Prodigal's Isle

[Socrates4Jesus]

You will find a reference to Barnabas as an apostle in Acts 14:14 which says:

But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out among the multitude, crying,

Welcome back my friend! Good to hear from you again.



Yes, i see. Thank you for showing me. Hmmm. After the death of James, that makes 13 confirmed Apostles. Barnabas was likely appointed prior to Paul. Let’s see. If the chronology of events went this way, what would that give us?

1. Judas kills himself, leaving 11 Apostles.
2. The 11 choose Matthias to replace Judas, making 12 Apostles.
3. James is executed by Herod, leaving 11 Apostles.
4. The 11 choose Barnabas to replace James, making 12 Apostles.
5. God chooses Saul (renamed Paul), making 13 Apostles.

If (5) came last in the chain of events, all that we could demonstrate, from these events themselves, is that the Apostles might have been trying to keep their number of the same, according to the even dozen opted by Christ.

Maybe God was showing them, by choosing an enemy of Christ, that He did not rely on them to make Apostles for Him? or maybe He was indeed trying to teach them that the number of Apostles should not stay at 12? I don’t see any conclusive proof to support either inference. However, there might be mention of other Apostles by the early Church Fathers. Don’t know.

1 Cor 1 and 1 Cor 3 makes some interesting references to Apollos. Paul speaks of Apollos in the same breath as he speaks of himself and Cephas giving a standing to Apollos that seems to be on par as an apostle. He is not explicitly described as an apostle but it is interesting the way Paul speaks of him.

Yes, but we don’t know for certain he was an Apostle. He might have been merely a gifted teacher or evangelist, rather than one who dictates doctrine. We have nothing written by him that is considered Sacred Scripture, for example.

I believe that we have evidence in the NT Church described in the book of Acts that would lead one to the conclusion that the successors to the apostles did have authority to make doctrine. In Acts 15:6 we read about the first council of Jerusalem where they consider the issue of circumcision and the gentiles. In this verse it says:

The apostles and the elders

Yes, but two Apostles went with them (Barnabas and Paul). These two men would likely have been involved in deciding questions of doctrine. The others would not. They would have been sent to assist and protect them. (It was a dangerous endeavor to travel in ancient Rome, as violent criminals waited on the roads to kill and steal from travelers.)

Yes, you are helping. You might not have a breakthrough, yet. But pray for wisdom. Our discussions in the past have certainly brought me closer to reverting to Catholicism than i’ve ever been!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

thanks for this enjoyable humoristic approach !

What puzzles me is: what is the Church built by Jesus on the “petra”, according to those pastors in those denominations ?

What is the “Catholic Church” of the Creed, in case they choose to accept this element of Sacred Tradition ?

What is the Church to which all those good guys who think “That’s me !” when reading the “you” of the Great Commission belong ?

What, if not the “small case catholic church” aka the “church of all true believers wherever and whoever they are”, aka the invisible church. ?

In Christ.

If dialog were not fun, i’d probably not engage in it, and certainly would not enjoy it! Thank you for keeping your sense of humor. Sometimes it has the unintended effect of ticking people off, or accusing me of not taking what they are saying seriously. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You ask good questions, and i’m not sure how to answer them. I’ve tried going the route of comparing key Catholic doctrines to Sacred Scripture. Two examples:forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=223770

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=231423
In the end, i found that either the Roman Catholic or the Evangelical Protestant interpretations of Sacred Scripture might be true. On the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and on other key doctrines of the Catholic faith, Christ’s words appeared irreconcilably ambiguous.

On a Protestant forum i visited recently, i was accused of being self-deceived and not spiritually discerning, so i came here and engaged in a dialog regarding spiritual discernment and deception. The end result was that it seemed that the key to spiritual discernment when it comes to ambiguities of Sacred Scripture, is to know who to trust to tell you the truth, since the lack of clarity of Biblical texts prevents logic alone from revealing the truth.

That’s where i am now–trying to figure out if the authorities of the Catholic Church had the truth and lost it, and whether the authorities of the Protestant catholic churches kept the truth and still have it.

Two possible ways i see to resolve the issue:1. Show that the texts are not ambiguous.

1. Show that the Bishops and Popes of the Catholic Church are reliable and immune from self-deception.

But can you see a different way?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

???
Hey you’re using my argument. …

Actually, i was responding to your premise that one does not have to know any doctrine to correctly teach any doctrine. The point was that the Immaculate Conception was not an unknown doctrine that the Catholic Church has always taught, but an unknown or forgotten event that did not become doctrine until an alleged apparition of Mary revealed it.

Protestants get excited when they hear this and quote Sacred Scriptures such as:
For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

(2 Corinthians 11)

and
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

(Galatians 1:8)

They claim this apparition was a demon, or even the devil masquerading as Mary.

The person with the most years of driving experience are the Apostles and their successors, not to mention the Holy Spirit whom was sent to them to ‘teach them all things’, because, Jesus had still many things to ‘tell them’ but they could not bear them ‘yet’. Later when Jesus dies, He will send the Spirit of truth to them and *He *will teach them all truth.

Yes, but that depends on how well the one with the most years of experience knows the truth after all those years. It has been said that there is no sinner like an old sinner. Please consider this:

Let’s say i have to choose between two people who have driver’s licenses. One has only been driving for a couple of years, but has an impeccable driving record. The other, has been driving for decades, but has so many traffic violations his driver’s license has been suspended several times. Currently he has his license, but his driving skills are in serious question. To whom should i trust the driving education of my son?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…
12 I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. 14 He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you. 15 All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you.

So yes the knowledge of the truth develops and the knowledge of the truth in the Apostles and their successors develops as they are helped and guided by the Spirit of truth.

Your problem is this; do I trust these men and the Spirit of truth who has guided them for the last 2000 years. Or do I look for something with no visable continuity or provinance but which attracts me just as much or even moreso than that which I am presented.

My dilemma, Skipper, is to know to whom Jesus’ words in John, chapters 13 - 16 apply. How do i know they still apply to the Bishops and Popes of the Catholic Church or to the respected teachers of the Protestant First and Second Great Awakenings (men like Wesley, Calvin and Moody), or to modern teachers such as Graham?

Perhaps the answer is to compare the Popes and the Protestants to the Apostles? You were not willing to go there, earlier. But it is becoming increasing apparent that this is exactly where the dialog must go to get closer to the truth.

 

[davidv]

Thank you for responding, David. I do value your opinions and those of the departed Professor. And i believe i’m making progress, for i can certainly see a different understanding of Jesus’ words to Peter in Matthew 16. It’s certainly likely that he, and not the truth he spoke, is the rock on which Christ built his church.

However, Ut has left an important question unanswered. If you have the time and the wisdom to answer the question, i’d like to ask you:

Originally Posted by Socrates4Jesus forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
But does it prove that the successors of the Apostles had the same authority to determine doctrine. Much of what Christians believe are found in the words of Peter, John and Paul, as much as in Jesus. What separates these men from the successors, it seems to me, is they had a direct line of communication with Christ. Even Paul, who did not become Christian until after Christ’s crucifixion, wrote that Jesus Himself visited Him and instructed Him.

*But can i trust the Pope today to have as firm a grasp on the truth as Peter and Paul and John, who knew Christ in such an intimate way? I don’t doubt there has been a line of succession. I wonder whether there has been a gradual corruption of the truth over the centuries. See my concern? *

It all depends on what one accepts as “proof”. To the extreme skeptic, there isn’t evidence, much less proof.

It seems to me that those things that we hold most validly true are those things taught to us by others, not those things we read in books. We accept the stories of our grandparents because we usually have no reason to distrust them. In my mind the Apostles, and their successors, are our grandparents in the family of God. I have found no reason to distrust their stories.

Also, could you explain what you mean by “determine doctrine***”*** above? Depending on what you mean, you may be holding an erroneous assumption as to what authority the Pope and Bishop have relative to doctrine.

 

[Pax]

Welcome back my friend! Good to hear from you again.



Yes, i see. Thank you for showing me. Hmmm. After the death of James, that makes 13 confirmed Apostles. Barnabas was likely appointed prior to Paul. Let’s see. If the chronology of events went this way, what would that give us?

1. Judas kills himself, leaving 11 Apostles.
2. The 11 choose Matthias to replace Judas, making 12 Apostles.
3. James is executed by Herod, leaving 11 Apostles.
4. The 11 choose Barnabas to replace James, making 12 Apostles.
5. God chooses Saul (renamed Paul), making 13 Apostles.

If (5) came last in the chain of events, all that we could demonstrate, from these events themselves, is that the Apostles might have been trying to keep their number of the same, according to the even dozen opted by Christ.

Maybe God was showing them, by choosing an enemy of Christ, that He did not rely on them to make Apostles for Him? or maybe He was indeed trying to teach them that the number of Apostles should not stay at 12? I don’t see any conclusive proof to support either inference. However, there might be mention of other Apostles by the early Church Fathers. Don’t know.
…
…

Yes, but two Apostles went with them (Barnabas and Paul). These two men would likely have been involved in deciding questions of doctrine. The others would not. They would have been sent to assist and protect them. (It was a dangerous endeavor to travel in ancient Rome, as violent criminals waited on the roads to kill and steal from travelers.)

Yes, you are helping. You might not have a breakthrough, yet. But pray for wisdom. Our discussions in the past have certainly brought me closer to reverting to Catholicism than i’ve ever been!

Soc in Christ,

It’s seems clear to me that Barnabas was an apostle before the death of James by way of the chronology in the Book of Acts. You can check that by simply looking at the quotes we have discussed.

You might also examine all that Paul says to Timothy concerning doctrine. Tonight I’ll post some things along the lines of doctrine that would indicate that it is not just the 12 apostles at work on doctrine.

God bless.

 

[Thing]

Actually, i was responding to your premise that one does not have to know any doctrine to correctly teach any doctrine. The point was that the Immaculate Conception was not an unknown doctrine that the Catholic Church has always taught, but an unknown or forgotten event that did not become doctrine until an alleged apparition of Mary revealed it.

Doctrines are defined, they always exist. And events can precipitate the definition of a doctrine.

The modern Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is a recognition of the Truth written in the Old Testament, Genesis. The Creator will put enmity between the woman and the serpent. The woman is Mary and the woman is always Mary from conception to death, and this enmity between her and the serpent is foretold by God in a book written perhaps a 1000 or 500 years before her birth. The woman would be in a state of sanctifying grace, only which fact, puts her at enmity with the serpent. The angel in Luke states that she is full of grace, she does not wait for Christ to be conceived in her, or born to her or grown to adulthood to save her and make her ‘full of grace’.
The angel at the first meeting with the woman recognizes her as ‘full of grace’. She is the mother of our redeemer, and the woman to whom God has placed enmity between herself and the serpent. Mary obtained sanctifying grace at the moment when God joined her soul to her body.

Protestants get excited when they hear this and quote Sacred Scriptures such as:
For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

(2 Corinthians 11)

and

And even satan can cite Scripture for his own purposes. But satan is not in the Church Jesus built and which the Spirit of truth was sent to to guide and teach.
Satan is outside of Jesus’ Church. Which is the very point of Jesus building Jesus’ Church.

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

(Galatians 1:8)

Protestant gospel was not preached in all of Christianity until the 16th century. So whose gospel is the ‘another gospel’.

They claim this apparition was a demon, or even the devil masquerading as Mary.

People said the same of Jesus, in His day.

Yes, but that depends on how well the one with the most years of experience knows the truth after all those years. It has been said that there is no sinner like an old sinner. Please consider this:

Let’s say i have to choose between two people who have driver’s licenses. One has only been driving for a couple of years, but has an impeccable driving record. The other, has been driving for decades, but has so many traffic violations his driver’s license has been suspended several times. Currently he has his license, but his driving skills are in serious question. To whom should i trust the driving education of my son?

I think I would choose the third, unmentioned type, the Divine license holder.

 

[Thing]

My dilemma, Skipper, is to know to whom Jesus’ words in John, chapters 13 - 16 apply. How do i know they still apply to the Bishops and Popes of the Catholic Church or to the respected teachers of the Protestant First and Second Great Awakenings (men like Wesley, Calvin and Moody), or to modern teachers such as Graham?

Perhaps the answer is to compare the Popes and the Protestants to the Apostles? You were not willing to go there, earlier. But it is becoming increasing apparent that this is exactly where the dialog must go to get closer to the truth.

You must go wherever you wish. I cannot go there because those protestant teachers have appointed themselves, I do not know where they came from, who sent them, or who gave them authority.
They are like the untraceable chickens that foul up the marketplace in Europe. If they wished to be Christian why did they leave the Christian Church. If they could not trust the historical Christian Church how do they expect us to trust their new Church.
Perhaps this is a chicken and egg scenario.

 

[utunumsint]

Thank you for the time you gave. If you change your mind and have something to add, please feel free to do so. But don’t feel obligated to get too involved.

Blessings to you, Ut!

Thanks Soc.

God bless,
Ut

 

[pneuma07]

If dialog were not fun, i’d probably not engage in it, and certainly would not enjoy it! Thank you for keeping your sense of humor. Sometimes it has the unintended effect of ticking people off, or accusing me of not taking what they are saying seriously. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You ask good questions, and i’m not sure how to answer them. …
Two possible ways i see to resolve the issue:1. Show that the texts are not ambiguous.

1. Show that the Bishops and Popes of the Catholic Church are reliable and immune from self-deception.

But can you see a different way?

Dear Soc,

  it's to your credit rather than mine, that you can be exhilarating within the deepest passages.  :thumbsup:  :)

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)

Recently i have followed more or less this line of thought about this issue.

I started asking myself:
"Why had the Catholic Church, in a protestant view, not been understanding that Bible which she would deliver to the reformers - which in a protestant view is perspicuous - for more than a millennium ?

I supposed this could have something to do with the origin of the doctrine of the “perspicuity of Scripture”.
My exploration came up like this:

STEP 1 Let’s say in XVI (or VI for that matter ) century western Europe I come to believe and propound a doctrine, or a whole doctrinary vision, which is at odds with catholic teaching.

STEP 2. I maintain and preach that my doctrine is rooted in Scripture ( and possibly has some alleged precedents in the fathers). This is quite necessary to my position, in order to be able to answer the obvious question: “how do you know, and, more specifically, how do you know better than the Church ?”

STEP 3 I then necessarily conclude that you can understand Scripture outside the CONtext of the living Tradition of the Church and of her teaching. This amounts to the fact that, at this point, I have become a champion of the “perspicuity of Scripture”.

STEP 4 Now I start teaching that you have to approach Scripture outside and against the Catholic Church, thus beginning to set a new CONtext, albeit just a negative one.
Let’s note that this further step is again necessary, if I want people to come to share my doctrine of which in STEP 1.

STEP 5 A new positive CONtext to properly read or hear Scripture is proposed by myself or by my successors.

It is so in STEP 3 that I propose the “perspicuity of Scripture”, by preaching that it is so clear that it does not need the CONtext of the living Tradition and the magisterium of the Church.
In STEP 4, nevertheless, I do put a first constraint of mine, which, let’s repeat, is necessary from my point of view in order to get it right in STEP 1, which is the origin of the whole matter.

Thus, STEP 4 is somehow common to any body which comes directly or indirectly from the Reformation.
We can consider it a common kernel of the prescriptions on the “perspicuity of Scripture”.

STEP 5, on the contrary, which is the positive part of the “new CONtext” is where the variety of definitions and prescriptions come up.

With a range from the most “individualistic-minded” wing (CONtext is my self) to the most “corporate-minded” one ( CONtext is my denomination).

Consider please that here the conceptual construction of the “invisible catholic church” is of no use here.

Since we previously agreed with each other and Socrates, that a text has to be defended, , and since such a defender must be one, or unitary ( otherwise we’d go round and round to find the best defender any time, I 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 …). ?

In Christ
P7

 

[Pax]

In my post #397 I mentioned that we have evidence in the NT Church described in the book of Acts that would lead one to the conclusion that the successors to the apostles did have authority to make doctrine. In Acts 15:6 we read about the first council of Jerusalem where they consider the issue of circumcision and the gentiles. In that passage it is clear that the elders are gathered with the apostles to consider the matter, and that their deliberations are important. Moreover, it is clear that the “apostle” Barnabas was actively involved in making a presentation with Paul at the council and that the apostles and elders listened to him.

I also pointed out that in Acts 15:22-24 it clear that elders had a role along with the apostles in sending people to the churches as well as making decisions on doctrines. I also mentioned that this seemed good enough for the apostles during their own time, and it makes sense for this to be true for the future Church when the apostles pass to their eternal reward. We accept the decisions that emerged from the Council of Jerusalem as described in the book of Acts as error free. There is no reason to believe that the protection the Holy Spirit extended to the apostles and “the elders” at the council, which is referred to as the “whole church” would not also continue in future councils when it came to matters of doctrine.

This concept of leadership and councils is super important. We know that Paul gives warnings to the elders saying:

Acts 20:28
Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.

Likewise, we read the following in 1 John 2:18-19:

Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us.

Peter gives warnings as well. In 2 Peter 2:1-2 the apostle says:

BUT FALSE prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.

See also 2 Peter 3:15-17 which says:

So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.

There are a couple of other passages as well but these are sufficient to substantiate the fears and discomfort that you feel and have expressed on this thread. Please notice, however, that there are certain things said in these passages that are helpful to us. The apostles warn us about false teachers and false prophets. The one thing that they never say, however, is that the Church will teach falsehood. They never warn us against the Church. Moreover, John’s warning makes it clear that the false teachers in the spirit of the antichrist will be from among “us”(i.e. the church), but that they will not be of us. They will instead “went out from us” and did not “continue with us” so that “it might be plain that they were not of us.”

This is significant. The heretics always left the fellowship of the Church and did not remain in union with the Church. The heretics are not in communion with the Church and do not remain part of the Church. Moreover, none of the apostles ever warn us against the decisions of Church councils. They only warn us about false teachers and false prophets that will reveal themselves by leaving the Church to follow their own ways.

I hope this helps.

 

[pneuma07]

So, here is a personal mini-summary of what Soc and team have achieved together IMHO so far.

Looking for legitimate Christian authority and guide.

In Post 67 we have this clear statement

is Scripture an Authority ?

“the book cannot protect or defend itself”

A general agreement is reached by about post 250 with the team that there is scriptural evidence about Peter’s primacy,And specifically that Jesus’ Church is built on Peter ( the “petra”).

The focus moves on succession.

In Post 343 we have.
*
The Great Commission is not either for everybody individually in every aspect, or for a "privileged elite " ( privileged ?).only. It is for the Apostolic Church seen as an ordered whole and for each of her members in their roles.*

Agreed.

In post 390 a momentous agreement seems to have been reached. ( we could consider that UT’s heritage )

*8-What does all this prove?
It proves that there were authoritative rulers of churches in the early church. It proves that there was a succession of authority/ministry from the apostles who were themselves apointed by Christ. It proves that the church was hierarchical. It also proves that those who provided authoritative teachings had to be within this line of succession. *
But does it prove that the successors of the Apostles had the same authority to determine doctrine.

(In a previous statement (#363) : That is, after all, the point of this discussion thread–to determine if the authorities of the Catholic Church are those i should trust.)

The doctrine of the papacy rests on apostolic succession. Once you accept apostolic succession, it makes sense that there would be a central leader whose’s leadership would be patterned after that of St Peter

But can i trust the Pope today to have as firm a grasp on the truth as Peter and Paul and John, who knew Christ in such an intimate way? I don’t doubt there has been a line of succession. I wonder whether there has been a gradual corruption of the truth over the centuries. See my concern?

It seems to me the team does see your concern as expressed in post 390 and elsewhere. I hope so. We have to.
In posts 408, 410 and ( last but not least) 411 it is trying to build with you, straight on topic, on the solid “foundations” of the first 400 posts.

Hoping this can be helpful.

In Christ

PS I have just seen that you have opened a new thread…on Apostolic Succession.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

It all depends on what one accepts as “proof”. To the extreme skeptic, there isn’t evidence, much less proof.

It seems to me that those things that we hold most validly true are those things taught to us by others, not those things we read in books. We accept the stories of our grandparents because we usually have no reason to distrust them. In my mind the Apostles, and their successors, are our grandparents in the family of God. I have found no reason to distrust their stories.

Yes, David, but to quote Socrates, again,I have long been wondering at my own wisdom, finding it beyond belief, and I think that I ought to stop and ask myself, “What am I saying?” For, there is nothing worse than self-deception, where the deceiver is always at home and always with you. It is quite terrible, and therefore I ought often to retrace my steps and endeavor to “look fore and aft” in the words of aforesaid Homer.

(Cratylus, 428)
it seems to me that when it comes to understanding things unseen, me, you, my grandfather, your grandfather, or an Apostolic Successor, might be self-deceived. And the thing about self-deception is that the one who suffers from it does not know it. It’s entirely possible to be sincere, and yet sincerely wrong.

The original Apostles did not suffer from such a disease of the mind. They were students of Jesus, who understood exactly what He said and meant, after He rose from the dead and spent 40 days with them answering all of their questions. Jesus even appeared to Paul and was His personal spiritual trainer. And i think that these men who wrote the New Testament even had the kind of communication with God that Abraham and Moses had, where the words spoken to them by the Holy Spirit were as clear and cogent in their minds as those you are reading now. I’m wondering if any Pope claims to have such intimate conversations with God.

Also, could you explain what you mean by “determine doctrine***”*** above? Depending on what you mean, you may be holding an erroneous assumption as to what authority the Pope and Bishop have relative to doctrine.

I’m speaking of the Pope making declarations of truth ex cathedra, or From the Chair. It sounds to me as though Catholics believe such declarations are as authoritative and immune to error as the writings of the Apostles in Sacred Scripture. But perhaps i misunderstand? Please tell me more about this function of the Popes.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc in Christ,

It’s seems clear to me that Barnabas was an apostle before the death of James by way of the chronology in the Book of Acts. You can check that by simply looking at the quotes we have discussed.

You might also examine all that Paul says to Timothy concerning doctrine. Tonight I’ll post some things along the lines of doctrine that would indicate that it is not just the 12 apostles at work on doctrine.

God bless.

Thank you, Pax. I will check that out. The good doctor Luke was one of the best ancient historians, so i doubt he’d botch the chronology. Looking forward to your next post.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Doctrines are defined, they always exist. And events can precipitate the definition of a doctrine. …

I understand, Thing. I should then clarify what i meant by defining what i meant by the words new doctrine:

a new doctrine = a truth that has always been true but has not always been know.
Given this definition, isn’t it true that when a Pope speaks ex cathedra that he can declare a truth that has always been true but that has not always been know? That is, can a Pope declare a doctrine not found in Sacred Scripture to be true? See what i’m asking?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Thanks Soc.

God bless,
Ut

May God give you light for your journey and more joy with each step.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

  it's to your credit rather than mine, that you can be exhilarating within the deepest passages.  :thumbsup:  :)

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) …

That’s why God gave me two ears, but only one mouth–so i’d listen twice as much as i talk!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…
Recently i have followed more or less this line of thought about this issue.

I started asking myself:
"Why had the Catholic Church, in a protestant view, not been understanding that Bible which she would deliver to the reformers - which in a protestant view is perspicuous - for more than a millennium ?

I supposed this could have something to do with the origin of the doctrine of the “perspicuity of Scripture”.
My exploration came up like this:

STEP 1 Let’s say in XVI (or VI for that matter ) century western Europe I come to believe and propound a doctrine, or a whole doctrinary vision, which is at odds with catholic teaching.

STEP 2. I maintain and preach that my doctrine is rooted in Scripture ( and possibly has some alleged precedents in the fathers). This is quite necessary to my position, in order to be able to answer the obvious question: “how do you know, and, more specifically, how do you know better than the Church ?”

STEP 3 I then necessarily conclude that you can understand Scripture outside the CONtext of the living Tradition of the Church and of her teaching. This amounts to the fact that, at this point, I have become a champion of the “perspicuity of Scripture”.

STEP 4 Now I start teaching that you have to approach Scripture outside and against the Catholic Church, thus beginning to set a new CONtext, albeit just a negative one.
Let’s note that this further step is again necessary, if I want people to come to share my doctrine of which in STEP 1.

STEP 5 A new positive CONtext to properly read or hear Scripture is proposed by myself or by my successors.

It is so in STEP 3 that I propose the “perspicuity of Scripture”, by preaching that it is so clear that it does not need the CONtext of the living Tradition and the magisterium of the Church.
In STEP 4, nevertheless, I do put a first constraint of mine, which, let’s repeat, is necessary from my point of view in order to get it right in STEP 1, which is the origin of the whole matter.

Thus, STEP 4 is somehow common to any body which comes directly or indirectly from the Reformation.
We can consider it a common kernel of the prescriptions on the “perspicuity of Scripture”.

STEP 5, on the contrary, which is the positive part of the “new CONtext” is where the variety of definitions and prescriptions come up.

With a range from the most “individualistic-minded” wing (CONtext is my self) to the most “corporate-minded” one ( CONtext is my denomination).

Consider please that here the conceptual construction of the “invisible catholic church” is of no use here.

Since we previously agreed with each other and Socrates, that a text has to be defended, , and since such a defender must be one, or unitary ( otherwise we’d go round and round to find the best defender any time, I 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 …). ?

In Christ
P7

For wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder.

(Socrates, Theaetetus, 155)

P7:

Keep on asking yourself those good questions, but don’t forget to share what you learn!

I’ll read your reply and carefully consider it, later and let you know what i wonder.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

In my post #397 I mentioned that we have evidence in the NT Church described in the book of Acts that would lead one to the conclusion that the successors to the apostles did have authority to make doctrine. In Acts 15:6 we read about the first council of Jerusalem where they consider the issue of circumcision and the gentiles. In that passage it is clear that the elders are gathered with the apostles to consider the matter, and that their deliberations are important. Moreover, it is clear that the “apostle” Barnabas was actively involved in making a presentation with Paul at the council and that the apostles and elders listened to him.

I also pointed out that in Acts 15:22-24 it clear that elders had a role along with the apostles in sending people to the churches as well as making decisions on doctrines. I also mentioned that this seemed good enough for the apostles during their own time, and it makes sense for this to be true for the future Church when the apostles pass to their eternal reward. We accept the decisions that emerged from the Council of Jerusalem as described in the book of Acts as error free. There is no reason to believe that the protection the Holy Spirit extended to the apostles and “the elders” at the council, which is referred to as the “whole church” would not also continue in future councils when it came to matters of doctrine.

This concept of leadership and councils is super important. We know that Paul gives warnings to the elders saying:

Likewise, we read the following in 1 John 2:18-19:

Peter gives warnings as well. In 2 Peter 2:1-2 the apostle says:

See also 2 Peter 3:15-17 which says:

There are a couple of other passages as well but these are sufficient to substantiate the fears and discomfort that you feel and have expressed on this thread. Please notice, however, that there are certain things said in these passages that are helpful to us. The apostles warn us about false teachers and false prophets. The one thing that they never say, however, is that the Church will teach falsehood. They never warn us against the Church. Moreover, John’s warning makes it clear that the false teachers in the spirit of the antichrist will be from among “us”(i.e. the church), but that they will not be of us. They will instead “went out from us” and did not “continue with us” so that “it might be plain that they were not of us.”

This is significant. The heretics always left the fellowship of the Church and did not remain in union with the Church. The heretics are not in communion with the Church and do not remain part of the Church. Moreover, none of the apostles ever warn us against the decisions of Church councils. They only warn us about false teachers and false prophets that will reveal themselves by leaving the Church to follow their own ways.

I hope this helps.

Thank you, Pax for taking the time to provide this info for me. I’ll think it through when i have time and let you know what i find.

 

[Thing]

I understand, Thing. I should then clarify what i meant by defining what i meant by the words new doctrine:

a new doctrine = a truth that has always been true but has not always been know.
Given this definition, isn’t it true that when a Pope speaks ex cathedra that he can declare a truth that has always been true but that has not always been know? That is, can a Pope declare a doctrine not found in Sacred Scripture to be true? See what i’m asking?

Sacred Tradition is both oral and written.

The Apostles spoke, they rarely wrote.

Doctrines and Dogmas are that which was taught by Christ, by the Apostles, and/or have been delivered to the faithful by the Church.

=> Doctrines come to us from Sacred Tradition.