Development of Doctrine

[Mungo]

Communion for the divorced and remarried, papal critics and family life: Pope Francis’ ‘Amoris Laetitia’ at 5 years

What is the legacy of Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation “Amoris Laetitia,” released five years ago today?

www.americamagazine.org

Haven't you read the following:

https://www.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf

I used to remember the page number and paragraph number.
If you start at about page 220 and forward you'll see that the church has changed its position on divorced and remarrieds.

Interesting.
Here are a few thoughts.
I note one paragraph in the first link regarding the "dubia" asking for clarification:
His supporters say doing so is unnecessary because “Amoris Laetitia” states that it is not changing church teaching but is instead posing possibilities for pastoral care in complex cases; critics have taken the lack of response as confirmation that the pope has broken from church doctrine.
There seems to be disagreement on whether church teaching has changed or not.

Also what exactly is meant by "church teaching". Is it doctrinal teaching, or practices which can change?
Pope Francis seems to be keen on taking a more pastoral line on church practices.

Another point - some of the issue is around those who contract a civil marriage, or just live together, but not a sacramental one.
In the early days of the church a man with a concubine was accepted as long the relationship was exclusive and permanent.
The Council of Toledo, held in 400, in its seventeenth canon legislates as follows for laymen (for ecclesiastical regulations on this head with regard to clerics see CELIBACY): after pronouncing sentence of excommunication against any who in addition to a wife keep a concubine, it says: "But if a man has no wife, but a concubine instead of a wife, let him not be refused communion; only let him be content to be united with one woman, whether wife or concubine"
(Catholic Encyclopedia)

 

[WIP]

It's very unfortunate the the Catholic denomination doesn't teach what the Bible says, but finds it necessary to add so much to the word of God that the truth of what it says is almost entirely lost. Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected; sin has been paid for in its entirety. That is all one really needs to know and believe.

I actually don't know of any denomination that teaches what the Bible says without error, and that is not to imply that I know what those errors are.

One denomination says we must be baptized as an adult, another says it is best to baptize as soon as possible after birth, another says baptism is not necessary at all, while another says baptism is a waste of time and water. We find differing beliefs in just about any Christian doctrine. You don't like what you're hearing in this church, look around and you'll surely find one that tickles your ears.

What I see as sad is that we all focus, argue, and fight so much on our differences that we close our ears to everything else rather than looking at our strengths within the Church and working toward Christian unity.

 

[jaybo]

I actually don't know of any denomination that teaches what the Bible says without error, and that is not to imply that I know what those errors are.

One denomination says we must be baptized as an adult, another says it is best to baptize as soon as possible after birth, another says baptism is not necessary at all, while another says baptism is a waste of time and water. We find differing beliefs in just about any Christian doctrine. You don't like what you're hearing in this church, look around and you'll surely find one that tickles your ears.

What I see as sad is that we all focus, argue, and fight so much on our differences that we close our ears to everything else rather than looking at our strengths within the Church and working toward Christian unity.

I agree that no denomination teaches what the Bible says without error. That is why I am nondenominational and consider the Bible alone to be the source of truth, not human "wisdom". Sola scriptura.

We argue points of doctrine, trying to prove ourselves intellectually correct, which is okay to a point.

My faith is entirely in God. We are one body in Christ, united spiritually.

 

[Mungo]

I agree that no denomination teaches what the Bible says without error. That is why I am nondenominational and consider the Bible alone to be the source of truth, not human "wisdom". Sola scriptura.

We argue points of doctrine, trying to prove ourselves intellectually correct, which is okay to a point.

My faith is entirely in God. We are one body in Christ, united spiritually.

So you invent your own doctrine based on your personal interpretation of the Bible you agree with and using the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura (at least the Scriptura you agree with).

 

[Free]

I agree that no denomination teaches what the Bible says without error. That is why I am nondenominational and consider the Bible alone to be the source of truth, not human "wisdom". Sola scriptura.

From Systematic Theology, by Robert Letham:

"When the slogan [sola Scriptura] was first devised, it was never intended to exclude the tradition of the church. Instead, it asserted that the Bible is the supreme authority. Adherence to the idea that the Bible is the only source to be followed was the mistake of the anti-Nicenes in the fourth century, the Socinians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Jehovah's Witnesses in the nineteenth century, and many other sects and heretics. Effectively, it says that my understanding of the Bible is superior to the accumulated wisdom of every generation of Christians that has ever lived" (p. 34).

 

[jaybo]

So you invent your own doctrine based on your personal interpretation of the Bible you agree with and using the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura (at least he Scriptura you agree with).

No I don't "invent my own doctrine". I read the Bible and let the Holy Spirit guide me into all truth, as the Lord promised. Unlike yourself, I am not "spoon fed" whatever doctrine my priests dream up to justify their authority and keep themselves in power over the masses.

The doctrine of sola scriptura is sound. Your priests will of course disagree, as they don't want their "sheep" to believe Scripture, only what they say.

 

[jaybo]

From Systematic Theology, by Robert Letham:

"When the slogan [sola Scriptura] was first devised, it was never intended to exclude the tradition of the church. Instead, it asserted that the Bible is the supreme authority. Adherence to the idea that the Bible is the only source to be followed was the mistake of the anti-Nicenes in the fourth century, the Socinians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Jehovah's Witnesses in the nineteenth century, and many other sects and heretics. Effectively, it says that my understanding of the Bible is superior to the accumulated wisdom of every generation of Christians that has ever lived" (p. 34).

Irrelevant. Sola scriptura, meaning by scripture alone, is a Christian theological doctrine held by most Protestant Christian denominations, in particular the Lutheran and Reformed traditions of Protestantism, that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. Not the teachings of fallible men that want to justify their control over others but inventing the truth.

 

[Mungo]

No I don't "invent my own doctrine". I read the Bible and let the Holy Spirit guide me into all truth, as the Lord promised. Unlike yourself, I am not "spoon fed" whatever doctrine my priests dram up to justify their authority and keep themselves in power over the masses.

The doctrine of sola scriptura is sound. Your priests will of course disagree, as they don't want their "sheep" to believe Scripture, only what they say.

I note that you have no scripture to support your claims, just your opinions.

What happened to Sola Scriptura?

 

[Walpole]

Irrelevant. Sola scriptura, meaning by scripture alone, is a Christian theological doctrine held by most Protestant Christian denominations, in particular the Lutheran and Reformed traditions of Protestantism, that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. Not the teachings of fallible men that want to justify their control over others but inventing the truth.

Please post the verse which states the Bible, along with the books which should comprise said Bible, is the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.

Otherwise you realize you would be failing and contradicting your own rule, right?

 

[Walpole]

I mote that you have no scripture to support your claims, just your opinions.

What happened to Sola Scriptura?

"Sola Scriptura for thee, but not for me!"

 

[Mungo]

Irrelevant. Sola scriptura, meaning by scripture alone, is a Christian theological doctrine held by most Protestant Christian denominations, in particular the Lutheran and Reformed traditions of Protestantism, that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. Not the teachings of fallible men that want to justify their control over others but inventing the truth.

On what basis do you claim that Sola Scriptura is a "Christian theological doctrine....that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice"?
Martin Luther?

 

[Mungo]

Please post the verse which states the Bible, along with the books which should comprise said Bible, is the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.

Otherwise you realize you would be failing and contradicting your own rule, right?

But even if he could (which he can't) it would be self referential. You need something outside of Scripture to prove Sola Scriptura which is a logical impossibility.

 

[jaybo]

I note that you have no scripture to support your claims, just your opinions.

What happened to Sola Scriptura?

I don't respond to sarcasm. If you can't understand what I wrote, I won't help you.

 

[jaybo]

On what basis do you claim that Sola Scriptura is a "Christian theological doctrine....that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice"?
Martin Luther?

Check out Wikipedia for the simple definition; I won't do your thinking for you.

 

[jaybo]

But even if he could (which he can't) it would be self referential. You need something outside of Scripture to prove Sola Scriptura which is a logical impossibility.

Since you are unable to think on your own, ask your priest to explain this (and everything else in Christendom). Or you could just ban me again (your usual tactic) because the truth is so painful for you.

 

[Free]

Irrelevant. Sola scriptura, meaning by scripture alone, is a Christian theological doctrine held by most Protestant Christian denominations, in particular the Lutheran and Reformed traditions of Protestantism, that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.

If the original idea behind it was what I gave, then it most certainly is not irrelevant. There is a vast difference between believing the Bible is the supreme authority and believing it is the sole authority. It is spiritual pride that says "my understanding of the Bible is superior to the accumulated wisdom of every generation of Christians that has ever lived." One of the central points of Jesus's ministry and teaching was to show how Christians are to live in community as the people of God. That means we never just do things on our own. To believe that we don't need the wisdom of others is for 'the eye [to] say to the hand, "I have no need of you" . . . [or] the head to the feet, "I have no need of you."' (1 Cor 12:21). The body of Christ consists of all believers who have ever existed.

Not the teachings of fallible men that want to justify their control over others but inventing the truth.

That happens even with those who incorrectly believe the Bible is the sole authority.

 

[Free]

I don't respond to sarcasm. If you can't understand what I wrote, I won't help you.

Check out Wikipedia for the simple definition; I won't do your thinking for you.

Since you are unable to think on your own, ask your priest to explain this (and everything else in Christendom). Or you could just ban me again (your usual tactic) because the truth is so painful for you.

If you don't respond to sarcasm, maybe you should first consider how you post.

 

[Niblo]

If the original idea behind it was what I gave, then it most certainly is not irrelevant. There is a vast difference between believing the Bible is the supreme authority and believing it is the sole authority. It is spiritual pride that says "my understanding of the Bible is superior to the accumulated wisdom of every generation of Christians that has ever lived." One of the central points of Jesus's ministry and teaching was to show how Christians are to live in community as the people of God. That means we never just do things on our own. To believe that we don't need the wisdom of others is for 'the eye [to] say to the hand, "I have no need of you" . . . [or] the head to the feet, "I have no need of you."' (1 Cor 12:21). The body of Christ consists of all believers who have ever existed.


That happens even with those who incorrectly believe the Bible is the sole authority.

Very well said

 

[jaybo]

Here is an explanation (excerpted from an article by Michael Patton)...

The Reformers believed that Scripture alone was the only infallible source for revelation and, therefore, the Scripture alone was the primary source available for instruction on all matters of faith and practice. They believed that tradition, while valuable, could be misleading and fallible. In short, they rejected the idea that the Church needed a second infallible source of revelation (Tradition) along with an infallible interpreter (Magisterium) that would tell them what to believe. The Scriptures needed to be in the hands of every man so that every man could wrestle with and build a theology that was truly their own. (https://bible.org/article/danger-sola-scriptura)

If you can't understand that or worse, can't deal with it, that is not my problem.

.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Michael Patton is the director and teacher of The Theology Program (TTP). He holds a Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary and an ordination from Stonebriar Community Church. TTP Instructors are Michael Patton, Th.M. and Rhome Dyck, Th.M. The Theology Program is copyrighted and published by Reclaim

Obviously his credentials are far more impressive than being the self-appointed moderator of a Catholic sub-forum.

 

[jaybo]

If the original idea behind it was what I gave, then it most certainly is not irrelevant. There is a vast difference between believing the Bible is the supreme authority and believing it is the sole authority. It is spiritual pride that says "my understanding of the Bible is superior to the accumulated wisdom of every generation of Christians that has ever lived." One of the central points of Jesus's ministry and teaching was to show how Christians are to live in community as the people of God. That means we never just do things on our own. To believe that we don't need the wisdom of others is for 'the eye [to] say to the hand, "I have no need of you" . . . [or] the head to the feet, "I have no need of you."' (1 Cor 12:21). The body of Christ consists of all believers who have ever existed.


That happens even with those who incorrectly believe the Bible is the sole authority.

Try reading this article of you have an actual interest in sola scriptura. I doubt that your mind will be opened to the truth, thereby escaping sheepdom, but here it is...

(https://bible.org/article/danger-sola-scriptura)