Prodigal's Isle

[paul_c]

Socrates,
I was thinking about you while in mass this morning and I had a mild revelation. There was a Catholic Saint, Saint Augustine, who was a philosopher at heart, just like you. You might benefit from reading his “Confessions.”, the book that describes his quest for God through reason (and ultimate conversion to Catholicism). It is available in any bookstore or library. In fact its available on line here: newadvent.org/fathers/1101.htm

You might find it answers your questions and its a pretty good read (and all it costs you is time).

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

     that's really a nice post IMHO. :)

Let me say BTW that once you are in Paris Junction the travel is far from over. As expressed By JRKH we are here to help both you and ourselves, longing for deeper looks. Personally I have come to the forum in order to learn, and that is what I am doing essentially, even when trying helping the brother who kindly asks for assistance.
I do hope you don’t see the world in a black and white dualism, just with wisdom seekers and partisans, and you allow in your picture for many colors…

On the two Rs one could hardly deny you’re speaking about the fundamental tool and object of theology.
Speaking about Revelation you , as in theology differently from philosophy, have as a presupposition Faith.

On reason, or individual judgment, I invite you now to consider post 600. …

Yes, thank you, P7! i’ll take another look at reply 600.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… I observe here that the very fact you are looking for reliable authority, means you appear well beyond the trust-no-man mindset. …

Actually, i’m quite surprised that i’m even considering not trusting Peter! But i’ve been shown a few things since then as i’ve prayed and pondered, which i’ll tell you about later. From the Protestant point of view–and i’m speaking of those Protestants i know well, who are Fundamentalist Baptists and Evangelicals, they have a great deal of trust in men–but only in those men who penned the books of the Bible. This might be a way for you to bridge the gap with them, then, by speaking of the meaning of what these men wrote. That’s how Pax and several others got through to me.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Speaking about Revelation you , as in theology differently from philosophy, have as a presupposition Faith. …

Well, i’d say faith is trust in the revelation (or the revealed wisdom, or revealed truth) received from God. By faith, then, i believe and trusts the truth received. By wisdom i receive the truth. Without faith, one does not trust the wisdom one receives. Without wisdom, one is likely to not know what to believe, or to trust in an anti-truth, mistaking it for the real deal.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… I guess THEN I am connected to Revelation, to the Incarnated Logos, precisely through the best disciples of the Apostles and their best disciples. Both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture pass through them, and the NT is, as I said, those books they had started to propose to the believers as faithful and normative witness to Jesus’ message, after learning this message from the very lips and lives of the Apostles’ …

Then you are more prepared to get off at Parish Junction than am i. For i’m currently at a loss to know how to bridge the gap between trusting Christ and the biblical authors to trusting their successors. Maybe you can tell my why you believe in the Apostolic Successors as much as you believe in Christ and Peter. Or do you trust the current Pope, for example, but not trust him as much as you trust Christ and Peter. What is your degree of trust in the Pontiff of pontiffs? And more importantly, why is your degree of trust in the P of ps?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… And there is just that Gospel delivered by the Apostles, no new one can be accepted in a christian perspective. So, that I like it or not, assisted as I can be in my discernment, I pass through the best disciples of the Apostles to get the message of the Incarnated Logos.

Agreed.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… How can I then state In 2009 that there was a collective derailment under their collective guide ?

I think that if i were to see that if, compared to Peter, they were as trustworthy as he, that this would help me to accept what you see.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… How can I say, for example, as it was essentially stated by a poster here, that I don’t care that they ie the leadership trained and selected by the apostles or thei immediate successors, believed in regenerative water baptism, throwing against that nothing less than the whole weight of my individual interpretation of the books they delivered us ?

From my experience, the Fundamentalist and Evangelical reasoning goes like this:

1. 
   *]God does not contradict Himself
   *]What He said through the Apostles of centuries ago will not contradict what He says through His spokesmen today
   *]If what a spokesman says today contradicts what the Apostles said centuries ago, then he does not speak for God
   *]Some of the spokesmen (even some so-called early Church Fathers) of the Catholic Church contradicted what the Apostles taught about the requirement of baptism for salvation
   
   Therefore,
   A. Some of the spokesmen of the Catholic Church do not speak for God.
   
   The cure for this error (if it is an error) might be to show that what the early Church Fathers taught is the same as what the biblical authors taught. Don’t you think?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… It is my humble individual judgment, or my humble reason if you prefer, that tells me that the leadership of the early Church had to know better than my individual judgment. As you see, I mind there are fundamental epistemological motivations for that.

Yes, you might be right. My judgment might be flawed, as well. But it seems to me that if the judgment of the early Church Fathers is as perfect as the original Apostles, then they will be able to show that by reason and by revelation. That is, they will be able to provide good reasons, in their writings, for me to believe that what they received is from heaven and not hell. Perhaps, then, we should take a closer look at an epistle of one of the Church Fathers? I know we’ve talked about doing so, but i have not yet committed myself to the task. If you think this a good idea, please let me know.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Moreover, I tell myself, following James as you propose

if you have bitter(M) jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. 15This is not(N) the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual,(O) demonic. 16For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. 17But(P) the wisdom from above is first pure, then(Q) peaceable, gentle, open to reason,(R) full of mercy and good fruits,(S) impartial and(T) sincere. 18And(U) a harvest of righteousness(V) is sown in peace by those who make peace. …

Yes, and i’m reminded of a Calvary Chapel pastor by the name of Chuck Smith who says that the way to tell who is sent by God and who is not is to remember what Jesus said:
By their fruit you will recognize them.

(Matthew 7:6)

One should steer clear of those who claim to speak for Christ, but have the fruit of jealousy, selfish ambition and pride, he says. Other Protestant teachers who i respect say much the same.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Bless you
P7

May God richly bless you as your words have blessed me, P7!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Well - - - I’m going to be careful about making any recommendations and such-not.
You can read a bit about him HERE
I read his book “Orthodoxy” and it is very good.
ON EWTN there is a program about him called “G.K. Chesterton, The Apostle of Common Sense” which seems to fit him pretty well from what I can see.
Also His approach of questioning and his sense of humor strike me as being somwhat similar to yours. For instance, he once said of himself that he was the most polite man in All of England because when he got up on a bus to give a lady his seat, three ladies could sit down. (he was quite, ummm rotund)

I also post a link to his article "Why I am Catholic" contained on the same site I linked above. I link this simply article simply because it is germain to our spritual quest here at Catholic Answers.

Anyway - take a look and see what you think.

Peace
James

LOL! Yes, sorry for getting carried away and being too clever for my own (and your) good. I’ll definitely take a look, later.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Socrates,
I was thinking about you while in mass this morning and I had a mild revelation. There was a Catholic Saint, Saint Augustine, who was a philosopher at heart, just like you. You might benefit from reading his “Confessions.”, the book that describes his quest for God through reason (and ultimate conversion to Catholicism). It is available in any bookstore or library. In fact its available on line here: newadvent.org/fathers/1101.htm

You might find it answers your questions and its a pretty good read (and all it costs you is time).

Thank you, Paul. I actually have a copy of the book in my library that i have not opened in a long time. I might just blow off the dust and have a read.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc in Christ,

You raise an important point. Peter does not make up the truth and then get it rubber stamped by God. The truth is what it is when it comes to doctrine in matters of faith and morals. The truth is Jesus and the truth comes from the divine source of God. We can only receive, determine, and discern the truth. The Church simply receives protection from teaching falsely in the power to bind and loose.

God bless.

Thanks, Pax. What you say made me think and brought me back to the truth i thought i’d lost. For your words remind me of Jesus’ words:

Then Jesus cried out, “When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me.”

(John 12:44)

And since i believe in (or trust completely) Jesus, then should i not trust in those He entrusted with His authority?

“As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”

(John 20:21)
and

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

(Matthew 28:18-20)

So, you’ve given me my answer–i should trust Peter (flaws and all) because Jesus chose him to speak for Him. If i trust Jesus, i must obviously trust those He trusted.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Based on the above, in my opinion, if Peter were truly on the wrong track in Acts 1, Jesus, or an Angel, or some kind of manifestation from God would have guided them on the right path, or at least corrected their mistake later on.

In fact, this paradigm is what I see again and again later on in acts. It is the Holy Spirit, or an Angel, or a Vision that corrects or informs and Guides. The only reason the church can claim any kind of infallibility is in the belief that it is the Holy Spirit that guides her. This is especially clear in moments of major decisions (and in fact even minor ones).

God bless,
Ut

Sorry for missing your post, Ut.



I do agree with you! For the reason you give, and the reason in my previous reply to Pax, i’ve regained my trust in the Prototype Pontiff of pontiffs named Peter. I have both of you to thank for that!



Now, how can i know that i should trust the Pontiff of pontiffs proceeding the Prototype Peter?

 

[JRKH]

Then you are more prepared to get off at Parish Junction than am i. For i’m currently at a loss to know how to bridge the gap between trusting Christ and the biblical authors to trusting their successors. Maybe you can tell my why you believe in the Apostolic Successors as much as you believe in Christ and Peter. Or do you trust the current Pope, for example, but not trust him as much as you trust Christ and Peter. What is your degree of trust in the Pontiff of pontiffs? And more importantly, why is your degree of trust in the P of ps?

Just butting in Socrates,
I think you’ll agree that The Bible, while a wonderful and essential book, requires that we read it and draw meanings from those writings. In other words it is not exactly “Tab A into Slot B” kind of stuff. It requires some thinking and discerning. I’m sure that you will also agree that we rely on the Holy Sprit to guide us in these matters, of course we must be on the watch against the great deciever.
So which seems more reliable for help with “Bridging the Gap”, the actual successors of the Apostles, some of whose writings are readily available, or just yourself and others reading Scripture and trying to discern what was meant after 2000 years of history?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

From my experience, the Fundamentalist and Evangelical reasoning goes like this:

1. 
   *]God does not contradict Himself
   *]What He said through the Apostles of centuries ago will not contradict what He says through His spokesmen today
   *]If what a spokesman says today contradicts what the Apostles said centuries ago, then he does not speak for God
   *]Some of the spokesmen (even some so-called early Church Fathers) of the Catholic Church contradicted what the Apostles taught about the requirement of baptism for salvation
   
   Therefore,
   A. Some of the spokesmen of the Catholic Church do not speak for God.
   
   The cure for this error (if it is an error) might be to show that what the early Church Fathers taught is the same as what the biblical authors taught. Don’t you think?

1. 
   You may well be right here Socrates, but as you have seen here, there are some who simply will not accept the evidence presented to them
   Each plants bible passages in front of the other, and each denies the other’s interpretation of those passages.
   Can you think of a better reason for Christ to establish and “Autoritative Church” to settle such differences?
   
   Peace
   James

 

[JRKH]

Thanks, Pax. What you say made me think and brought me back to the truth i thought i’d lost. For your words remind me of Jesus’ words:

Then Jesus cried out, “When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me.”

(John 12:44)

And since i believe in (or trust completely) Jesus, then should i not trust in those He entrusted with His authority?

“As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”

(John 20:21)
and

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

(Matthew 28:18-20)

So, you’ve given me my answer–i should trust Peter (flaws and all) because Jesus chose him to speak for Him. If i trust Jesus, i must obviously trust those He trusted.

 

[LionHeart777]

Hey Soc4Jesus,

as Paul C mentioned St. Augustine’s “Confessions” would be a good read for you,

I would like to additional suggest St. Justin Martyr, or St. Justin the philosopher as he is also called. I believe that after his conversion to Christianity, he kept wearing his Philosopher’s cloak.

I believe he describes his conversion from various seeking various Philosophies to Christianity in the beginning of his “Dialogue With Trypho.”
(newadvent.org/fathers/0128.htm)

Now all you need is lots of free time due to my extra suggestion

 

[paul_c]

From my experience, the Fundamentalist and Evangelical reasoning goes like this:

1. 
   *]God does not contradict Himself
   *]What He said through the Apostles of centuries ago will not contradict what He says through His spokesmen today
   *]If what a spokesman says today contradicts what the Apostles said centuries ago, then he does not speak for God
   *]Some of the spokesmen (even some so-called early Church Fathers) of the Catholic Church contradicted what the Apostles taught about the requirement of baptism for salvation
   
   Therefore,
   A. Some of the spokesmen of the Catholic Church do not speak for God.
   
   The cure for this error (if it is an error) might be to show that what the early Church Fathers taught is the same as what the biblical authors taught. Don’t you think?

1. 
   This reasoning is sound. The first three statements are absoltuely true. the
   Fourth statement is in error on two fronts:
   
   If a spokesman contradicts the Apostles, he is not Catholic. Some of the early chruch fathers (like Tertullian) were actually excommunicated because their views changed from the Catholic view.
   
   The official spokesman for the church is the Pope. As long as all the Popes stayed consistent with Apostolic Teaching, you can be assured that the Catholic Church is from God. This is absolutely the case.
   
   I will caution you that Some Protestant / Evangelical commentators will wrongly interpret scripture (in other words, put words in the Apostles mouths) and then claim that the Catholic Church’s position differs from Scripture. What they really mean is that the Catholic church differs from what THE EVANGELICALS THINK scripture says.
   
   So the issue again, becomes : has the Catholic Church taught the same thing for 2000 years. Note that I said the same thing: (doctrine) vs the same way (practice) because the method of teaching has to be adapted for time and culture. Because scripture is not 100% inclusive and can obviously be misinterpreted, it therefore helpful to also consider the ECF view, but only those that are Catholic in good standing.
   
   For instance, on the efficacy of Water baptism, if the scriptures are not clear enough for you on whether the Apostles practiced water baptism, you might try reading the Didache, chapter 7 which is of Apostolic Age :earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html