Who wrote the Fourth Gospel and Revelation?

[FAB]

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.”

I would agree, but each built upon the last, the Second Coucil of Tent clarified items from the First Council of Tent, some of which that was clarified by the First Vatican Council then the Second. This done as our understanding and wisdom increased through the ages. In the same way one pope built upon early ones. But if Pope Benidict address an issue today, I listen to him, understanding he is issuing his message based on the Church’s traditon, I’m not goin go to go back and try to say that Benidict XV was the last authority, but that is what some are trying to do on this site because they disagree with the last word.

Peace,
FAB

 

[Yours_Truly]

Why do keep quoting Vatican I since it was not the last Ordinary Magisterium and thus not the last one to issue infalable documents.

I am quoting Vatican I because it addresses the point I was making. If Trent would have addressed it, I would have quoted Trent. Vatican I address many of the errors of Liberalism, which had recently emerged. Since Liberalism still exists; and since you yourself are a Liberal, I quoted Vatican I to refute your errors. But since you are also a modernist who believes that the teachings of the Church evolve over time due to “a more profound understanding”, the contrary teachings of a Council will not matter to you. If Vatican I or Trent explicitly condemn one of your errors, you will justify the error in your mind by convincing yourself that the doctrine has “developed”, by which you will mean “evolved”.

True development of doctrine does not change the original understanding. It only adds clarity to it. Such as, for example, the development with respect to the Eucharist. The Church always believe that the Eucharist was the body of Christ - that what appeared to be bread was not bread, but the body of Jesus. Over the years this was developed to distinguish between the substance and accidents. The original understanding is exactly the same (that what appears to be bread is the body of Christ), only now we are able to explain it with greater clarity. That is a true development.

An “evolution of doctrine”, which is what you erroneously called doctrinal development, is when the understanding changes in such a way that what was believed before is no longer believed. In fact, as we have seen in this thread, you will explicitly reject the constant teaching of the Church in favor of the contrary error. Why? Because some heretic told you that “Vatican II changed it”. He didn’t need to show you any evidence for this statement. He just makes the statement, supporting it with an erroneous definition of doctrinal developement, and you, being gullible, fall for it. And make no mistake about it, if you had any quotes to back up your position, you would be quoting them. As it is right now, you are being exposed for rejecting what the Church has always taught. You claim to do so because “the Church now teaches the contrary” but produce absolutely no magisterial quotes to back up your position. If you had any quotes, you would be posting them. You may try to explain your lack of quotes by asking me to look them up myself, but everyone knows that the reason you are not providing them is because you don’t know of any.

FAB:

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.

What teaching am I rejecting? Please show me. I’ve provided plenty of quotes to support my position; you’ve provided none. All you can do is refer to phantom quotes from Vatican II as why you reject the clear magisterial quotes I provided.

FAB:

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.

Vatican II is a heretic maker. Even if it didn’t teach heresy, it produces heretics. Take you for example; you reject what the Church has always taught because a Liberal Professor told you that “Vatican II changed all that”. Yet you have been able to produce exactly zero quotes from Vatican II to support your position.

FAB:

I would guess that you believe in the literal interpetation of the scripture. If so you would be wrong.

Really? We should never interpret scripture literally? Did you professor teach you this error to? I bet he said Vatican II taught that, didn’t he?

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.

Actually, what you do is reject what the Church teaches and convince yourself that you do so based on Vatican II, but, as we have seen, you have no quotes from Vatican II to support your position. You are rejecting what the Church teaches in favor of a phantom Council – a figment of your imagination – that conveniently teaches everything you believe. A phantom Council works fine until you are challenged to quote from it to support you position. At that point you are left with only one choice: Tell the person to look up the quotes themselves, and that you won’t do their work for them. I want to commend you for exercising that maneuver brilliantly in your discussions with me. When you had no quote to support you position, you told me to look up your quote for you. That was a pretty slick dodge.

I’ll end with a quote from The Oath Against Modernism, that all the Bishops and Priest at Vatican II took.

Oath Against Modernism: "Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers** in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport**. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.

 

[Yours_Truly]

I would agree, but each built upon the last, the Second Coucil of Tent clarified items from the First Council of Tent…

*Second *Council of Trent? What year did this take place?

 

[JReducation]

Wow! I’m really having trouble understanding how there can be so much venum on a thread that is about the most mystical writings in the Bible, the Gospel of John.

The Johanine writings, more than any other NT writings exalt the power of Love and the vocation to love. It is sad to see so much hostility when speaking about the authorship of these writings. Maybe we should back-off the authorship question and focus on the message for a while. It may be more beneficial to our minds and souls.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Yours_Truly]

Wow! I’m really having trouble understanding how there can be so much venum on a thread that is about the most mystical writings in the Bible, the Gospel of John.

The Johanine writings, more than any other NT writings exalt the power of Love and the vocation to love…

Let’s not confuses charity with a toleration of error and a Ghandi-like smile. There can be no true charity without true faith; and heresy (which destroys supernatural faith), is the object of what you refered to as venom.

Why do you think Jesus and John the Baptist were so harsh in their dealings with the Pharisees (see Mt 23)? Jesus tore into the Jews going so far as to tell them that their father was the devil. Did that express a lack of charity? Think of what John Baptist said to the Pharisees.

What we are dealing with here is heresy. If the person in question kept his heresy to himself it wouldn’t be so bad; but if he is defending it and claiming that it is the teaching of the Church, others could be confused as well. Therefore, it is not a lack of charity to refute his errors. Maybe a little anger was present in the posts, but isn’t that understandable? After all, if we love truth, won’t we hate error which is the contrary of, and destroyer of, truth?

Here’s some quotes from the book Liberalism is a Sin, which was endoresed by the Holy Office:

Liberalism is a Sin: Narrow! Intolerant! Uncompromising! These are the epithets of odium, hurled by Liberal votaries of all degrees at Ultramontanes. Are not Liberals our neighbors like other men? Do we not owe to them the same charity we apply to others? **Are not your vigorous denunciations, it is urged against us, harsh and uncharitable, in the very teeth of the teaching of Christianity which is essentially a religion of love? Such is the accusation continually flung in our face. Let us see what its value is. Let us see all that the word charity signifies. **

The catechism, that popular and most authoritative epitome of Catholic theology, gives us the most complete and succinct definition of charity; it is full of wisdom (103) and philosophy. Charity is a supernatural virtue which induces us to love God above all things and our neighbors as ourselves for the love of God. Thus after God, we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves, and this not in any way, but for the love of God and in obedience to His law. And now what is to love? Amare est velle bonum, replies the philosopher: “To love is to wish good to him whom we love.” To whom does charity command us to wish good? To our neighbor, that is to say, not to this or that man only but to everyone. What is that good which true love wishes? First of all supernatural good; then goods of the natural order, which are not incompatible with it. All this is included in the phrase “for the love of God.”

**It follows, therefore, that we can love our neighbor, when displeasing him, when opposing him, when causing him some material injury and even, on certain occasions, when depriving him of life. All is reduced to this in short: Whether in the instance where we displease, oppose or humiliate him, it is or is not for his own good, or for the good of someone whose rights are superior to his, or simply for the greater service of God. **

**If it is shown, that in displeasing or offending our neighbor, we act for his (104) good, it is evident that we love him even when opposing or crossing him. **The physician cauterizing his patient or cutting off his gangrened limb may none the less love him. When we correct the wicked by restraining or by punishing them none the less do we love them. This is charity and perfect charity. It is often necessary to displease or offend one person, not for his own good, but to deliver another from the evil he is inflicting. …

The good of all good is the divine good, just as God is for all men the neighbor of all neighbors. In consequence the love due to a man inasmuch as he is our neighbor ought always to be subordinated to that which is due to our common Lord. For His love and in His service we must not hesitate to offend men. The degree of our offense towards men can only be measured by the degree of our obligation (105) to him. Charity is primarily the love of God, secondarily the love of our neighbor for God’s sake. To sacrifice the first is to abandon the latter. Therefore to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a true act of charity. Not to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a sin.

continue…

 

[Yours_Truly]

Continuing with a quote from the book Liberalism is a Sin

Modern Liberalism reverses this order. It imposes a false notion of charity; our neighbor first, and, if at all, God afterwards. ** By its reiterated and trite accusations of intolerance, it has succeeded in disconcerting even some staunch Catholics**. But our rule is too plain and to concrete to admit of misconception. It is: Sovereign Catholic inflexibility is sovereign Catholic charity. This charity is practiced in relation to our neighbor when in his own interest, he is crossed, humiliated and chastised. it is practiced in relation to a third party, when he is defended from the unjust aggression of another, as when he is protected from the contagion of error by unmasking its authors and abettors and showing them in their true light as iniquitous and pervert, by holding them up to the contempt, horror and execration of all. It is practiced in relation to God when, for His glory and in His service, it becomes necessary to silence all human considerations, to trample under foot all human (106) respect, to sacrifice all human interests, and even life itself to attain this highest of all ends. **All this is Catholic inflexibility and inflexible Catholicity in the practice of that pure love which constitutes sovereign charity. The saints are the types of this unswerving and sovereign fidelity to God, the heroes of charity and religion. **Because in our times there are so few true inflexibles in the love of God, so also are there few uncompromisers in the order of charity. Liberal charity is condescending, affectionate, even tender in appearance, but at bottom it is an essential contempt for the true good of men, of the supreme interests of truth and of God. It is human selflove usurping the throne of he Most High and demanding that worship which belongs to God alone.

True charity is the love of God. Since God is truth, to love God is to love truth. Since heresy destroys truth, the love of God equals a detestation of heresy.

Now, it may be argued that we can attack error, but that we must no direct the attack to the promoter of error. The same book addresses that:

**Liberalism is a Sin: ** **Liberalism never gives battle on solid ground; it knows too well that in a discussion of principles it must meet with irretrievable defeat. It prefers tactics of recrimination, and under the sting of a just flagellation whiningly accuses Catholics of lack of charity in their polemics. This is also the ground which certain Catholics, tainted with Liberalism, are in the habit of taking. ** …

The law of justice, potent in all ages, can be applied in this case. The Catholics of today are no innovators in this respect. We are simply holding to the constant practice of antiquity. The propagators and abettors of heresy have at all times been called heretics as well as its authors. As the Church has always considered heresy a very grave evil, so has she always called its adherents bad and pervert. Run over the list of ecclesiastical writers you will then see how the Apostles treated the first heretics, how the Fathers, and modern controversialists and the Church herself in her official language has pursued them. There is then no sin against charity in calling evil evil, its authors, abettors and disciples bad; all its acts, words and writings iniquitous, wicked, malicious. In short the wolf has done to the flock and shepherd.

If the propagation of good and the necessity of combating evil require the employment of terms somewhat harsh against error and its supporters, this usage is certainly not against charity. … Christian oratory of all ages has ever employed the most vigorous and emphatic rhetoric in the arsenal of human speech against impiety. In the writings of the great athletes of Christianity the usage of irony, imprecation, execration and of the most crushing epithets is continual. Hence the only law is the opportunity and the truth.

But there is another justification for such an usage. Popular propagation and apologetics cannot preserve elegant and constrained academic forms. In order to convince the people we must speak to their heart and their imagination which can only be touched by ardent, brilliant, and impassioned language. **To be impassioned is not to be reprehensible, when our heat is the holy ardor of truth. **

The supposed violence of modern Ultramontane journalism not only falls short of Liberal journalism, but is amply justified by every page of the works of our great Catholic polemicists of other epochs. This is easily verified. **St. John the Baptist calls the Pharisees “race of vipers,” Jesus Christ, our Divine Savior, hurls at them the epithets “hypocrites, whitened sepulchers, a perverse and adulterous generation” without thinking for this reason that He sullies the sanctity of His benevolent speech. St. Paul criticizes the schismatic Cretins as “always liars, evil beasts, slothful bellies.” The same apostle calls Elymas the magician “seducer, full of guile and deceit, child of the Devil, enemy of all justice.” **

continue

 

[Yours_Truly]

Again continuing with a quote from the book Liberalism is a Sin

**If we open the Fathers we find the same vigorous castigation of heresy and heretics. St. Jerome arguing against Vigilantius casts in his face his former occupation of saloonkeeper: “From your infancy,” he says to him, “you have learned other things than theology and betaken yourself to other pursuits. To verify at the same time the value of your money accounts and the value of Scriptural texts, to sample wines and grasp the meaning of the prophets and apostles are certainly not occupations which the same man can accomplish with credit.” On another occasion attacking the same Vigilantius, who denied the excellence of virginity and of fasting, St. Jerome, with his usual sprightliness, asks him if he spoke thus “in order not to diminish the receipts of his saloon?” Heavens! What an outcry would be raised if one of our Ultramontane [Traditionalist) controversialists were to write against a Liberal critic or heretic of our own day in this fashion!

… **The gentle St. Bernard did not honey his words when he attacked the enemies of the faith. Addressing Arnold of Brescia, the great Liberal agitator of his times, he calls him in all his letters “seducer, vase of injuries, scorpion, cruel wolf.” **

**The pacific St. Thomas of Acquinas forgets the calm of his cold syllogisms when he hurls his violent apostrophe against William of St. Amour and his disciples: “Enemies of God,” he cries out, “ministers of the Devil, members of AntiChrist, ignorami, perverts, reprobates!” Never did the illustrious Louis Veuillot speak so boldly. The seraphic St. Bonaventure, so full of sweetness, overwhelms his adversary Gerard with such epithets as “impudent, calumniator, spirit of malice, impious, shameless, ignorant, impostor, malefactor, perfidious, ingrate!” Did St. Francis de Sales, so delicately exquisite and tender, ever purr softly over the heretics of his age and country? He pardoned their injuries, heaped benefits on them even to the point of saving the lives of those who sought to take his, but with the enemies of the faith he preserved neither moderation nor consideration. Asked by a Catholic, who desired to know if it were permissible to speak evil of a heretic who propagated false doctrines, he replied: “Yes, you can, on the condition that you adhere to the exact truth, to what you know of his bad conduct, presenting that which is doubtful as doubtful according to the degree of doubt which you may have in this regard.” In his “Introduction to a Devout Life,” that precious and popular work, he expresses himself again: “If the declared enemies of God and of the Church ought to be blamed and censured with all possible vigor, charity obliges us to cry wolf’ when the wolf slips into the midst of the flock, and in every way and place we may meet him.” **

But enough. What the greatest Catholic polemists and saints have done is assuredly a fair example for even the humblest defenders of the faith. Modern Ultramontanism has never yet surpassed the vigor of their castigation of heresy and heretics. Charity forbids us to do unto another what we would not reasonably have them to do unto ourselves. Mark the adverb reasonably; it includes the entire substance of the question.

The essential difference between ourselves and the Liberals on this subject consists in this, that they look upon the apostles of error as free citizens, simply exercising their full right to think as they please on matters of religion. We, on the contrary, see in them the declared enemies of the faith which we are obligated to defend. We do not see in their errors simply free opinions but culpable and formal heresies, as the law of God teaches us they are. By virtue of the assumed freedom of their own opinions the Liberals are bound not only to tolerate but even respect ours; for since freedom of opinion is in their eyes the most cardinal of virtues, no matter what the opinion be, they are bound to respect it as the expression of man’s rational freedom. It is not what is thought, but the mere thinking that constitutes the standard of excellence with them. To acknowledge God or deny Him is equally rational by the standard of Liberalism, and Liberalism is grossly inconsistent with itself when it seeks to combat Catholic truths, in the holding of which there is as much exercise of rational freedom, in the Liberal sense, as in rejecting them. But our Catholic standpoint is absolute; there is but one truth, in which there is no room for opposition or contradiction. To deny that truth is unreasonable; it is to put falsehood on the level with truth. This is the folly and sin of Liberalism. To denounce this sin and folly is a duty and a virtue. With reason therefore does a great Catholic historian say to the enemies of Catholicity: “You make yourselves infamous by your actions and I will endeavor to cover you with that infamy by my writings.” In this same way the law of the Twelve Tables ordained to the virile generations of early Rome: Adversus hostem aeterna auctoritas esto, which may be rendered: “To the enemy no quarter.” …

continue…**

 

[Yours_Truly]

continuation and conclusion

**Liberalism is a Sin: **“It is all well enough to make war on abstract doctrines,” some may say, “but in combating error, be it ever so evident, is it so proper to make an attack upon the persons of those who uphold it”? We reply that very often it is, and not only proper but at times even indispensable and meritorious before God and men.

The accusation of indulging in personalities is not spared to Catholic apologists, and when Liberals and those tainted with Liberalism have hurled it at our heads they imagine that we are overwhelmed by the charge. But they deceive themselves. (115) We are not so easily thrust in the back ground. We have reason and substantial reason on our side. In order to combat and discredit false ideas, we must inspire contempt and horror in the hearts of the multitude for those who seek to seduce and debauch them. A disease is inseparable from the persons of the diseased. The cholera threatening a country comes in the persons of the infected. If we wish to exclude it we must exclude them. Now ideas do not in any case go about in the abstract; they neither spread nor propagate from themselves. Left to themselves, if it be possible to imagine them apart from those who conceive them, they would never produce all the evil from which society suffers. It is only in the concrete that they are effective; when they are the personal product of those who conceive them. They are like the arrows and the balls which would hurt no one if they were not shot from the bow or the gun. It is the archer and the gunner to whom we should give our first attention; save for them the fire would not be murderous. Any other method of warfare might be Liberal, if you please, but it would ;not be commonsense.

The authors and propagators of heretical doctrines are soldiers with poisoned weapons in their hands. Their arms are the book, (116) the journal, the lecture, their personal influence. Is it sufficient to dodge their blows? Not at all; the first thing necessary is to demolish the combatant himself. When he is hors de combat, he can do no more mischief.

It is therefore perfectly proper not only to discredit any book, journal or discourse of the enemy, but it is also proper, in certain cases, to even discredit his person; for in warfare, beyond question, the principal element is the person engaged, as the gunner is the principal factor in an artillery fight and not the cannon, the powder and the bomb. It is thus lawful, in certain cases, to expose the infamy of a Liberal opponent, to bring his habits into contempt, and drag his name in the mire. Yes, this is permissible, permissible in prose, in verse, in caricature, in a serious vein or in badinage, by every means and ;method within reach. The only restriction is not to employ a lie in the service of justice. This never. Under no pretext may we sully the truth, even to the dotting of an i. As a French writer says: “Truth is the only charity allowed in history,” and, we may add, in the defense of religion and society.

The Fathers of the Church support this thesis. The very title of their works clearly show that, in their contests with heresy, (117) their first blow was at the heresiarchs. The works of St. Augustine almost always bear the name of the author of the heresy against which they are written: Contra Fortunatum Manichoeum; Adversus Adamanctum; Contra Felicem; Contra Secundinum; Quis fuerit Petiamus; De gestis Pelagii; Quis fuerit Julianus, etc. Thus the greater part of the polemics of this great doctor was personal, aggressive, biographical, as well as doctrinal, a handtohand struggle with heretics as well as with heresy. What we here say of St. Augustine we can say of the other Fathers. Whence do the Liberals derive their power to impose upon us the new obligation of fighting error only in the abstract and of lavishing smiles and flattery upon them? We, the Ultramontanes, will fight our battles according to Christian tradition, and defend the faith as it has always been defended in the Church of God. When it strikes let the sword of the Catholic polemist wound, and when it wounds, wound mortally. This is the only real and efficacious means of waging war.

Sorry for the long quote, but it was so good I didn’t know where to stop.

In conclusion, let us not confuse a charity with a toleration of error as so many do today. Real charity (which is the love of God, Who is truth) brings with it a detestation of error, and this detestation is naturally manifest in the polemics.

 

[FAB]

*Second *Council of Trent? What year did this take place?

On this you your right. I had forget some of my history and was thinking that there was aother council between Trent and the first Vatican, probelbly because it lasted for eight years.

Honestly, I’m not going to read everything you posted, you have way to much time on your hands.

Despite all of you posting , there is no way around that the teachings of the church progress and are changed based on better understanding. From the very first council of the Jerusalem that made it possible for gentiles to become Christian without first being Jewish, the earlist doctrine(teaching) of the Church.
There are also certain levels of doctrine From Ex cathedra down to bishops. By the way both Vatican one and two were Extraordinary so doctrine from both are infallible. To be clear, so we both understand, the only other doctrine that is infallible is the ordinary magisterium. Futher, any time doctrine is going to be infallilbe it is done with the consultation of all the bishops.

With that in mind lets go back to some or your quotes:
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.

As far as I can tell this is not infalable doctrine, it was presented by the pope and was niether extraadinary or ordinanay magestarium. A papal Encyclical according to Pius XII can end theological debate on a doctrine, but since it is not Ex catherdra does not fall under infallibilty. Many of your quotes are on this level.

Now this is infallible doctrine:
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.

And you have my full agreement that the basic teaching(doctrine) is not changed, but only as I indicated before when it is considered infallible and at the highest levels of the magestarium.

But to answer your question of proof from the Second Vatican Council which allowed for Biblical Criticisms so that we may have a higher understanding of the scripture, based as much as poosible on original text, since the whole purpose is the find the truth of God’s message, are Dei Verbum ‘The Word of God’, Lumen Gentium, Sacrosanctum Concilium,.
It’s been fun, may the peace of Christ be with you,

FAB

PS Liberalism is a Sin is certainly not doctrine.

 

[Yours_Truly]

Despite all of you posting , there is no way around that the teachings of the church progress and are changed based on better understanding.

Well, I have quoted Vatican I over and over again saying that a change in doctrine does not take place due to a more profound understanding. I also quoted from the Oath Against Modernism that every Bishop and Priest at Vatican II took. Let’s just use common sense…

If a teaching changed due to understanding, it would mean that what was believed before was false. That is not doctrinal development. A change in doctrine (due to a pretended change in understanding) is called “evolution of doctrine” which has been condemned. I know you don’t like long posts, and I am trying to keep this one as short as possible, but since you didn’t read all of my last post I will quote once again from the Oath Against Modernism. This was taken by all Priests up to 1967, which includes every Priest and Bishop at Vatican II.

Oath Against Modernism: "Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.

FAB:

From the very first council of the Jerusalem that made it possible for gentiles to become Christian without first being Jewish, the earliest doctrine(teaching) of the Church.

Two points about that: 1.) The practice of the Church can be modified, but not its doctrinal teachings. 2.) Public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, which means it was still ongoing while they lived. Now, with respect to you point, this was not a change in doctrine. It was a clarificatin of a dispute between two groups. While it is true that our Lord told the apostles to preach to the house of Israel first, expanding this to the Gentiles is not a change in doctrine per se. It is just a case of expanding who the Gospel was preached to.

FAB:

There are also certain levels of doctrine From Ex cathedra down to bishops. By the way both Vatican one and two were Extraordinary so doctrine from both are infallible.

Vatican I did engage the extraordinary magisterium and as such was protected from error on those points by virtue of the infallible magisterium, but Vatican II was not. Vatican II did not engage the extraordinary magisterium.

Paul VI: "There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoid issuing solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility .

Pope Paul VI: “The magisterium of the Church did not wish to pronounce itself
under the form of extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements…” —Pope Paul VI, discourse closing Vatican II, December 7, 1965

Vatican II was merely a pastoral council and had the lowest level of authority of any General Council in the history of the Church. In this way, it was different that all other Councils:

Paul VI: “Differing from other Councils, **this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral.” **—Pope Paul VI, August 6, 1975, General Audience.

Yet, even though Vatican II was merely a pastoral council that defined no dogmas, people treat it as a “superdogma” that renders null all the preceded it.

Cardinal Ratzinger: "The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero.** The truth is that this particular Council [Vatican II] defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council;** and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest,” …( to the Bishops of Chile, 1988)

Cardinal Ratzinger: “But since the Council was aiming primarily at a pastoral orientation and hence refrained from making dogmatically binding statements or disassociating itself, as previous Church assemblies have done, from errors and false doctrines by means of clear anathemas…”

Vatican was merely a pastoral council that defined no dogma at all. It did not engage the extraordinary magisterium and therefore was not protected by the charism of infallibility. This it did by express intent of the Pope, as he himself admitted in the quote I provided above

continue…

 

[Yours_Truly]

continuation

FAB:

To be clear, so we both understand, the only other doctrine that is infallible is the ordinary magisterium.

There’s two levels of magisterial authority: Ordinary and extraordinary. Examples of the ordinary magisterium would be a pastoral council, such a Vatican II and Papal Encyclicals. Exercises of the extraordinary magisterium would be ex Cathedra dogmatic definitions of the Pope, and dogmatic definitions of Church Councils that have been ratified by the Pope.

FAB:

With that in mind lets go back to some or your quotes:

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. … 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…

As far as I can tell this is not infalable doctrine, it was presented by the pope and was niether extraadinary or ordinanay magestarium.

Of course it was part of the ordinary magisterium. It was an encyclical and therefore part of the ordinary magisterium.

Pius XII: It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: “He who heareth you, heareth Me.” (Luke 10:16); and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians —Humani Generis

The quote from Pope Leo XIII was from an encyclical which, as Pius XII said above, is part of the ordinary magisterium to which we are required to submit. But Leo XIII was not teaching anything new and even quoted, as his authority, the Councils of Florence and Trent which had defined the teaching. Therefore, what he taught by virtue of the ordinary magisterium carried the weight of the extraordinary magisterium since what he was teaching was defined by a pronouncement of the extraordinary magisterium.

FAB:

A papal Encyclical according to Pius XII can end theological debate on a doctrine, but since it is not Ex catherdra does not fall under infallibilty. Many of your quotes are on this level.

True, many of my quotes are of the ordinary magisterium. Be even the ordinary magisterium is considered to be infallible, when it is teaching what has been believed always and everywhere, and is certainly infallible when it reiterates a teaching of the extraordinary magisterium, which is what the quote from Leo XIII did

FAB:

Now this is infallible doctrine:

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.

And you have my full agreement that the basic teaching(doctrine) is not changed…

But you have been arguing that doctrine does change, due to “a more profound understanding”. This is what you wrote:

FAB: "there is no way around that the teachings of the church progress and are changed based on better understanding.

And you have put this belief of yours into practice by disagreeing with the quotes I provided and arguing to the contrary - with no magisterial quotes to support your position.

FAB:

But to answer your question of proof from the Second Vatican Council which allowed for Biblical Criticisms so that we may have a higher understanding of the scripture, based as much as possible on original text, since the whole purpose is the find the truth of God’s message, are Dei Verbum ‘The Word of God’, Lumen Gentium, Sacrosanctum Concilium,.

Sorry, you can’t just reference a document. If you think those documents teach what has been condemned as an error, you will need to show me such teachings. If you can’t do so, you really need to ask yourself why you believe what you do; or rather, why you reject the teaching of the Church as expressed in the quotes I provided.

 

[gospel_life]

I am curious about something, based on some replies I’ve seen here from those who say that one cannot question whether John the Apostle actually wrote some or all of those books and letters attributed to him.

Do you also believe it is wrong to accept that those letters that the Church used to attribute to Paul, but which have pretty conclusively been shown to not be his (at least directly), were not actually written by Paul?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Here’s a question that I’m pondering and which I ask with honest academic intent, without any axe to grind one way or the other: Could the Church, infallible in matters of faith and morals, but not necessarily in matters of science or history, recognize as inspired, and properly a part of the canon of Holy Writ, a document about which She might then make an historical error by misattributing authorship?

 

[Yours_Truly]

Here’s a question that I’m pondering and which I ask with honest academic intent, without any axe to grind one way or the other: Could the Church, infallible in matters of faith and morals, but not necessarily in matters of science or history, recognize as inspired, and properly a part of the canon of Holy Writ, a document about which She might then make an historical error by misattributing authorship?

That’s a good question. I think you are basically asking this: We affirm that the Church is infallible in faith or morals, but is it possible that she could have erred on a point of history when she attributed the authorship of the Bible to a particular person?

First let’s consider what faith is and what can be included as an object of faith. Faith is a virtue that helps us to believe the truths that God has revealed. Now, the truths that God has revealed are defined as such by the Church. These defined truths are known as dogmas and become the objects of our faith; that is, it is these dogmatic truths that we must accept by faith.

The next question is this: Can a historical teaching be an object of faith (a defined dogma), or is something that happened in the past outside of the area of faith? Consider what we find in the Creed. It says that Jesus was “born of the Virgin Mary”, which is a historical fact. That historical point is an object of faith, as is the institution of the Papacy which took place after the Ressurection, the Immaculate Conception, and many more things.

From this we can see that just because something is a matter of history does not mean it cannot be an object of faith, and therefore a part of the faith. Remember, faith is belief in a particular truth, and some of the truths we believe by faith are historical truths.

So to answer the question, if the Church defines, as a dogma, something that took place in history, such as Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary, this point of history would then become a matter of faith.

The same would hold for things that might be considered as science, such as the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth. One could argue that these are scientific truths, yet they are also defined dogmas and therefore objects of faith.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

That’s a good question. I think you are basically asking this: We affirm that the Church is infallible in faith or morals, but is it possible that she could have erred on a point of history when she attributed the authorship of the Bible to a particular person?

First let’s consider what faith is and what can be included as an object of faith. Faith is a virtue that helps us to believe the truths that God has revealed. Now, the truths that God has revealed are defined as such by the Church. These defined truths are known as dogmas and become the objects of our faith; that is, it is these dogmatic truths that we must accept by faith.

The next question is this: Can a historical teaching be an object of faith (a defined dogma), or is something that happened in the past outside of the area of faith? Consider what we find in the Creed. It says that Jesus was “born of the Virgin Mary”, which is a historical fact. That historical point is an object of faith, as is the institution of the Papacy which took place after the Ressurection, the Immaculate Conception, and many more things.

From this we can see that just because something is a matter of history does not mean it cannot be an object of faith, and therefore a part of the faith. Remember, faith is belief in a particular truth, and some of the truths we believe by faith are historical truths.

So to answer the question, if the Church defines, as a dogma, something that took place in history, such as Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary, this point of history would then become a matter of faith.

The same would hold for things that might be considered as science, such as the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth. One could argue that these are scientific truths, yet they are also defined dogmas and therefore objects of faith.

You’re quite right, of course, and thinking on the examples you gave, I feel foolish because I should have realized that (all of those things are events of history)!

But HAS the Church definitively stated that this or that book in the canon was beyond a doubt written by specific authors?

 

[ruslan]

Who’s that writing?

John the Revelator

He wrote the Book of the Seven Seals.



James

One of my favorites. And, yes, it was John the Revelator.

:harp:

 

[FAB]

Dear Yours Truly:

I will put aside that in your reply post that you misquoted what I said and decided to dismiss the documents from Vatican II that addressed the study of Holy Scripture.
We agree that the church is infallible on matters of Faith an and morals, but not all words from the Pope are infallible and certainly not all documents.

The question arrose with the allowance of Biblical Critisim.
I invite you to go to an article at
vatican2voice.org/92symp/murray.htm

by Father Robert Murray called a Sympsium at the Fortieth Anniverasry of Vatican II
Vatican II and the Bible.

In it he covers the documents of Vatican II that I refered, including some historical context of Biblical Study. I think you will see why I indicate that the teachings of the church do indeed change with understanding and time.

Pius X (1907) Condemed moderism and biblical critical methods, to Pius XII (1943) who had reversed this teaching.

Peace,
FAB

 

[Yours_Truly]

Dear Yours Truly:

I will put aside that in your reply post that you misquoted what I said and decided to dismiss the documents from Vatican II that addressed the study of Holy Scripture.

You didn’t provide any quotes from those documents to support your position. All you did was provide the name of several documents and claim that these documents support what you are saying. If you think they support your position, supply the quote I’ll address it.

We agree that the church is infallible on matters of Faith an and morals, but not all words from the Pope are infallible and certainly not all documents.

Agreed. Not all words of the Pope are infallible, but if a particular teaching of a Pope, as found in an encyclical, is in accord with what the Church has always taught it is presumed to be infallible. This is knows as the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium. If a Pope was to teaching something by virtue of the ordinary magisterium that was contrary to what the Church had always taught, not only would such a teaching not be considered infallible, but it would be considered erroneous.

The question arrose with the allowance of Biblical Critisim.
I invite you to go to an article at
vatican2voice.org/92symp/murray.htm

by Father Robert Murray called a Sympsium at the Fortieth Anniverasry of Vatican II
Vatican II and the Bible.

In it he covers the documents of Vatican II that I refered, including some historical context of Biblical Study. I think you will see why I indicate that the teachings of the church do indeed change with understanding and time.

That was a very poor article. It reminded me of your posts in that it was big on claims, but short on quotes to support said claims.

Pius X (1907) Condemed moderism and biblical critical methods, to Pius XII (1943) who had reversed this teaching.

Liberals like to claim that *Divino Afflante Spirit *of Pius XII changed the position of the Church with respect to the complete inherency of the Bible. Let’s see what Pius XII said in his own words:

Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu (Sept. 30, 1943):** "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.

So we can see that in the very encyclical that the Liberals claim changed the teaching of the Church with respect to biblical inherency, the Pope declares that the “solemn definition of Catholic doctrine… insists, claims and demands for these ‘books in their entirety and in all their parts,’ a divine authority preserving them from all possible error”, which does not exclude historical or scientific points. He even goes on to reference the encyclical I quoted from Leo XIII.

I find it interesting that you have provided absolutely zero magisterial quotes to support your position that the magisterium has changed its teaching with respect to biblical inherency. Didn’t you every think to ask your heretical professors for a little evidence to support their assertions?

Maybe you assumed they wouldn’t lie to you; and, given the position of the teachers as Seminary Professors, such a presumption is reasonable. Therefore, I don’t fault you for giving them the benefit of the doubt. However, given the case I have laid out here, you really need to re-examine your position since, as you surely now realize, there is no magisterial basis for your claim that this teaching has changed.

Like I said earlier, if I were you I would be extremely angry at these heretics for deceiving me.

 

[FAB]

You didn’t provide any quotes from those documents to support your position. All you did was provide the name of several documents and claim that these documents support what you are saying. If you think they support your position, supply the quote I’ll address it.

Agreed. Not all words of the Pope are infallible, but if a particular teaching of a Pope, as found in an encyclical, is in accord with what the Church has always taught it is presumed to be infallible. This is knows as the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium. If a Pope was to teaching something by virtue of the ordinary magisterium that was contrary to what the Church had always taught, not only would such a teaching not be considered infallible, but it would be considered erroneous.

That was a very poor article. It reminded me of your posts in that it was big on claims, but short on quotes to support said claims.

Liberals like to claim that *Divino Afflante Spirit *of Pius XII changed the position of the Church with respect to the complete inherency of the Bible. Let’s see what Pius XII said in his own words:

Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu (Sept. 30, 1943):** "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.

So we can see that in the very encyclical that the Liberals claim changed the teaching of the Church with respect to biblical inherency, the Pope declares that the “solemn definition of Catholic doctrine… insists, claims and demands for these ‘books in their entirety and in all their parts,’ a divine authority preserving them from all possible error”, which does not exclude historical or scientific points. He even goes on to reference the encyclical I quoted from Leo XIII.

I find it interesting that you have provided absolutely zero magisterial quotes to support your position that the magisterium has changed its teaching with respect to biblical inherency. Didn’t you every think to ask your heretical professors for a little evidence to support their assertions?

Maybe you assumed they wouldn’t lie to you; and, given the position of the teachers as Seminary Professors, such a presumption is reasonable. Therefore, I don’t fault you for giving them the benefit of the doubt. However, given the case I have laid out here, you really need to re-examine your position since, as you surely now realize, there is no magisterial basis for your claim that this teaching has changed.

Like I said earlier, if I were you I would be extremely angry at these heretics for deceiving me.

I’ll give this another try.
Dei Verbum from the Second Vatican Council
"books of scripture must be acknowleged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation**"

Go to www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/octoberweb-only/143-11.0.html?start=1 called Rome’s Battle for the Bible for an article that speaks to this compromise reached concerning Biblical inerrancy.

Peace,
FAB

 

[scylla]

I’ll give this another try.
Dei Verbum from the Second Vatican Council
"books of scripture must be acknowleged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation**"

Go to www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/octoberweb-only/143-11.0.html?start=1 called Rome’s Battle for the Bible for an article that speaks to this compromise reached concerning Biblical inerrancy.

Peace,
FAB

I am going to chime in here real quick, just because I have been reading all these posts and am curious…

Are you asserting that because of the above statement…“books of scripture must be acknowleged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error which God wanted put into sacred writings for** the sake of salvation**”
This discounts other statements of scripture from other councils such as Trent?

Does stating that this particular part of the Bible is true, discount other parts? Let me explain, let us say a council says that the Gospels are held to be Scripture, would that mean the the rest of the Bible isn’t Scripture anymore?
Does affirming one truth discount another?

In Christ
Scylla