Who wrote the Fourth Gospel and Revelation?

[Yours_Truly]

Dear Yours Truly,
The teachings of the Church do change over time based on changes in understanding…

What you just wrote was condemned by the Church during Vatican I.

**First Vatican Council: **13. "For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

14.** Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.**

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding .

What the Council was addresses is the errors of the Liberals who were saying exactly what you are saying now: that, due to a development of understanding, the doctrine itself changes. This is a false notion of development of doctrine. Development of doctrine never changes the understanding of the doctrine; it only adds clarity to what is already believed, with no admixture of change.

FAB:

As far as my belief in the bible and understanding. I have had several simesters of Catholic Biblical Studies at our local siminary.

No need to say any more. I now realize why you are confused. Our so-called “Catholic” universities and Seminaries are cesspools of Liberalism and heresy (not to mention immorality). I have no doubt that they have taught you the errors you now believe.

FAB:

The are both historical and scientific errors in the Old Testiment…

Did they teach you this error as well? What you just wrote is exactly contrary with what the Church has always taught. If you want me to provide you with the quotes I will; but what you need to realize at this time is that you have been led into serious error. I will be more than happy to take all the time necessary to help you clear this up, but what you need to do now is move your will to a neutral position. What I mean is, do not hold firmly to what you have been taught. Instead, look into it from a neutral perspective. That is the only way you will be able to recover from your errors. If you hold subornly to them, there is almost no way you will free yourself from them. Therefore, like I said, move your will to a neutral position and look into what I am saying.

I would begin with the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, Providentisumum Deus. In that encyclical, which provides us with the teachings of the ordinary magisterium - to which you are bound to submit - you will find the following:

Pope Leo XIII: "It is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of those difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said, as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it - such a system cannot be tolerated. For all the books that the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it… This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican…Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author…Such has always been the belief of the Holy Fathers.

It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error. And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error, that they labored earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance - the very passages which in great measure have been taken up by “higher criticism”; for they were unanimous in laying it down, that those writings, in their entirety and in all their parts, were equally from the afflatus of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true.

continue

 

[Yours_Truly]

continuation

Pope Benedict XV, in his encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus (Sept. 15, 1920), confirms, and amplifies upon the words of Leo XIII in the above encyclical:

"Although these words of our predecessor leave no doubt for dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church - nay, what is a particular sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning - who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church’s teaching on this point.

We warmly commend, of course, those who, with the assistance of critical methods, seek to discover new ways of explaining the difficulties in Holy Scripture, whether for their own guidance or to help others. But we remind them that they will only come to miserable grief if they neglect our predecessor’s injunctions, and overstep the limits set by the Fathers.

Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase - and, indeed, to every single word of Scripture - yet, by endeavoring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious, and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration - namely, absolute truth and immunity from error - are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest-things concerning “profane knowledge,” the garments in which Divine truth is presented - God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author’s greater or lesser knowledge./INDENT]

Lastly, Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (Sept. 30, 1943), which commemorated the fiftieth anniversary of Pope Leo XIII’ s Providentissimus Deus, solemnly condemned the errors of the liberals and modernist heresies which were being spread about in the Church, and which you yourself have inadvertently absorbed:

More recently, however, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine which insists, claims and demands for these “books in their entirety and in all their parts,” a divine authority preserving them from all possible error, some Catholic writers have nevertheless seen fit to restrict or limit the truth of Holy Scriptures only to those matters of Faith and morals, considering all the rest, being of the field of physics and of history, as “something that is simply mentioned in passing” - and having, as they pretended, no connection whatsoever with the Faith. But our predecessor, Leo XIII, of undying memory, tore to pieces, and rightly so, these very same errors in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus of November 18, 1893.

As I have just shown, your position has been condemned by the Church and refuted by the Pope. I understand that you were probably led into error through no bad wil on your part, so hopefully you will do as I suggested and investigate this objectively, and not adhere stubornly to the errors you have been taught.

Actually, it should make you extremely angry that these heretics deceived you. I know it would me.​

 

[FAB]

Yours Truly:

I’m afraid that you are terribly misinformed. There are many levels of Doctrine in the Church. Vatican II addresses a vast majority of them. There is nothing that I wrote that is not current teaching of the Magisterium of the Church. But I’m afraid that there is not much I could write to you that would change your mind.

Peace,
FAB

 

[FAB]

**First Vatican Council: **13. "For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

14.** Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding**.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding .

I couldn’t resist, you made my argument! Based on our knowlege and understanding, very wise of our church fathers! So the doctrine that the scriptures ar inspired by God holds, but our understanding of how the approach them changes.

What the Council was addresses is the errors of the Liberals who were saying exactly what you are saying now: that, due to a development of understanding, the doctrine itself changes. This is a false notion of development of doctrine. Development of doctrine never changes the understanding of the doctrine; it only adds clarity to what is already believed, with no admixture of change.

No need to say any more. I now realize why you are confused. Our so-called “Catholic” universities and Seminaries are cesspools of Liberalism and heresy (not to mention immorality). I have no doubt that they have taught you the errors you now believe.

I don’t know why you have such a poor opinion of the Seminaries! Where do you think all our priest and deacons are being formed? So why do you think thay are teaching in error? and were does your training come from?

Did they teach you this error as well? What you just wrote is exactly contrary with what the Church has always taught. If you want me to provide you with the quotes I will; but what you need to realize at this time is that you have been led into serious error. I will be more than happy to take all the time necessary to help you clear this up, but what you need to do now is move your will to a neutral position. What I mean is, do not hold firmly to what you have been taught. Instead, look into it from a neutral perspective. That is the only way you will be able to recover from your errors. If you hold subornly to them, there is almost no way you will free yourself from them. Therefore, like I said, move your will to a neutral position and look into what I am saying.

Once again, there are changes in what the Church’s teaches based on new understanding of God’s message to us. You seem to want to think that Vatican I somehow put the church in a box, that teaching stopped at that point. There are many times in church history that a Church Councils clearified the documents of previous Councils. Centainly that is what Vatican II did. Many, as I said like you seem to refuse that teaching. That is the herasy.

I would begin with the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, Providentisumum Deus. In that encyclical, which provides us with the teachings of the ordinary magisterium - to which you are bound to submit - you will find the following:

Pope Leo XIII: "It is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. **For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of those difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, **because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said, as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it - such a system cannot be tolerated. For all the books that the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it… This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican…Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author…Such has always been the belief of the Holy Fathers.

It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error. And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error, that they labored earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance - the very passages which in great measure have been taken up by “higher criticism”; for they were unanimous in laying it down, that those writings, in their entirety and in all their parts, were equally from the afflatus of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true.

continue

 

[FAB]

continuation

Pope Benedict XV, in his encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus (Sept. 15, 1920), confirms, and amplifies upon the words of Leo XIII in the above encyclical:

"Although these words of our predecessor leave no doubt for dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church - nay, what is a particular sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning - who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church’s teaching on this point.

We warmly commend, of course, those who, with the assistance of critical methods, seek to discover new ways of explaining the difficulties in Holy Scripture, whether for their own guidance or to help others. But we remind them that they will only come to miserable grief if they neglect our predecessor’s injunctions, and overstep the limits set by the Fathers.

Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase - and, indeed, to every single word of Scripture - yet, by endeavoring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious, and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration - namely, absolute truth and immunity from error - are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest-things concerning “profane knowledge,” the garments in which Divine truth is presented - God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author’s greater or lesser knowledge./INDENT]

Lastly, Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (Sept. 30, 1943), which commemorated the fiftieth anniversary of Pope Leo XIII’ s Providentissimus Deus, solemnly condemned the errors of the liberals and modernist heresies which were being spread about in the Church, and which you yourself have inadvertently absorbed:

More recently, however, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine which insists, claims and demands for these “books in their entirety and in all their parts,” a divine authority preserving them from all possible error, some Catholic writers have nevertheless seen fit to restrict or limit the truth of Holy Scriptures only to those matters of Faith and morals, considering all the rest, being of the field of physics and of history, as “something that is simply mentioned in passing” - and having, as they pretended, no connection whatsoever with the Faith. But our predecessor, Leo XIII, of undying memory, tore to pieces, and rightly so, these very same errors in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus of November 18, 1893.

As I have just shown, your position has been condemned by the Church and refuted by the Pope. I understand that you were probably led into error through no bad wil on your part, so hopefully you will do as I suggested and investigate this objectively, and not adhere stubornly to the errors you have been taught.

Actually, it should make you extremely angry that these heretics deceived you. I know it would me.
​

I quess then all the bishops that attented Vatican II and sense then are heretics in mind.​

 

[palmas85]

As per my post, it matters in how we understand, to beable to see the truth in God’s message. They were inspired by God not dictated by God, which means they are the works of human hands who put thier own mark on them.

Peace,
FAB

Yes I understand what you are saying but you are ducking the question. How would our understanding be different if someone else wrote it? It obviously was written by someone, it is obviously inspired by God and equally obviously included in the Canon of Scripture and has been since the formation of the Canon.

If you were to find out tomorrow that one or both were actually written by some unknown scribe would it change what was written? Would it change the meaning of the text? Would it somehow be less authoritative than it is now? I don’t think so. That is really the beauty of scripture… The authors of scripture aren’t really what is important, except in the case of Paul. It is the message that is conveyed that is important.

So I ask you again. If John or Paul or Tertullian anyone else for that matter wrote it, as long as the message is there, as it is, then what is the difference?

What could be the difference? Maybe I’m just dense but I really don’t understand your argument.

 

[Dauphin]

Yours Truly:

I’m afraid that you are terribly misinformed. There are many levels of Doctrine in the Church. Vatican II addresses a vast majority of them. There is nothing that I wrote that is not current teaching of the Magisterium of the Church. But I’m afraid that there is not much I could write to you that would change your mind.

Peace,
FAB

All that is part of the deposit of faith we have received from the apostles is dogmatic and irreformable. Yours Truly has presented the universal consensus of the Church Fathers and the constant teaching of the Magisterium

To him, I say bloody well done.

 

[FAB]

Yes I understand what you are saying but you are ducking the question. How would our understanding be different if someone else wrote it? It obviously was written by someone, it is obviously inspired by God and equally obviously included in the Canon of Scripture and has been since the formation of the Canon.

If you were to find out tomorrow that one or both were actually written by some unknown scribe would it change what was written? Would it change the meaning of the text? Would it somehow be less authoritative than it is now? I don’t think so. That is really the beauty of scripture… The authors of scripture aren’t really what is important, except in the case of Paul. It is the message that is conveyed that is important.

So I ask you again. If John or Paul or Tertullian anyone else for that matter wrote it, as long as the message is there, as it is, then what is the difference?

What could be the difference? Maybe I’m just dense but I really don’t understand your argument.

It is easier to explain with an Old Testament example. One of the source of the Old Testament is called the ‘P’ Source of priest source. It is helpful to undstand that parts of the Testament was written by this group since it was after the exile when the Jews returned to the land of Israel. Knowing this we can then look at the passages and understand the mind set of the writters. It doesn’t change the truth of salvation in the scriture, but it does help to explain the contradictions.

To understand who wrote the book and Revelations and why helps us to understand that in our modern time that it is not a prediction for the end of the world, but a work written to help seven congregations through a crisis. For us in the 21st century it still shows God’s Salvation for us. Knowing that John the appostle didn’t write it, can change our view of the document the same as we veiw differently quotes directly contributed the Christ.

Knowing who wrote it may not change the message, but our understanding of the message. I think the difference is that knowing the author we better know waht we are going to get in the same way as reading a Steven King novel as opposed Dr Sues.

Peace,
FAB

 

[FAB]

All that is part of the deposit of faith we have received from the apostles is dogmatic and irreformable. Yours Truly has presented the universal consensus of the Church Fathers and the constant teaching of the Magisterium

To him, I say bloody well done.

There is no aurgument from me that there is depositor of faith. As a Church of Tradition we build on our own teaching (doctrine). Which also means that the Teachings of Vatican II are aslo to be followes since they built on previous councils. The work of the council has been invaluable to better understand and present the role of the church in the modern world. Part of this goes to our understanding of scripture which is the main reason for this string. The Second Vatican opened up the study of the scriptures in a way never before seen in the Church. As a result the Church through the Year of the Bible wants ever Catholic to have and read the scriptures. This would have never been seen before Vatican II. This is certainly a change in the teaching, which may not have restricted the reading of the bible, but certainly didn’t encourage it.
Yours Truly did nothing but give quotes that hae sense been clarified with better understanding as is the practice of the Church.

Peace,
FAB

 

[palmas85]

It is easier to explain with an Old Testament example. One of the source of the Old Testament is called the ‘P’ Source of priest source. It is helpful to undstand that parts of the Testament was written by this group since it was after the exile when the Jews returned to the land of Israel. Knowing this we can then look at the passages and understand the mind set of the writters. It doesn’t change the truth of salvation in the scriture, but it does help to explain the contradictions.

To understand who wrote the book and Revelations and why helps us to understand that in our modern time that it is not a prediction for the end of the world, but a work written to help seven congregations through a crisis. For us in the 21st century it still shows God’s Salvation for us. Knowing that John the appostle didn’t write it, can change our view of the document the same as we veiw differently quotes directly contributed the Christ.

**Knowing who wrote it may not change the message, but our understanding of the message. I think the difference is that knowing the author we better know waht we are going to get in the same way as reading a Steven King novel as opposed Dr Sues.**Peace,
FAB

Well that is certainly a stretch, especially in the comparison you have made.

Just a question though so that we may know exactly what page you are on.

Could you please tell us what your interpretation is of the following two scriptural events?

!) The miraculous feeding of the multitudes by Jesus. The loaves and fishes story

1. Jesus walking on the water to meet the disciples at sea.

I anxiously await your response.

 

[Dauphin]

There is no aurgument from me that there is depositor of faith. As a Church of Tradition we build on our own teaching (doctrine). Which also means that the Teachings of Vatican II are aslo to be followes since they built on previous councils. The work of the council has been invaluable to better understand and present the role of the church in the modern world. Part of this goes to our understanding of scripture which is the main reason for this string.

You keep on invoking some change which the Council has made, but you never present any evidence. Where are your quotes?

The Second Vatican opened up the study of the scriptures in a way never before seen in the Church.

This is insulting. Sacred scripture has always nourished the Church. It informs the traditional liturgy, and acts as the foundation of traditional monastic life.

 

[palmas85]

There is no aurgument from me that there is depositor of faith. As a Church of Tradition we build on our own teaching (doctrine). Which also means that the Teachings of Vatican II are aslo to be followes since they built on previous councils. The work of the council has been invaluable to better understand and present the role of the church in the modern world. Part of this goes to our understanding of scripture which is the main reason for this string. The Second Vatican opened up the study of the scriptures in a way never before seen in the Church. As a result the Church through the Year of the Bible wants ever Catholic to have and read the scriptures. This would have never been seen before Vatican II. This is certainly a change in the teaching, which may not have restricted the reading of the bible, but certainly didn’t encourage it.
Yours Truly did nothing but give quotes that hae sense been clarified with better understanding as is the practice of the Church.

Peace,
FAB

Interesting. I was a young boy in the 50’s and my mother used to read to us kids from the Bible almost every day. Or maybe she didn’t. Maybe I have dementia or something along those lines.

As far as the Pre Vatican IIChurch on these issues

Pope Pius 6th (April 1st 1778 AD)
“BELOVED SON : Health and apostolic benediction. At a time that a vast number of bad books, which most grossly attack the Catholic religion, are circulated even among the unlearned, to the great destruction of souls, you judge exceedingly well, that the faithful should be excited to the reading of the Holy Scriptures : for these are the most abundant sources which ought to be left open to every one, to draw from them purity of morals and of doctrine, to eradicate the errors which are widely dis*seminated in these corrupt times : this you have seasonably effected, as you declare, by publishing the sacred writings in the language of your country, suitable to every one’s capacity …
Given at Rome, on the calends of April, 1778, the fourth year of our pontificate.”

Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903 AD)

“The solicitude of the apostolic office naturally urges and even compels us…to desire that this grand source of Catholic revelation (the Bible) should be made safely and abundantly accessible to the flock of Jesus Christ”

“… For sacred Scripture is not like other books. Dictated by the Holy Ghost, it contains things of the deepest importance, which in many instances are most difficult and obscure. To understand and explain such things there is always required the ‘coming’ of the same Holy Ghost; that is to say, His light and His grace…It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of holy Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred… and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration is not only essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.”
[Providentissimus Deus ( Nov. 18, 1893)]

“An indulgence of 300 days for reading the Holy Gospels is granted to all the Faithful who read these Holy Scriptures for at least a quarter of an hour, with reverence due to the Divine Word and as spiritual reading…. A Plenary indulgence under the usual conditions is granted once a month for the daily reading

Third Council of Baltimore (7 December AD 1884)
“It can hardly be necessary for us to remind you, beloved brethren, that the most highly valued treasure of every family library, and the most frequently and lovingly made use of, should be the Holy Scriptures… We hope that no family can be found amongst us without a correct version of the Holy Scriptures.”

Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914 AD)
“Nothing would please us more than to see our beloved children form the habit of reading the Gospels - not merely from time to time, but every day.”

How dare you insinuate,imply and propagte the outright lie that Catholics prior to Vatican II did not read nor were encouraged to read scripture.

Although I have come to expect these lies from protestants, who started them to begin with, it really burns me to see people who claim to be Catholic speaking these deceptions about the faith prior to Vatican II…

 

[FAB]

Well that is certainly a stretch, especially in the comparison you have made.

Just a question though so that we may know exactly what page you are on.

Could you please tell us what your interpretation is of the following two scriptural events?

!) The miraculous feeding of the multitudes by Jesus. The loaves and fishes story

1. Jesus walking on the water to meet the disciples at sea.

I anxiously await your response.

The events around Jesus I would attribute as true miracles. To both of these are deeper meanings than just the face of miracles.

In the feeding of the multitudes, the apostles wanted Jesus to send the people away to which Jesue responded to feed them yourselves. When they once again objected he took command. There are a number of ways to view this. Who is suppose to care for those in need, the hungry and poor, we are. Do we act alone , no we have the Lord’s help in the mission, but the meesage is still there, we are not to turn our backs on those in need.
This passage can be seen in the light of the Kingdom of God were all are welcome to listen to the word and will be feed by the word. It’s also a prelude to last supper were Jusus gives us his body and blood.

The message of Jesus walking on the water is our own lack of faith as seen through Peter. Even though Jesus is there to save us from depths of the deep, it could be loss of faith, when we troubled, when we are in need of help. Jesus is always there to bring us to new life. This passage can also be seen in the light of the faults of Peter. Despite all of Peter’s doubts, even to the end, it was only to him that Jesus was reavealed as the Son of God. It means that we don’t have to be perfect for God not only to love us, but to use use us to bring the Kingdom of God here on earth. It reminds us that God’s messengers from the begining of time had faults, but with God’s guidence and help have lead individuals and nations to new beginings and salvation.

Peace,
FAB

 

[FAB]

You keep on invoking some change which the Council has made, but you never present any evidence. Where are your quotes?

I know some of you like to prove your point this way. If I was doing a paper I would do the research, but not for this.

This is insulting. Sacred scripture has always nourished the Church. It informs the traditional liturgy, and acts as the foundation of traditional monastic life.

I don’t see how it is insulting. There is greater understanding and appriciation of the scriptures by Catholics since Vatican II. Why do you think for so many years we were accused by our protestant brethern of not being bible based? Instead of being insulted you should be rejoicing that this can no longer be said of us. I know the scriptures are the bases of our faith along with tradition, but before the council many Catholics didn’t.

Peace,
FAB

 

[Yours_Truly]

Yours Truly:

I’m afraid that you are terribly misinformed.

Misinformed by the Popes? That is who I quoted as my authorities. You reject what these Popes taught, but rather than admitting it you claim that I am misinformed. You claim that Vatican II changed the teachings (in other words, taught what these Pope condemned), yet provided no evidence to support that statement.

What is interesting is that you have not brought forward any magisterial quotes for your position. Your only authority is yourself. You claim “Vatican II changed it” and expect everyone to reject the clear teachings of the Popes? Maybe the heretical Seminary professors were successful in convincing you with such an “argument”, but it won’t work here. If you have a quote from Vatican II that you want to bring forward, feel free to do so. Until then, please stop saying Vatican II changed things.

Don’t you realize that you have rejected the constant teaching of the Church as expressed by the Popes I quoted on the basis of an alledged “change” that took place at Vatican II, without even providing a quote from Vatican II? You are making is way too easy for the heretics to deceive you.

FAB:

There are many levels of Doctrine in the Church.

Indeed there are; and the quotes I provided are the INFALLIBLE teaching of the Church by virtue of the ordinary magisterium teaching what has been believed always and everywhere.

Vatican II was an exercise of the ordinary magisterium as well. Therefore, when it teaches what has been believed always and everywhere, it is to be considered infallible. But what you are alledging (but with no references) is that Vatican II has changed what has been believed always and everywhere.

FAB:

Vatican II addresses a vast majority of them. There is nothing that I wrote that is not current teaching of the Magisterium of the Church.

Please provide the quotes to support what you wrote. And please make sure the quote is from a Pope as were the quotes I provided. Surely you have quotes from the Popes to support what you are saying right? Or are you just arguing what you have been taught by the heretical Seminary Professors?

But I’m afraid that there is not much I could write to you that would change your mind.

That we agree on. You will have a very hard time getting me to reject what the Church teaches in favor of a teaching that has been condemned by the Church - simply because you (with no evidence) claim that Church has changed the teaching.

Contrary to what you have been taught, the teachings of the Church do not change. I’ll again quote from Vatican I:

First Vatican Council: 13. "For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

1. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding .

Notice, the Council taught that we are not permitted to depart from the meaning of sacred dogmas under the specious pretext of a more profound understanding; and that the understanding must always be "in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.

 

[palmas85]

The events around Jesus I would attribute as true miracles. To both of these are deeper meanings than just the face of miracles.

In the feeding of the multitudes, the apostles wanted Jesus to send the people away to which Jesue responded to feed them yourselves. When they once again objected he took command. There are a number of ways to view this. Who is suppose to care for those in need, the hungry and poor, we are. Do we act alone , no we have the Lord’s help in the mission, but the meesage is still there, we are not to turn our backs on those in need.
This passage can be seen in the light of the Kingdom of God were all are welcome to listen to the word and will be feed by the word. It’s also a prelude to last supper were Jusus gives us his body and blood.

The message of Jesus walking on the water is our own lack of faith as seen through Peter. Even though Jesus is there to save us from depths of the deep, it could be loss of faith, when we troubled, when we are in need of help. Jesus is always there to bring us to new life. This passage can also be seen in the light of the faults of Peter. Despite all of Peter’s doubts, even to the end, it was only to him that Jesus was reavealed as the Son of God. It means that we don’t have to be perfect for God not only to love us, but to use use us to bring the Kingdom of God here on earth. It reminds us that God’s messengers from the begining of time had faults, but with God’s guidence and help have lead individuals and nations to new beginings and salvation.

Peace,
FAB

I am impressed. At least you did not try to ascribe enlightenment theories to these two events as sp many of those who engage in self interpretation of scripture do.

 

[FAB]

Misinformed by the Popes? That is who I quoted as my authorities. You reject what these Popes taught, but rather than admitting it you claim that I am misinformed. You claim that Vatican II changed the teachings (in other words, taught what these Pope condemned), yet provided no evidence to support that statement.

If you want documents, take some classes or read them yourself, I have no reason to the the job you have and the church tells you to do, educate yourself in the Faith.

What is interesting is that you have not brought forward any magisterial quotes for your position. Your only authority is yourself. You claim “Vatican II changed it” and expect everyone to reject the clear teachings of the Popes? Maybe the heretical Seminary professors were successful in convincing you with such an “argument”, but it won’t work here. If you have a quote from Vatican II that you want to bring forward, feel free to do so. Until then, please stop saying Vatican II changed things.

You though are rejecting the teachings of Vatican II. By the way serveral of my heretical professors were consultants to John Paul II, I tend to believe them more than you.

Don’t you realize that you have rejected the constant teaching of the Church as expressed by the Popes I quoted on the basis of an alledged “change” that took place at Vatican II, without even providing a quote from Vatican II? You are making is way too easy for the heretics to deceive you.

Indeed there are; and the quotes I provided are the INFALLIBLE teaching of the Church by virtue of the ordinary magisterium teaching what has been believed always and everywhere.

Vatican II was an exercise of the ordinary magisterium as well. Therefore, when it teaches what has been believed always and everywhere, it is to be considered infallible. But what you are alledging (but with no references) is that Vatican II has changed what has been believed always and everywhere.

I said that Vatican II increased our understanding from Vatican I, per the document you quoted

Please provide the quotes to support what you wrote. And please make sure the quote is from a Pope as were the quotes I provided. Surely you have quotes from the Popes to support what you are saying right? Or are you just arguing what you have been taught by the heretical Seminary Professors?

Back to the professors again, get real!

That we agree on. You will have a very hard time getting me to reject what the Church teaches in favor of a teaching that has been condemned by the Church - simply because you (with no evidence) claim that Church has changed the teaching.

Contrary to what you have been taught, the teachings of the Church do not change. I’ll again quote from Vatican I:

First Vatican Council: 13. "For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

1. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

Notice, the Council taught that we are not permitted to depart from the meaning of sacred dogmas under the specious pretext of a more profound understanding; and that the understanding must always be "in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.
​

Why do keep quoting Vatican I since it was not the last Ordinary Magisterium and thus not the last one to issue infalable documents. The problem I believe is you are just one of those who want to reject any teachings out of Vatican II including documents pertaining to sacrate scripture.

This quote
*May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding ] betrays your argument.
Understanding Knowledge and wisdom increases… this is exatly what happened between the two councils. There were great changes not only to the Papacy but to the Church. The papal lands were lost, except for the Vatican, the popes turned thier focus away from Euopean politics to the needs of the people in the world, they became spirtual leaders. With these changes came greater wisdom and understanding, eventually bringing about the need for Vatican II.
Many of you think that the council has been the end of the Church, but a study of history would show that it was the Church’s salvation.
I would guess that you believe in the literal interpetation of the scripture. If so you would be wrong. At one time, it can be found that this was the teaching of the church, after all at one time the popes thought the sun rotated around the sun. Are you going to go back and quote that doctrine. I think not.
So before you condemn me as a heritic, remmber a heritic is one who rejects the Church’s teaching. That’s not my case. I embrace the teachings of Vatican II.

Peace,
FAB*​

 

[JReducation]

There seems to be a great deal of debate here about something that does not greatly affect the Catholic in the pews. The authorship of the Johanine writings does not change their content or the truth revealed therein.

The authorship of the writings is an academic questions that is important to exegetes and historicans for the purpose of establishing that the writings came from the Apostolic Tradition. This has already been accepted by the early Church. Unfortunately many of the documents that were used to establish this fact were not preserved or were lost through natural causes (fires, wars, invasions, flloods, age and so forth).

However, since the content of these writings is consistent with apostolic traditon, establishing a link between the author and the apostles is not a critical matter, though would be handy in the fields of apologetics and mystical theology.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Why do keep quoting Vatican I since it was not the last Ordinary Magisterium and thus not the last one to issue infalable documents. The problem I believe is you are just one of those who want to reject any teachings out of Vatican II including documents pertaining to sacrate scripture.

Well, “last” has nothing to do with it. ALL of the Church’s teachings, from the Council of Jerusalem to Vatican II, are what have to be taken into account. We in danger here of a mindset that would seem to imply, “Oh, that was before Vatican II” or “that was two (or three or twenty) popes ago.”

 

[FAB]

There seems to be a great deal of debate here about something that does not greatly affect the Catholic in the pews. The authorship of the Johanine writings does not change their content or the truth revealed therein.

The authorship of the writings is an academic questions that is important to exegetes and historicans for the purpose of establishing that the writings came from the Apostolic Tradition. This has already been accepted by the early Church. Unfortunately many of the documents that were used to establish this fact were not preserved or were lost through natural causes (fires, wars, invasions, flloods, age and so forth).

However, since the content of these writings is consistent with apostolic traditon, establishing a link between the author and the apostles is not a critical matter, though would be handy in the fields of apologetics and mystical theology.

Fraternally,

JR

On the one hand it may not effect the person in the pew, but on another it does. To know the authorship, particularly with Revelations it helps with the understanding of what it is and isn’t (a proclemation to map the end of the world)

There are also many, athiest among us, who attack the scriptures based on who may or may not have written them. It seems that it would be a good idea for those of us of faith to be clear about the scriptures and thier writters to be able to challenge these attacks, just not apologetics.

Peace,
FAB