically
“private judgement” on doctrinal matters, I’d be glad to explore the issue together. …You get there, sooner or later, and your own questions here point to that IMHO.

On the concept of Sacred Tradition ( when you have some more time ) your text IMHO is the Constitution “Dei Verbum” issued by the Vatican II Council. As ( or if) I was able to understand it , Sacred Tradition is a concept which is not that obvious.
And it is fascinating.

Bless you
P7

PS Sorry Soc if there can be more errors and confusion than usual: i’m in a hurry before going possibly off again.

Yes, i like that quote! Funny, though. From what i understand, the Catholic Church considers reason an Intellectual Virtue that man develops in himself, apart from Divine assistance. Faith, on the other hand, is considered a Theological Virtue that requires Divine assistance. Am i correct?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

It seems I am still o line, so…

I do not mean that.

My incidental was a general one. Should we like to call Sacred Scripture an “ambiguous text”. ?
Maybe it depends on what you mean by “ambiguity”, whether that is compatible with inspiration.

anyway, on the specific pericope, my opinion is the contrary of what I have unfortunately let understand.

I guess that alongside 1a, the other two readings are there too. The Church fathers show us that.

My major dissent here with many protestant brothers is their picking up either 1b or 1c to the rigid exclusion of 1a.

BTW I’d like to underline that there was no uproar among the fathers about the three interpretations, we see harmony on that.among them. .

What we can conclude IMHO is that ( apart from seeing how rather nonsensical is “counting” how many fathers or passages of theirs support which of the three) :

1. none of those readings exclude the others (rather, we can see connections)
2. all of them are compatible, (or I’d say in support of), petrine primacy.

The pericope is rich and profound IMHO , rather than “ambiguous”.

Two thoughts come to mind: First, while it is true that (1a) and (1b) and (1c) might all be true, it is also true that any one of these might be true and the other two false, and it is also true that any two of these might be true and the other one false. So it is entirely possible that (1a) might be false. Second, while it is true that (1a) and (1b) and (1c) might all be true, the fact remains that Jesus did not mean all three. The grammar demands that He meant only one of the three. If indeed He meant all three, He would have said this:

1d.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on** [these rocks]** I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(Matthew 16:18) Since He said, “this rock,” He obviously meant only (1a) or (1b) or (1c), but not all three.

Why can “Sola Fide” brothers quote several passages in seeming support of their doctrine ? ( Pax is a master in debating that ). I would not say " because Scripture is ambiguous". I’d say with saint Peter that it is not only difficult, but potentially dangerous
interpreting Scriptures (outside the proper CONtext).

In several passages of the OT we Christians see a prophetic anticipation of the messiah who is Jesus.
The passages can often ( in all cases ?) also be read as referred to the people of Israel. Many elder brothers seem, on account of that,
to exclude the messianic dimension in at least some of these pericopes. Does that mean Scripture is ambiguous ?
Or that there must not be an “aut… aut” but rather an “et …et” ?

I expect a Defender of the sacred text ( if we agreed there must be one) to respect its richness, and not to limit it.

P7:

If Christ’s words can reasonably taken to mean (1a) or (1b) or (1c), then they meet the definition of ambiguity.

am⋅bi⋅gu⋅i⋅ty

/ˌæmhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngbɪˈgyuhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngɪhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngti/ cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif Show Spelled Pronunciation [am-bi-gyoo-i-tee] cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif Show IPA–noun, plural -ties. 1. doubtfulness or uncertainty of meaning or intention: to speak with ambiguity; an ambiguity of manner. 2. an unclear, indefinite, or equivocal word, expression, meaning, etc.: a contract free of ambiguities; the ambiguities of modern poetry.
The question i’m asking, which no one has answered, is why? Why would Jesus intentionally choose words that could so easily be misunderstood?

 

[Pax]

I suppose even a Pope (God forbid!) is susceptible to sin. But perfection is the goal, i think you’d agree, as does Jesus, who said:Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

(Matthew 5:48)

With perfection as the aim, do you think a priest, bishop, or Pope should try to perfectly obey these words?For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.

(Titus 1:7-9)

Or do you think he should be determine to obey some, but not all of these Sacred Scriptures? That is, should he be selfless, but quick to lose his temper? Or should he be a sober, yet violent? Or should he be generous, but inhospitable? Should such a double-minded state be the deliberate purpose of any Apostolic successor?

We should all strive for perfection in Christ even though we often trip and fall. Our deacons, priests, bishops and Pope’s are supposed to be the best examples of striving for the perfection in Christ that is called for in scripture. Most people realize this intuitively if not by way of scripture. It is for this reason that a scandal among our Church leadership is so utterly devastating to the members.

We are not to be double minded. That holds true for us and the clergy.

 

[Pax]

Soc in Christ,

I should have mentioned that the word “office” in Acts 1:20 where Matthias is selected to replace Judas is again from the Greek “episkope”. The KJV translates this as “bishoprick.”

I hope this helps.