# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[paul_c]

What about Peter? Do you believe, as P7 does, that only he received new doctrine after Christ’s resurrection? Or do you think that all of the Apostles were given pieces of the Catholic doctrine puzzle?

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...ddictions.com/assets/images/puzzle_pieces.gif

Well it is clear that the Apostles all spent significant time with Jesus and therefore were given most of the pieces of the Catholic Doctrine. I would assume that Peter, having been given the keys, was given all the doctrine. We know of at least one case, the baptism of the Cornelius and hence the bringing of Gentiles into the church, where Doctrine was communicated to Peter and he communicated to the rest.

 

[pneuma07]

P7:

It always helps me to draw a picture, so i’ve drawn two (hoping it will help twice as much!) for us to discuss. The first is my understanding of how Evangelicals believe doctrine is received by people from God, the second is my understanding of how you say Catholics receive revelation from God. Please let me me know if i’m misunderstanding the latter.

http://i976.photobucket.com/albums/ae242/socraticaddict/god_speaks_evangelical2.png

http://i976.photobucket.com/albums/ae242/socraticaddict/god_speaks_catholic2.png

In the Evangelical view, there are only three ways for you or i to receive Christian doctrine from God:a. From the writings of the patriarchs and prophets in the Old Testament

e. From Peter’s epistles in the New Testament

d. From Paul’s epistles and the other authors of the New Testament

What i understand you as saying about the Catholic view is that there is one more way (making four ways) to receive doctrine from God:a. From the writings of the patriarchs and prophets in the Old Testament

e. From Peter’s epistles in the New Testament

d. From Paul’s epistles and the other authors of the New Testament

c. From the Apostolic successors of Peter (the writings of the early Church Fathers and the modern popes)
Some things worth noting: In neither view does the Holy Spirit speak new doctrine directly to you or i (f), and in neither view does Jesus Christ appear in bodily form to speak new doctrine to you or i or anyone (b), although i’m assuming you believe God does speak new doctrine directly to the modern popes. In the Catholic view, it seems Christian doctrine might be dynamic, today - for God still speaks through the current Pope (c). For the Evangelical, God is now silent, but His word still speaks for He has given us all we need in the words of Christ and Scripture given to us by Peter (e), and Paul and the other New Testament authors (d), as well as by the Old Testament authors (a).

Something else worth noting - and i think this is the new idea you are trying to teach me: Although Jesus spoke new doctrine to all of the Apostles while He dwelt among them, after His resurrection the only one to receive new doctrine was Peter, who passed it on to the other Apostles, who then passed it on to the Apostolic successors, who in turn passed it on to you and i (c).

Now, i’m not saying that God does not reveal His will directly to you or i and the Apostles, et. al about what they should do. But he appears to not reveal His will directly to you or i about what we should believe. So it seems there are two major differences of opinion about how God reveals what we should believe: Evangelicals say He revealed such doctrine to Peter and the other Apostles, but ceased to reveal anything new after these men passed away. I think you are saying that Catholics believe that after the resurrection, He revealed such doctrine to Peter alone (but not to the other Apostles), and after Peter passed away, He continued to reveal doctrine through the successors of the Chair of Peter up to this very day.

Am i understanding you correctly?

Dear Soc,

        I wonder  whence this interpretation of my poor words comes.  :)

I begin my answer quoting Paul ( C )

All Truth was revealed to the Apostles. There are no new doctrines that are delivered to modern popes. They are simply the custodians of what was already taught.

This is the catholic view.

Where did I mention popes in my recent posts Soc ?

As you remember we’re dealing with point 1). Whether Petie’s perfomance was consistent with him receiving a special unique position in the class/Church.

In order to underpin the affirmative case I have reminded ourselves that:

The foundational truth of Christianity, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, and He is the Son of the living God, entered this world through Simon.

And that, moreover, as Paul C later put it in perspicuous form:

We know of at least one case, the baptism of the Cornelius and hence the bringing of Gentiles into the church, where Doctrine was communicated to Peter and he communicated to the rest.

.

IMHO these scriptural data strongly support the case for Petie’s uniqueness within the class, since

There is no parallel in this with any other follower … of the Son of the living God.
I cannot see that through other Apostles truths which are comparable to that one entered the world.

.

Therefore we should not infer that all the Apostles received from the Master the same position and the same task as Peter.
Which was what we were exploring.
Period. Is this line of mine reasonable ?

---

It would be fine exploring together ( In another thread ? ) the modalities of Revelation.
Considering first how christian trueths entered the world, and then how the Christian Revelation reaches us.
In your beautiful picture you imply about the Evangelicals a Sola Scriptura vision. As you can expect I object to that.
The catholic vision in a nut, is IMHO that you and I do not get Jesus’ message, delivered once for all in the first century , through a text only. We get it through a text and a CONtext, which is the living Tradition of the Church,
the life of the Church.

As for now, i’d like to reasonably establish Peter’s primacy. Which maybe is too ambitious in itself

Bless you
P7

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

If you stay in the state of Grace after baptism, you will go to heaven but you may have to spend time in purgatory to become truly holy. But those that go to Purgatory are guaranteed heaven once they are purified.

So a non-Catholic can bypass Purgatory and be recognized by the Catholic Church as a saint? Are there any known non-Catholic saints who were born after the birth of the Church?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Well it is clear that the Apostles all spent significant time with Jesus and therefore were given most of the pieces of the Catholic Doctrine. I would assume that Peter, having been given the keys, was given all the doctrine. We know of at least one case, the baptism of the Cornelius and hence the bringing of Gentiles into the church, where Doctrine was communicated to Peter and he communicated to the rest.

Yes, but the question i’ve never considered is one that P7 (perhaps unintentionally?) raised: Was Peter the only one of the 12 Apostles handpicked by Christ to receive revelation of new doctrine from the Holy Spirit? Let’s see what P7 has to say, and discuss it with him.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

        I wonder  whence this interpretation of my poor words comes.  :)

I begin my answer quoting Paul ( C )

This is the catholic view.

Where did I mention popes in my recent posts Soc ?

Just making wrong assumptions, P7. I was thinking, for example, about the Immaculate Conception (of Mary, not Jesus), which was not taught by Jesus or the Apostles and (correct me if i’m wrong) was never taught by the Early Church Fathers. My assumption was that this must be a new doctrine, for it did not come to light until relatively recently. If this is not a new doctrine, please explain why.

 

[paul_c]

So a non-Catholic can bypass Purgatory and be recognized by the Catholic Church as a saint? Are there any known non-Catholic saints who were born after the birth of the Church?

no, The Catholic Church has never canonized a non-Catholic.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…
As you remember we’re dealing with point 1). Whether Petie’s perfomance was consistent with him receiving a special unique position in the class/Church.

In order to underpin the affirmative case I have reminded ourselves that:

And that, moreover, as Paul C later put it in perspicuous form:

IMHO these scriptural data strongly support the case for Petie’s uniqueness within the class, since

Therefore we should not infer that all the Apostles received from the Master the same position and the same task as Peter.
Which was what we were exploring.
Period. Is this line of mine reasonable ?
…

If it is unreasonable, it’s not intentional (of that i’m certain)!



Before we look at whether your premises and inference are logically sound, i want to be sure i understand what you believe: Please explain whether you believe the Holy Spirit did communicate new doctrine to the other Apostles after Christ’s Ascension, or not. I need to know whether i should remove the big red X from the channel of communication between God and the other Apostles.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[utunumsint]

If it is unreasonable, it’s not intentional (of that i’m certain)!



Before we look at whether your premises and inference are logically sound, i want to be sure i understand what you believe: Please explain whether you believe the Holy Spirit did communicate new doctrine to the other Apostles after Christ’s Ascension, or not. I need to know whether i should remove the big red X from the channel of communication between God and the other Apostles.

http://i976.photobucket.com/albums/ae242/socraticaddict/god_speaks_catholic2.png

Yes. New doctrines were imparted to both Peter and the Apostles after the resurection. So Peter and the rest of the apostles are on the same level there. But perhaps it was the job of Peter to ratify new revelations? His agreement on an issue would have been a deciding factor in any dispute. For example, James (or at least those from James) clearly did not want to exempt non Jews from Jewish ceremonial laws. But when Peter ruled on the matter in Acts 15, James is now in agreement. One could say that James falls in line.

New doctrines were not imparted to the successors. Their job is to develop doctrine and to provide authoritative dogmatic interpretations of the doctrines described in the bible and passed on through oral tradition. By development, I mean that they clarify areas of dispute, for example, on dogmatic issues such as the trinity, on the nature of salvation, and on issues of discipline. In terms of dogmatic issues, the church is protected from error from God. In terms of disciplinary issues, no such protection exists. Reasonable obedience, however, is still expected.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Just to expand on the idea of development, the apostles didn’t just receive ready made doctrinal messages from God, or from Jesus either. You have to realise that the Apostles had to interpret what Jesus meant in many ways.

For example, Jesus said to the apostles, “Take and eat, this is my body”.

Well what the heck does that mean? He does not explain his actions. He does not go into great detail about how his death on the cross will replace the old sacrificial system. He makes statements that suggest this fact, but they are not explicit.

John elaborates further on what Jesus ment, but it is really in Hebrews and in some of Paul’s epistles that the real implications of what Jesus did come forwards, at least in terms of the old sacrificial system.

So my question to you Soc, is this: are the issues dealt with in Hebrews new doctrines, or a development in the understanding of the early church on the nature of Christ and the nature of his sacrifice, and the nature of the Trinity?

And the same thing goes for the developments in doctrine from the resurection to Peter’s revelation about the Gentiles, and the further refining of this revelation in the issue on circumcision.

I just bring this up to make an objection to the diagram you crafted. There is no direct doctrinal link between God and the apostles, or from even Jesus to the apostles. The apostles had to interprete. So did the early church based on what they received from the apostles.

I believe that the doctrinal developments from Jesus and the apostles form a sacred deposit of truths. It is up to the church as a whole to digest these truths, and to develope an understanding of what is given.

God bless,
Ut

 

[gavanhe]

Having read the first 100 posts or so and then jumped to the last, some of what I may add might have already been covered.
The bible can seem to be ambiguous to us, but I don’t believe it is. Jesus inspired the written word. He assured the understanding of His word by leaving a visible church to teach us all. This church still exists today and is called the Catholic Church.
If today we decide that the bible is ambiguous, it could only be considered so by those who since the reformation no longer count themselves as members of the one true church.
We must keep in mind that the majority of people until the reformation never even considered the ambiguity in the bible as they were neither educated sufficiently to read or had no access to the bible, as so few were available. So consequently the faithful relied on the CC to teach them.
Gerry

 

[pneuma07]

Just making wrong assumptions, P7. I was thinking, for example, about the Immaculate Conception (of Mary, not Jesus), which was not taught by Jesus or the Apostles and (correct me if i’m wrong) was never taught by the Early Church Fathers. My assumption was that this must be a new doctrine, for it did not come to light until relatively recently. If this is not a new doctrine, please explain why.
]

Dear Soc,

the short answer is one word: development.

For a less brief possible answer, about Scripture, development and the relation of the two with the authority of the Church, allow me a few quotations from Chapter 2 of John Henry Newman’s seminal “Development of Christian Doctrine”. I hope you are going to enjoy them.

*if Christianity be an universal religion, suited not simply to one locality or period, but to all times and places, it cannot but vary in its relations and dealings towards the world around it, that is, it will develope. Principles require a very various application according as persons and circumstances vary, and must be thrown into new shapes according to the form of society which they are to influence. Hence all bodies of Christians, orthodox or not, develope the doctrines of Scripture.
*….*3. And, indeed, when we turn to the consideration of particular doctrines on which Scripture lays the greatest stress, we shall see that it is absolutely impossible for them to remain in the mere letter of Scripture, if they are to be more than mere words, and to convey a definite idea to the recipient. When it is declared that “the Word became flesh,” three wide questions open upon us on the very announcement. What is meant by “the Word,” what by “flesh,” what by “became”? The answers to these involve a process of investigation, and are developments. Moreover, when they have been made, they will suggest a series of secondary questions; and thus at length a multitude of propositions is the result, which gather round the inspired sentence of which they come, giving it externally the form of a doctrine, and creating or deepening the idea of it in the mind.

1. This moreover should be considered,—that great questions exist in the subject-matter of which Scripture treats, which Scripture does not solve; questions too so real, so practical, that they must be answered, and, unless we suppose a new revelation, answered by means of the revelation which we have, that is, by development. Such is the question of the Canon of Scripture and its inspiration: that is, whether Christianity depends upon a written document as Judaism;—if so, on what writings and how many;—whether that document is self-interpreting, or requires a comment, and whether any authoritative comment or commentator is provided;—whether the revelation and the document are commensurate, or the one outruns the other;— …

Thus developments of Christianity are proved to have been in the contemplation of its Divine Author. ……

1. It is in point to notice also the structure and style of Scripture, a structure so unsystematic and various, and a style so figurative and indirect, that no one would presume at first sight to say what is in it and what is not. It cannot, as it were, be mapped, or its contents catalogued; but after all our diligence, to the end of our lives and to the end of the Church, it must be an unexplored and unsubdued land, with heights and valleys, forests and streams, on the right and left of our path and close about us, full of concealed wonders and choice treasures.

…

1. Let the state of the case be carefully considered. If the Christian doctrine, as originally taught, admits of true and important developments, as was argued in the foregoing Section, this is a strong antecedent argument in favour of a provision in the Dispensation for putting a seal of authority upon those developments. …
   Christianity …comes to us as a revelation, as a whole, objectively, and with a profession of infallibility; and the only question to be determined relates to the matter of the revelation. If then there are certain great truths, or duties, or observances, naturally and legitimately resulting from the doctrines originally professed, it is but reasonable to include {80} these true results in the idea of the revelation itself, to consider them parts of it, and if the revelation be not only true, but guaranteed as true, to anticipate that they too will come under the privilege of that guarantee.

The most obvious answer, then, to the question, why we yield to the authority of the Church in the questions and developments of faith, is, that some authority there must be if there is a revelation given, and {89} other authority there is none but she. A revelation is not given, if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given.*

 

[pneuma07]

Before we look at whether your premises and inference are logically sound, i want to be sure i understand what you believe: Please explain whether you believe the Holy Spirit did communicate new doctrine to the other Apostles after Christ’s Ascension, or not. I need to know whether i should remove the big red X from the channel of communication between God and the other Apostles.

http://i976.photobucket.com/albums/ae242/socraticaddict/god_speaks_catholic2.png

All the apostles could receive parts of Revelation.

What I do not know, is who received what. Do you know whether James the lesser or Thaddeus did receive new revelations ?

Then we should have the question of the distinction between revelation and inspiration, to understand the role of those who would write the NT.

Most of the Apostles never wrote a single line of NT ( which, by itself, speaks quite conclusively against the idea that writing was perceived among their fundamental obvious tasks ). Moreover, according to contemporary scholarship, most of the NT was not written by Apostles. It is not our business here, for sure, settling the frontier between what was written by an Apostle and what by others, but this frontier keeps moving in scholarly research so that, eg, of what used to go under the name of John of Zebedee, most ( or even anything ) seems now to be attributed to a “school” of his.
Then there are the NT prophets. We know about their existence, but very little more than this. To have this title, some of their words should come by direct divine communication.

Then you have Ut’s observation, about disentangling new doctrine from elaboration in the NT. How much can we get the distinction ?
I’m afraid that with a few steps further on these questions we’d need a whole platoon of scholars to help us.

So the landscape of post-Ascension appears various enough. John H. Newman would probably say “an unexplored and unsubdued land, with heights and valleys, forests and streams”.

Then: imho you should remove the red X you mention ( while you need one in the channel God- successors). But, back to our point, the very interesting and potentially unending examination of such a profound and little attainable matter I just skimmed above, cannot affect ( or rather can strengthen ) the exceptionality of Peter’s case in Acts, about which we do know:

• that there was a revelation
• that it was not only about something considered as new, but as plainly contrary to the general feeling , and Peter’s own. ( although they had received the Great Commission )
• That was about a very sensitive point, and of paramount importance for the self-perception of the Church and her future
• Last but not least, that it was accepted after Peter’s witness, without any further discussion, in spite of the manifest strong initial resistance. No Council was called. Question settled. ( Acts 11)

This , plus the revelation in Matthew 16, which is even of foundational nature, being at the heart of your and my faith, makes in itself IMHO Peter’s role in what we know about the taking place of Revelation ( and in the primitive Church ) unparalleled. I need your opinion on this point Soc.

I hope this can help.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Having read the first 100 posts or so and then jumped to the last, some of what I may add might have already been covered.
The bible can seem to be ambiguous to us, but I don’t believe it is. Jesus inspired the written word. He assured the understanding of His word by leaving a visible church to teach us all. This church still exists today and is called the Catholic Church.
If today we decide that the bible is ambiguous, it could only be considered so by those who since the reformation no longer count themselves as members of the one true church.
We must keep in mind that the majority of people until the reformation never even considered the ambiguity in the bible as they were neither educated sufficiently to read or had no access to the bible, as so few were available. So consequently the faithful relied on the CC to teach them.
Gerry

Thanks Gerry for your opinion. Were you just passing by, or do you want to stay and talk awhile. Also, is there anything you want to ask me to summarize so that you don’t have to read all of the posts to get caught up?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Just to expand on the idea of development, the apostles didn’t just receive ready made doctrinal messages from God, or from Jesus either. You have to realise that the Apostles had to interpret what Jesus meant in many ways.

For example, Jesus said to the apostles, “Take and eat, this is my body”.

Well what the heck does that mean? He does not explain his actions. He does not go into great detail about how his death on the cross will replace the old sacrificial system. He makes statements that suggest this fact, but they are not explicit.

John elaborates further on what Jesus ment, but it is really in Hebrews and in some of Paul’s epistles that the real implications of what Jesus did come forwards, at least in terms of the old sacrificial system.

So my question to you Soc, is this: are the issues dealt with in Hebrews new doctrines, or a development in the understanding of the early church on the nature of Christ and the nature of his sacrifice, and the nature of the Trinity?

You will have to be more specific, Ut. About what issues are you speaking? Also, if you have a chapter or chapter and verse, it will help me know how to answer.

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+1&version=NIV

And the same thing goes for the developments in doctrine from the resurection to Peter’s revelation about the Gentiles, and the further refining of this revelation in the issue on circumcision.

I just bring this up to make an objection to the diagram you crafted. There is no direct doctrinal link between God and the apostles, or from even Jesus to the apostles. The apostles had to interprete. So did the early church based on what they received from the apostles.

I believe that the doctrinal developments from Jesus and the apostles form a sacred deposit of truths. It is up to the church as a whole to digest these truths, and to develope an understanding of what is given.

God bless,
Ut

Thank you, Ut. Two questions:

1. 
   *]Are you saying you agree with me that some things that Jesus said were ambiguous, and so require interpretation?
   *]Did only Peter interpret the meaning of Jesus’ words, or were all of the Apostles alive at the time involved in this interpretation?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

the short answer is one word: development.

For a less brief possible answer, about Scripture, development and the relation of the two with the authority of the Church, allow me a few quotations from Chapter 2 of John Henry Newman’s seminal “Development of Christian Doctrine”. I hope you are going to enjoy them.

*if Christianity be an universal religion, suited not simply to one locality or period, but to all times and places, it cannot but vary in its relations and dealings towards the world around it, that is, it will develope. Principles require a very various application according as persons and circumstances vary, and must be thrown into new shapes according to the form of society which they are to influence. Hence all bodies of Christians, orthodox or not, develope the doctrines of Scripture.
*….**3. And, indeed, when we turn to the consideration of particular doctrines on which Scripture lays the greatest stress, we shall see that it is absolutely impossible for them to remain in the mere letter of Scripture, if they are to be more than mere words, and to convey a definite idea to the recipient. When it is declared that “the Word became flesh,” three wide questions open upon us on the very announcement. What is meant by “the Word,” what by “flesh,” what by “became”? The answers to these involve a process of investigation, and are developments. Moreover, when they have been made, they will suggest a series of secondary questions; and thus at length a multitude of propositions is the result, which gather round the inspired sentence of which they come, giving it externally the form of a doctrine, and creating or deepening the idea of it in the mind.

1. This moreover should be considered,—that great questions exist in the subject-matter of which Scripture treats, which Scripture does not solve; questions too so real, so practical, that they must be answered, and, unless we suppose a new revelation, answered by means of the revelation which we have, that is, by development. Such is the question of the Canon of Scripture and its inspiration: that is, whether Christianity depends upon a written document as Judaism;—if so, on what writings and how many;—whether that document is self-interpreting, or requires a comment, and whether any authoritative comment or commentator is provided;—whether the revelation and the document are commensurate, or the one outruns the other;— …

Thus developments of Christianity are proved to have been in the contemplation of its Divine Author. ……

1. It is in point to notice also the structure and style of Scripture, a structure so unsystematic and various, and a style so figurative and indirect, that no one would presume at first sight to say what is in it and what is not. It cannot, as it were, be mapped, or its contents catalogued; but after all our diligence, to the end of our lives and to the end of the Church, it must be an unexplored and unsubdued land, with heights and valleys, forests and streams, on the right and left of our path and close about us, full of concealed wonders and choice treasures.

…

1. Let the state of the case be carefully considered. If the Christian doctrine, as originally taught, admits of true and important developments, as was argued in the foregoing Section, this is a strong antecedent argument in favour of a provision in the Dispensation for putting a seal of authority upon those developments. …
   Christianity …comes to us as a revelation, as a whole, objectively, and with a profession of infallibility; and the only question to be determined relates to the matter of the revelation. If then there are certain great truths, or duties, or observances, naturally and legitimately resulting from the doctrines originally professed, it is but reasonable to include {80} these true results in the idea of the revelation itself, to consider them parts of it, and if the revelation be not only true, but guaranteed as true, to anticipate that they too will come under the privilege of that guarantee.

The most obvious answer, then, to the question, why we yield to the authority of the Church in the questions and developments of faith, is, that some authority there must be if there is a revelation given, and {89} other authority there is none but she. A revelation is not given, if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given.

P7:

Yes, i did find the author’s words enjoyable, and i particularly agreed with premise (3). However, my question remains unanswered. The author is speaking of the development of moral doctrine, i think. For example, how should the Church decide matters of cloning human beings? Is it moral or immoral? Here, i think, old doctrine contained in the pages of Sacred Scripture must develop, or be applied to new circumstances. Doctrinal development, then, is to find a new application to an already established biblical principle.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not like this at all. It’s not defined as a new application of an already established principle, because the idea that Mary was conceived without a sinful nature is not a principle found in Sacred Scripture at all. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception is indeed a new doctrine–or at least not one found in the pages of the Bible or (as far as i know) the teaching of any of the Early Church Fathers.

So my question remains unanswered: Is it not true that God must communicate new doctrine to someone in the Catholic Church, since the Immaculate Conception is, in fact, a new doctrine?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

All the apostles could receive parts of Revelation.

What I do not know, is who received what. Do you know whether James the lesser or Thaddeus did receive new revelations ?

Then we should have the question of the distinction between revelation and inspiration, to understand the role of those who would write the NT.

Most of the Apostles never wrote a single line of NT ( which, by itself, speaks quite conclusively against the idea that writing was perceived among their fundamental obvious tasks ). Moreover, according to contemporary scholarship, most of the NT was not written by Apostles. It is not our business here, for sure, settling the frontier between what was written by an Apostle and what by others, but this frontier keeps moving in scholarly research so that, eg, of what used to go under the name of John of Zebedee, most ( or even anything ) seems now to be attributed to a “school” of his.
Then there are the NT prophets. We know about their existence, but very little more than this. To have this title, some of their words should come by direct divine communication.

Well, i find the evidence that the Apostle John was the author of the gospel that bears his name extremely compelling (but that is a topic for a different discussion thread).

Then you have Ut’s observation, about disentangling new doctrine from elaboration in the NT. How much can we get the distinction ?
I’m afraid that with a few steps further on these questions we’d need a whole platoon of scholars to help us.

Not sure i understand the question, here.

So the landscape of post-Ascension appears various enough. John H. Newman would probably say “an unexplored and unsubdued land, with heights and valleys, forests and streams”.

Then: imho you should remove the red X you mention ( while you need one in the channel God- successors).

Very well, i shall. And we should consider what logically follows from opening that Divine channel of communication.

But, back to our point, the very interesting and potentially unending examination of such a profound and little attainable matter I just skimmed above, cannot affect ( or rather can strengthen ) the exceptionality of Peter’s case in Acts, about which we do know:

• that there was a revelation
• that it was not only about something considered as new, but as plainly contrary to the general feeling , and Peter’s own. ( although they had received the Great Commission )
• That was about a very sensitive point, and of paramount importance for the self-perception of the Church and her future
• Last but not least, that it was accepted after Peter’s witness, without any further discussion, in spite of the manifest strong initial resistance. No Council was called. Question settled. ( Acts 11)

This , plus the revelation in Matthew 16, which is even of foundational nature, being at the heart of your and my faith, makes in itself IMHO Peter’s role in what we know about the taking place of Revelation ( and in the primitive Church ) unparalleled. I need your opinion on this point Soc.

I hope this can help.

I have no opinion, at the moment; though i might express one after a few questions are answered. What i now think you are saying is that Paul, and perhaps John, and maybe even the other New Testament writers did, indeed, receive revelation from the Holy Spirit after Christ’s resurrection. But (i believe you would add) their revelations cannot compare in import, nor are not significantly different in content, from those revelations given to only Peter. Is this the point you are making in saying that only little Petie deserved the gold star?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Ut, P7, et. al:

Do you think this paints a more accurate picture of how God reveals new doctrine? Here, God does ***not ***reveal new doctrine to any Apostolic successor (g), but He did reveal new doctrine, after Christ’s resurrection, to Paul, John and the other Apostles (h).

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[pneuma07]

P7:

Yes, i did find the author’s words enjoyable, and i particularly agreed with premise (3). However, my question remains unanswered. The author is speaking of the development of moral doctrine, i think. For example, how should the Church decide matters of cloning human beings? Is it moral or immoral? Here, i think, old doctrine contained in the pages of Sacred Scripture must develop, or be applied to new circumstances. Doctrinal development, then, is to find a new application to an already established biblical principle.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not like this at all. It’s not defined as a new application of an already established principle, because the idea that Mary was conceived without a sinful nature is not a principle found in Sacred Scripture at all. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception is indeed a new doctrine–or at least not one found in the pages of the Bible or (as far as i know) the teaching of any of the Early Church Fathers.

So my question remains unanswered: Is it not true that God must communicate new doctrine to someone in the Catholic Church, since the Immaculate Conception is, in fact, a new doctrine?

Dear Soc,

     IMHO it is not true.

I must say that stating that it is not found in the Bible would be unassailable adding an “explicitly”. You certainly know that some very debated verses are considered within
catholic thought as pointing to or illustating it. And ECFs can be quoted on the issue
.
That is not our business here, I suppose.

More on topic is that you describe well an aspect of development.

Another aspect is deduction. Theologians can spend centuries asking themselves: " Doesn’t from this revealed truth follow that … ?." You maybe know Soc, (just maybe ),
that from an answer questions follow.

In general and theoretical way you probably agree that when and if a deep persuasion is reached on an answer to one of these questions, this can receive a seal from the divinely appointed authority.

BTW , did you note that the last paragraph quoted from Newmann is about “The” issue, ie authority ? It certainly deserves your meditation.
i’m looking forward for specific a feed back.

 

[pneuma07]

Well, i find the evidence that the Apostle John was the author of the gospel that bears his name extremely compelling (but that is a topic for a different discussion thread).

Not sure i understand the question, here.

Very well, i shall. And we should consider what logically follows from opening that Divine channel of communication.

I have no opinion, at the moment; though i might express one after a few questions are answered. What i now think you are saying is that Paul, and perhaps John, and maybe even the other New Testament writers did, indeed, receive revelation from the Holy Spirit after Christ’s resurrection. But (i believe you would add) their revelations cannot compare in import, nor are not significantly different in content, from those revelations given to only Peter. Is this the point you are making in saying that only little Petie deserved the gold star?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ypgoqa4wROs/SYPBX4QzmTI/AAAAAAAAAY8/VyqYR1HRKFQ/s200/Gold+star+sticker.jpg

To see our issue a little in perspective, you are deeply investigating whether Jesus’ words in Matthew 18 about binding and loosing imply giving ( or promising) all the apostles the same gold star ( role ) as with Petie in Matthew 16.
My point (1) was that Petie gold star came after an exceptional essay/answer by this pupil in the classroom.
That is:
15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Then the gold star is given or promised. In John 21 we ( maybe I should say I ) see this confirmed, of fulfilled.

As for acts 10 and 11, I mentioned that as further evidence. Not only showing him receiving again a momentous revelation. But showing us vividly his role within the primitive Church. The first part of acts 11
Is really striking under this point of view. My reflection is that the Council in Acts 15 had been called on how to implement the decisive step that the community had accepted on Peter’s word.
Not only you can see Petie
Deserving a unique role. You see him exercising it. In other words acts 11 can IMHO help us to understand that Petie had received the gold star, meaning a special unique position of responsibility.

This is a decisive part of the picture.

Moreover, and as an independent observation, what happened after Caesarea and before Matthew 18 to make all the apostles “Peters”. ? Whence must we infer that they all received after a while what Peter alone had received in such a solemn moment. And Is that in your opinion fully consistent with the very solemnity of Jesus’ words to Peter in Matthew 16 ?

Bless you.
P7

PS the graphic presentation looks better IMHO.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

     IMHO it is not true.

I must say that stating that it is not found in the Bible would be unassailable adding an “explicitly”. You certainly know that some very debated verses are considered within
catholic thought as pointing to or illustating it. And ECFs can be quoted on the issue
.
That is not our business here, I suppose.

More on topic is that you describe well an aspect of development.

Another aspect is deduction. Theologians can spend centuries asking themselves: " Doesn’t from this revealed truth follow that … ?." You maybe know Soc, (just maybe ),
that from an answer questions follow.

In general and theoretical way you probably agree that when and if a deep persuasion is reached on an answer to one of these questions, this can receive a seal from the divinely appointed authority.

BTW , did you note that the last paragraph quoted from Newmann is about “The” issue, ie authority ? It certainly deserves your meditation.
i’m looking forward for specific a feed back.

P7:

I’m unsure whether our disagreement over the Immaculate Conception being a conception of a new doctrine is due to different understandings of the word doctrine, or different understandings of the word new, or different understandings of the historical facts. Let me ask you about all three:

1. 
   *]***Doctrine defined. *** Would you agree that *doctrine *is that which is proclaimed by the consensus of proper authorities to be an established fact and teaching, rather than a debated theory of what ought to be taught?
   *]***New defined. *** Would you agree that a *new *thing might be (a) something old that existed for a long time before it was possessed, and so it is an old thing (as far as its existence is concerned), but it is new (as far as it is a new possession)? or (b) something old that was once possessed, but then lost, only to be found again, and so it is an old thing (as far as its existence is concerned), but it is new (as far as it is a lost possession that is now found and newly possessed)?
   
   Regarding (1), an example might be String theory, which is a developing branch of theoretical physics that combines quantum mechanics and general relativity into a quantum theory of gravity. String theory cannot be said to be a doctrine of the science of physics, for it is not considered an established fact. Regarding (2), an example might be a fossil of a dinosaur that is thousands of years old. One might argue that the fossil is not old, but a new discovery, especially if it is one of a species of dinosaur never before known to science. In relation to its existence, it is old. In relation to our awareness and understanding of it, it is quite new.
   
   If you agree with these two premises, then the conclusion necessarily follows:N***ew Doctrine defined. ***A new doctrine might be an established fact and teaching–the truth of which has long been in existence, but which has only relatively recently been possessed (or understood to be true) by the consensus of proper authorities.
   Are you with me so far, now that i’ve defined what i comes to my mind when i use the words *new *and doctrine? If so, we can examine the historical facts to see if the Immaculate Conception fits the definition.