Development of Doctrine

[GodsGrace]

Indeed, the Church is very much an extension of the Incarnation.

Extension: the act of extending or the condition of being extended something that can be extended or that extends another object
Extended: stretched out; continued or prolonged

"A man’s body is all one, though it has a number of different organs; and all this multitude of organs goes to make up one body; so it is with Christ. We too, all of us, have been baptized into a single body by the power of a single Spirit, Jews and Greeks, slaves and free men alike; we have all been given drink at a single source, the one Spirit. The body, after all, consists not of one organ but of many...And you are Christ’s body, organs of it depending upon each other..." (1 Cor 12:12-30)

Christ had a body while on earth which He used to teach and sanctify. The Church - his body - is now an extension of His body which continues to teach and sanctify. (cf. Mt. 26:26, Mt. 28:20)

The Church can thus be called the body of Christ, continuing in time and thus it is a divine institution. If the Church is not a divine institution, it will turn into nothing more than a religious Elks Club.

Ah. Ok.
You're talking about the Body of Christ.
I think all Christians believe this...
Believers make up the Body of Christ.
The Communion of Saints.

 

[GodsGrace]

.

I think England is Anglican...
not sure.
PeterJens would know.

 

[GodsGrace]

The writers did make a point. Did you not see the Scripture references in my post?

Yes. I always read all your posts carefully because you know much more than I do.

I just don't see where it stated that confession was necessary.
I only see this in John 20:22

Will go through your post here in a while.

 

[GodsGrace]

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)

Would you consider this to be development of doctrine,
or a going back and forth with different ideas made up by men?

A doctrine is a church teaching. That's all it means.

There was a lot of discussion in the church amongst priests and laity as to whether or not doctrine was being changed.
The Traditionalists were upset and were insisting that it had not changed. The liberals were happy that it had.

Of course it had changed.

As to the 400AD Council of Toledo...I asked above what you make of it.
This is something I didn't know.
It clearly defies NT teaching by Jesus.

 

[jaybo]

If you don't trust history at all, then how would you suggest we study history?

I have no idea what this means. I don't trust history at all? That is nonsense.

Written history (not history itself) is created by people and it gives one perspective (that of the authors). Whether that perspective is objectively accurate is something else; everyone has a bias. There is a saying that goes something like "history is written by those in power"; church history is no different.

That last history about the Catholic denomination that I would accept as valid is one written by Catholics. (That is true of history written by any denomination, political group, etc.)

I suggest we study history by reading accounts from multiple sources. That way we can learn the story from all sides. The sole exception is the Bible, which I believe is God's words (and He doesn't lie). Romans 3:4b, "Let God be proven true, and every human being shown up as a liar."

 

[GodsGrace]

Repeating an old post...


Throughout salvation history, God has consistently sought to extract a confession from man. For example, in the beginning, we read "Who told you that you were naked?" Or, "Where is your brother Abel?" I could go on and on throughout the pages of Scripture.

Great point.

History culminates when God actually enters into his creation by becoming Man in the person of Jesus Christ. After His death and resurrection, on the evening of Easter, our Blessed Lord appeared to the Apostles and breathes on them. (This is significant itself given it is only the second time in Scripture where God literally breathes onto man - the first being when He breathed life into Adam.) When Jesus breathes on them, He imparts on them the Holy Ghost, and then gives them the authority to forgive sins. St. John records the event as follows...

How does God give to man the ability to forgive sins?
I do repeat that the writers of the NT and the early fathers did not seem to teach this.

I did find this:

Confession — Church Fathers

www.churchfathers.org

"On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, 'Peace be with you.' When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.'” (John 20:19-23)

Some scholars believe this to mean that a person that wishes to enter into communion with the Christians must confess their sins and the Apostle/Elder, could decide if they are sincere in their sorrow.

This is where the Christian practice of confession became a sacrament. In order for the Apostles (and their successors) to be able to forgive sins, they must first be told the sins. Hence confession, by definition, must be auricular. It has been this way from the beginning of the Church. We see this in practice in Acts when the Ephesians confess their sins to Paul in Acts 19:18. St. Paul tells the faithful at Corinth that he is charged with the "ministry of reconciliation." ( 2 Col 5:18) St. James instructs the faithful to make a confession (5:16) and St. John tells us if we confess our sins, they will be forgiven. (1 John 1:9)

Acts 19:18
18Many also of those who had believed kept coming, confessing and disclosing their practices. 19And many of those who practiced magic brought their books together and began burning them in the sight of everyone; and they counted up the price of them and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. 20So the word of the Lord was growing mightily and prevailing.

2 Corinthians 5:18
18Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,
19namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

In the parable of the Prodigal Son, the very first thing prodigal son does upon returning to the bosom of the Father is he makes a confession. (cf. Luke 15:21) Jesus is telling us this for a reason. Confession was practiced immediately from the Church's infancy, as testified to in the Scriptures and then in each subsequent century. (i.e. the Didache, St. Irenaeus, Origin, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Augustine, Leo the Great, etc. etc.)

Think incarnationally. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation.

Yes to the Prodigal Son.
Didache 4 (last sentence)
In the church you shall acknowledge your transgressions, and you shall not come near for your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life.


The above will require some studying...
I think it's very clear to you.

 

[GodsGrace]

I have no idea what this means. I don't trust history at all? That is nonsense.

Written history (not history itself) is created by people and it gives one perspective (that of the authors). Whether that perspective is objectively accurate is something else; everyone has a bias. There is a saying that goes something like "history is written by those in power"; church history is no different.

That last history about the Catholic denomination that I would accept as valid is one written by Catholics. (That is true of history written by any denomination, political group, etc.)

I suggest we study history by reading accounts from multiple sources. That way we can learn the story from all sides. The sole exception is the Bible, which I believe is God's words (and He doesn't lie). Romans 3:4b, "Let God be proven true, and every human being shown up as a liar."

You agree with me.
You're repeating what I posted.

 

[jaybo]

Great point.


How does God give to man the ability to forgive sins?
I do repeat that the writers of the NT and the early fathers did not seem to teach this.

I did find this:

Confession — Church Fathers

www.churchfathers.org

Some scholars believe this to mean that a person that wishes to enter into communion with the Christians must confess their sins and the Apostle/Elder, could decide if they are sincere in their sorrow.


Acts 19:18
18Many also of those who had believed kept coming, confessing and disclosing their practices. 19And many of those who practiced magic brought their books together and began burning them in the sight of everyone; and they counted up the price of them and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. 20So the word of the Lord was growing mightily and prevailing.

2 Corinthians 5:18
18Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,
19namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.


Yes to the Prodigal Son.
Didache 4 (last sentence)
In the church you shall acknowledge your transgressions, and you shall not come near for your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life.


The above will require some studying...
I think it's very clear to you.

Exactly how does the Apostle/Elder decide if they are sincere in their sorrow? Are they mind readers? Are the Spirit readers? Or do they just decide?

If the latter, then a talented actor could easily fool them. Only the person knows if they are actually sincere.

 

[jaybo]

You agree with me.
You're repeating what I posted.

Fine. We agree about history!

 

[Cooper]

I think England is Anglican...
not sure.
PeterJens would know.

The Church of England headed by the King or Queen, but there tends to be a lot of pageantry and candle burning etc. Not my cup of tea. I think of the Anglican Church as the poor relation, just my view, but I prefer it. Overall, I'm "low church" provided Jesus is at the head, but really and truly the religion of any country is the one practised by the majority of its inhabitants, which I think is either selfish-ism or monetarism, both of which are practised in the local pub. (sad)
.

 

[Mungo]

Would you consider this to be development of doctrine,
or a going back and forth with different ideas made up by men?

A doctrine is a church teaching. That's all it means.

There was a lot of discussion in the church amongst priests and laity as to whether or not doctrine was being changed.
The Traditionalists were upset and were insisting that it had not changed. The liberals were happy that it had.

Of course it had changed.

I think doctrine means more that just teaching. It is a specific kind of teaching - about faith and morals.
It's not at all clear that it has changed.

As to the 400AD Council of Toledo...I asked above what you make of it.
This is something I didn't know.

Marriage is a binding, permanent and exclusive commitment by a man and a woman.
It is a covenantal relationship.

Here is a definition from the Catholic Dictionary:
As a natural institution, the lasting union of a man and a woman who agree to give and receive rights over each other for the performance of the act of generation and for the fostering of their mutual love.

The state of marriage implies four chief conditions: 1. there must be a union of opposite sexes; it is therefore opposed to all forms of unnatural, homosexual behavior; 2. it is a permanent union until the death of either spouse; 3. it is an exclusive union, so that extramarital acts are a violation of justice; and 4. its permanence and exclusiveness are guaranteed by contract; mere living together, without mutually binding themselves to do so, is concubinage and not marriage.
I don't see that the Council of Toledo contradicted that.

It clearly defies NT teaching by Jesus.

How does it contradict Jesus' teaching?

 

[Cooper]

I think doctrine means more that just teaching. It is a specific kind of teaching - about faith and morals.
It's not at all clear that it has changed.


Marriage is a binding, permanent and exclusive commitment by a man and a woman.
It is a covenantal relationship.

Here is a definition from the Catholic Dictionary:
As a natural institution, the lasting union of a man and a woman who agree to give and receive rights over each other for the performance of the act of generation and for the fostering of their mutual love.

The state of marriage implies four chief conditions: 1. there must be a union of opposite sexes; it is therefore opposed to all forms of unnatural, homosexual behavior; 2. it is a permanent union until the death of either spouse; 3. it is an exclusive union, so that extramarital acts are a violation of justice; and 4. its permanence and exclusiveness are guaranteed by contract; mere living together, without mutually binding themselves to do so, is concubinage and not marriage.
I don't see that the Council of Toledo contradicted that.


How does it contradict Jesus' teaching?

That must be how a Catholic Priest who is not allowed to marry because they are married to the church gets to live with his housekeeper! in a concubinage. (a concubine.)
.

 

[jaybo]

I think doctrine means more that just teaching. It is a specific kind of teaching - about faith and morals.
It's not at all clear that it has changed.


Marriage is a binding, permanent and exclusive commitment by a man and a woman.
It is a covenantal relationship.

Here is a definition from the Catholic Dictionary:
As a natural institution, the lasting union of a man and a woman who agree to give and receive rights over each other for the performance of the act of generation and for the fostering of their mutual love.

The state of marriage implies four chief conditions: 1. there must be a union of opposite sexes; it is therefore opposed to all forms of unnatural, homosexual behavior; 2. it is a permanent union until the death of either spouse; 3. it is an exclusive union, so that extramarital acts are a violation of justice; and 4. its permanence and exclusiveness are guaranteed by contract; mere living together, without mutually binding themselves to do so, is concubinage and not marriage.
I don't see that the Council of Toledo contradicted that.


How does it contradict Jesus' teaching?

What is the need for rules and/or rigid definitions? Why do you Catholics have such a need for inflexibility?

I know exactly what marriage is, since I've been married for 54 years. The above says nothing about happiness, mutual giving and receiving, sharing joys and sadness together, and above all, having fun.

 

[Mungo]

That must be how a Catholic Priest who is not allowed to marry because they are married to the church gets to live with his housekeeper! in a concubinage. (a concubine.)
.

That would be fornication.

 

[Cooper]

That would be fornication.

Yes.

 

[Mungo]

What is the need for rules and/or rigid definitions? Why do you Catholics have such a need for inflexibility?

I know exactly what marriage is, since I've been married for 54 years. The above says nothing about happiness, mutual giving and receiving, sharing joys and sadness together, and above all, having fun.

Rules and definitions come about because people keep asking what if?
And over 2,000 years there can be a lot of situations that someone has to make a decision on.
That then lays down a definition or rule.
You know exactly what marriage is because you have some sort of definition in your mind.

 

[Walpole]

Yes. I always read all your posts carefully because you know much more than I do.

I just don't see where it stated that confession was necessary.
I only see this in John 20:22

Will go through your post here in a while.

Do you see confession as being something foreign to the Christian religion? Those who do not confess are the outliers.

“A few decades ago, nobody believed in the confession of sins except the Church. Today everyone believes in confession – with this difference: some believe in confessing their own sins; others believe in confessing other people’s sins. The popularity of psychoanalysis has nearly convinced everyone of the necessity of some kind of confession for peace of mind. This is another instance of how the world, which threw Christian truths into the wastebasket in the nineteenth century, is pulling them out in isolated secularized form in the twentieth century, meanwhile deluding itself into believing that it has made a great discovery. The world found it could not get along without some release for its inner unhappiness. Once it had rejected confession and denied both God and guilt, it had to find a substitute.” Archbishop Fulton Sheen - Footprints in a Darkened Forest

 

[GodsGrace]

Do you see confession as being something foreign to the Christian religion? Those who do not confess are the outliers.

“A few decades ago, nobody believed in the confession of sins except the Church. Today everyone believes in confession – with this difference: some believe in confessing their own sins; others believe in confessing other people’s sins. The popularity of psychoanalysis has nearly convinced everyone of the necessity of some kind of confession for peace of mind. This is another instance of how the world, which threw Christian truths into the wastebasket in the nineteenth century, is pulling them out in isolated secularized form in the twentieth century, meanwhile deluding itself into believing that it has made a great discovery. The world found it could not get along without some release for its inner unhappiness. Once it had rejected confession and denied both God and guilt, it had to find a substitute.” Archbishop Fulton Sheen - Footprints in a Darkened Forest

I see confession like this:
If we wrong a person, we ask forgiveness to that person.
If we wrong God, we ask forgiveness to God.

I'll say this...I know that priests differ somewhat in their beliefs (and some are way out there in left field), but they all agree that confession is necessary. I know all the reason.

I just have a really difficult time understanding how Jesus could give the power to humans to do what only God can do...or He can do (same difference).

I believe I posted some of the early Fathers last night...
I think I told you how some theologians understand John 20:19.

You totally deny that understanding of John 20:19?
That it's to either let a person join the community or reject the person.

I wonder what they're teaching new priests?
Do you have any idea?
I could go speak to Don Damiano one day.
We took some theology classes together and he's a priest now.
He's also from my town...

 

[Walpole]

I see confession like this:
If we wrong a person, we ask forgiveness to that person.
If we wrong God, we ask forgiveness to God.

I'll say this...I know that priests differ somewhat in their beliefs (and some are way out there in left field), but they all agree that confession is necessary. I know all the reason.

I just have a really difficult time understanding how Jesus could give the power to humans to do what only God can do...or He can do (same difference).

Think Incarnationally. Remember, the Church is an extension of the Incarnation.

It was the Scribes and Pharisees who also objected to men being given the this power...

Matthew 9:1-8: And getting into a boat he crossed over and came to his own city. And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.” And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil inyour hearts? For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—“Rise, pick up your bed and go home.” And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

I believe I posted some of the early Fathers last night...
I think I told you how some theologians understand John 20:19.

You totally deny that understanding of John 20:19?
That it's to either let a person join the community or reject the person.

I wonder what they're teaching new priests?
Do you have any idea?
I could go speak to Don Damiano one day.
We took some theology classes together and he's a priest now.
He's also from my town...

Yes I do. John 20 is significant because it is only the second time in Scripture where God Himself breathes on man. It is here where Jesus explicitly gives and states the Apostles would have the authority to forgive sins. This is demonstrable as it has been the regula fidei since that Easter evening to this very day.

 

[jaybo]

Rules and definitions come about because people keep asking what if?
And over 2,000 years there can be a lot of situations that someone has to make a decision on.
That then lays down a definition or rule.
You know exactly what marriage is because you have some sort of definition in your mind.

"lays down a definition or rule" is just another way to put people back under the law.

"Here are the written rules for you to follow, decided by your priests" denies being governed by the Spirit. Your clergy functions just like the OT priesthood.

"Over 2,000 years there can be a lot of situations that someone has to make a decision on"; that someone is Christ, who gave us the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth.

The more I learn about Catholicism the more I'm thankful to be a Protestant: governed by the Spirit, not by the law.