Fides manducans intellectum!
#91
(10-26-2012, 08:41 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 04:21 PM)Geremia Wrote: Why would you want to settle for what is less explicit?

The Immaculate Conception or the Assumption weren't "less explicit," they simply weren't there.
So, one can be saved by denying them and thus by denying the infallibility of the popes when they make ex cathedra statements pertaining to faith or morals?
(10-26-2012, 08:41 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
Quote:If you mortally sin against the faith and outwardly profess the heresy, then you excommunicate yourself and are no longer Christian.

You don't need to outwardly express heresy in order to forfeit the faith.
Sure, but I thought we were talking about membership in the Church?
(10-26-2012, 08:41 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: That is only necessary in order for the ecclesiastical penalties to apply.
But there can be no penalties of those who are no longer members of the Church, assuming that only mortally sinning against the faith excommunicates them; the Church wouldn't have such jurisdiction over them.
(10-26-2012, 08:41 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Inwardly, once you obstinately assent to heresy you no longer have the faith and cannot be a member of a body you don't belong to.
(10-26-2012, 08:41 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Arians weren't Christians, even before Nicea defined Christ's consubstantiality with the Father. Scripture already condemned them.
What if some of them were inculpably ignorant? How would they know they're condemned until a dogma was defined?

Also, St. Thomas says:
Quote:Nor is it possible for one who has a false opinion of God, to know Him in any way at all, because the object of his opinion is not God. Therefore it is clear that the sin of unbelief is greater than any sin that occurs in the perversion of morals.
Again, I ask: Why do you prefer your own private judgment to the infallible statements and interpretations of the Popes?
Reply
#92
(10-26-2012, 09:38 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 09:30 PM)Geremia Wrote: So Christ's sending the Paraclete was in vain?

It was the sending of the Paraclete that enabled the Apostles to preach all truth and then commit it to writing.
So more than Scriptures is necessary, then?
Reply
#93
(10-26-2012, 10:04 PM)Geremia Wrote: So, one can be saved by denying them and thus by denying the infallibility of the popes when they make ex cathedra statements pertaining to faith or morals?

Yes.

Quote:But there can be no penalties of those who are no longer members of the Church, assuming that only mortally sinning against the faith excommunicates them; the Church wouldn't have such jurisdiction over them.

Well, to be precise, the Roman Church still claims jurisdiction over heretics. In fact, that was the basis upon which inquisitorial trials could be conducted and penalties imposed.

Quote:What if some of them were inculpably ignorant? How would they know they're condemned until a dogma was defined?

"The faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 1:3) was based upon Christ's divine sonship, preached by the Apostles and handed down to us in the Scriptures. It's absurd to keep insisting on the fiction that there could ever be Christians before Nicea who didn't believe in the divinity of Christ. That's almost like a Dan Brown argument.

Quote:Again, I ask: Why do you prefer your own private judgment to the infallible statements and interpretations of the Popes?

It's logically, historically and scripturally untenable for the Papal office to be invested in any kind of infalibility as it claims to have since the First Vatican Council. I have been slowly but steadily convinced of this.
Reply
#94
(10-26-2012, 10:25 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 09:38 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 09:30 PM)Geremia Wrote: So Christ's sending the Paraclete was in vain?

It was the sending of the Paraclete that enabled the Apostles to preach all truth and then commit it to writing.
So more than Scriptures is necessary, then?

As the source of divine revelation? No.

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed 'perfect knowledge,' as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles." (Against Heresies, 3.1.1.)
Reply
#95
(10-26-2012, 08:27 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 03:46 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: But Vetus, you know there are things High Church Protestants believe which were settled either before scripture was codified, or after the Apostles were dead and gone (i.e., they believe in doctrines which find their origin not with Scripture).

Such as...? Beliefs that cannot be supported from the Scriptures cannot be construed as doctrines of the faith.

Quote:The truth is we don't know the extent of what the Apostles explicitly taught.

If we didn't know the extent of the Apostolic teaching, then our faith would be in constant mutation and in hopeless uncertainty.

Scripture is sufficient but only if we do what it asks: "He who hears you hears Me".  For those who do so, Scripture is sufficient, but must be understood with the guidance of the Church; there is no inconsistency there!

HERE is where some of the SAME fathers that you quote on Scripture (and many others) also speak of the Church and tradition guiding us. Are they contradicting themselves?

Irenaeus


[i]"“True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4,33:8 (inter A.D. 180-199).

Or Origen:

"When heretics show us the canonical Scriptures, in which every Christian believes and trusts, they seem to be saying: 'Lo, he is in the inner rooms [the word of truth] ' (Matt 24.6). But we must not believe them, nor leave the original tradition of the Church, nor believe otherwise than we have been taught by the succession in the Church of God." Origen, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 46, PG 13:1667 (ante A.D. 254).

Or Athanasius

"I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. In proceeding to make mention of these things [the canon], I shall adopt, to comment my undertaking, the pattern of Luke...to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon..." Athanasius, Festal Letters, 39 (A.D. 397).

Or Hilary of Poitiers:

"[T]hey who are placed without the Church, cannot attain to any understanding of the divine word. For the ship exhibits a type of Church, the word of life placed and preached within which, they who are without, and lie near like barren and useless sands, cannot understand." Hilary of Poitiers, On Matthew, Homily 13:1 (A.D. 355).

Or Cyril of Jerusalem:

"[H]old fast the faith in simplicity of mind; establishing the tradition of the church as a foundation, in the inmost recesses of thy heart, hold the doctrines which are well-pleasing unto God." Cyril of Alexandria, Festal Letters, Homily 8 (A.D. 442).

And more:  http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
Reply
#96
(10-26-2012, 11:06 PM)Doce Me Wrote: Scripture is sufficient but only if we do what it asks: "He who hears you hears Me".  For those who do so, Scripture is sufficient, but must be understood with the guidance of the Church; there is no inconsistency there!

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there are indeed truths of revelation entrusted to the Apostles that weren't handed down in Scripture. So Scripture itself is never materially sufficient to anyone as the rule of faith.

Quote:HERE is where some of the SAME fathers that you quote on Scripture (and many others) also speak of the Church and tradition guiding us. Are they contradicting themselves?

While the Fathers are not unknown for contradicting themselves on several issues, there's hardly contradiction here. Tradition, if you read them in context, means the customs and practices of the Church, thought to be of Apostolic origin, doctrinal formulations such as the creeds, baptismal formulas or even the rules of scriptural interpretation. What you won't find is tradition considered as an independent source of dogma, oral in nature, that cannot be found in the Scriptures.

But since we're at the Fathers, one of the strongest proponents of oral tradition was Basil of Caesarea. He was the first to state that the Church owed equal allegiance to both Scripture and tradition. It was his writings which were used by the medieval Church during the time of Trent to promote the concept of a two source theory of revelation: Scripture and tradition. As Yves Congar points out:

Yves Congar, "Traditions and Traditions" Wrote:The text of St. Basil has played such an important role in the history of theology that it must be quoted here:

"Among the doctrines and the definitions preserved in the Church, we hold some on the basis of written teaching and others we have received, transmitted secretly, from apostolic tradition. All are of equal piety; no one will dispute this; no one, at least with the least experience of ecclesiastical customs; for, if we were to attempt to reject these unwritten customs as not carrying much weight, we should unwittingly be casting aspersions on the Gospel itself, in its essentials."

St. Basil's text was often quoted at the time of the Reformation and of the Council of Trent. Unfortunately a translation which Canisius first followed rendered the flexible τὰ μέν...τὰ δέ...of Basil (the same is found in Epiphanius) as partim...partim...which led to the idea of two sources of doctrine, and no longer merely two modes of transmission of the same apostolic deposit.

Emanuel Amand de Mendieta, a former Benedictine monk, who left Rome for the Anglican Church, has given himself to the study of this passage. He makes this comment on Basil's remarks:

Emanuel Amand de Mendieta, "Rome and Canterbury: A Biblical and Free Catholicism" Wrote:"The whole passage has frequently been misinterpreted by Roman Catholic theologians, who imagine that in it they have found something to prove the Tridentine dogma of Tradition, considered as an equal and distinct source of revelation...In reality, this passage of Basil, the beginning of which is a little vague and lacking in precision, cannot be considered as confirming the Tridentine dogma that doctrinal Tradition is a second fully distinct source of divine revelation. In order to be convinced of the falsity of such an assertion, one need only take trouble to read the whole passage...In brief, in all his homiletic, doctrinal, ascetic and monastic works, Basil referes constantly, and almost in every line, to the Bible, quoting, expounding or illustrating it, or drawing out in detail what it teaches without departing from the traditional doctrine of the Church. He leaves us no doubt that he regards the Bible, especially the New Testament, as the sovereign and all-suficient moral and doctrinal standard for all Christians, and particularly for the cenobites under his charge. Basil of Caesarea thus taught me a never-forgotten lesson."

In his teatrise Basil defended the use of the word "with" in the doxology, in reference to the Holy Spirit. His opponents, in particular Eusthasius of Sebastia, charged that it was illegitimate to use the term because it was not explicitly used that way in Scripture. Basil defended his use of the term by appealing to certain ecclesiastical traditions which he claimed originated with the apostles but were not found in Scripture. Basil is still quoted by Roman Catholic apologists to support the Roman teaching on tradition. However, while Basil did affirm the existence of apostolic tradition handed down through the Church independent of Scripture, his statements are rarely given in context. The importance of so doing is that Basil defined what he meant by apostolic unwritten tradition. The first point of interest is that Basil's teaching primarily had to do with customs and practices such as triple immersion in baptism and turning to the East in prayer, practices of secondary importance. In the first instance this does not involve doctrine. To be sure, there are doctrinal issues involved because he is defending the doctrine of the Holy Spirit by an appeal to an ecclesiastical practice that is not explicitly found in Scripture. But the term he used does have biblical sanction, as Basil himself admits, because like the word "Trinity," the term "with" expresses the true meaning of Scripture. So, for the most part, his list of unwritten apostolic traditions had to do with practices and customs and not with doctrines necessary for salvation. This is seen from the fact that many of the practices listed are not even practiced by the Roman Catholic Church anymore, like triple immersion or turning East for prayer.

A second point that needs to be made regarding Basil's claims, and this is true for all references by Church Fathers to oral tradition with respect to customs and practices. These claims cannot be proven. The Fathers only assumed that these practices were apostolic in origin, but there is no way to validate this. The importance of this is underscored by the fact that the early Church witnessed many contradictory claims of apostolic tradition within various segments of the Church. The mere assertion of a claim does not make it true. There are instances where claims for apostolic tradition are made by one section of the Church which were repudiated by another..

A third point is that Basil's defense of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit was not based on unwritten tradition in an exclusive sense. He appealed to the primacy of Scripture and demonstrated that the particular practice or custom was in conformity with Scripture. In referring to his appeal to the tradition of the Fathers, he made it clear that he was willing to receive their teachings because they expressed the overall teaching of Scripture:

Basil, "On the Holy Spirit" Wrote:"What our fathers said, the same say we, that the glory of the Father and of the Son is common; wherefore we offer the doxology to the Father with the Son. But we do not rest only on the fact that such is the tradition of the Fathers; for they too followed the sense of Scripture, and started from the evidence which, a few sentences back, I deduced from Scripture and laid before you."
Reply
#97
Reading Congar, eh?
Reply
#98
(10-26-2012, 10:45 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 10:25 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 09:38 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 09:30 PM)Geremia Wrote: So Christ's sending the Paraclete was in vain?

It was the sending of the Paraclete that enabled the Apostles to preach all truth and then commit it to writing.
So more than Scriptures is necessary, then?

As the source of divine revelation?
No. This is precisely the distinction this thread is about.

Newman seems to think that something is added to Revelation to constitute development. I am arguing nothing is added to Revelation when dogma "is committed to writing."
Reply
#99
From another thread, Walty meant to post this here:

(10-27-2012, 04:14 AM)Walty Wrote: This thread has really gotten away from me, but I just want to state that the idea that doctrine develops is not something the Church has ever espoused.  Doctrine ends with the death of the Last Apostle.  We all know that.  And none of us are relativists.  We should all be able to see an issue here.

For those arguing for doctrinal development, could you please post some authoritative sources on this?  Something more authoritative than Cardinal Newman would be great, since there is obviously some question as to what he really means and he's also just one cardinal.

Sure, behold what Newman is talking about at work:

From Nicea I:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father,
Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
By whom all things were made
Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;
He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
And in the Holy Ghost.
But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

Developed into this at Constantinople I:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made;
who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;
he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.
In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Reply
Permit me to quote from Very Rev. Tanquerey's A Manual of Dogmatic Theology:

Volume I, Tract VI: Faith, First Section, Chapter I: The Object of Faith, Article II: The Material Object of Faith, III. The Increase of Dogmas, pp. 211-217

III. The Increase of Dogmas (cf. Major Synopsis, n. 226-252)

339  A  Introductory notes.  We must distinguish two epochs: the first, from the time of Adam to the age of Christ and of the Apostles inclusively; the second, from the time of the [p. 211]
Apostles, that is, from the death of St. John the last of the Apostles, to our days. . . .

2.  In the second epoch, namely, from the end of the Apostolic Age, dogmas in one respect immutable, remain unchangeable, in another respect they take on a growth or progress.

340  B  The Stability of Dogmas.

Thesis: The public revelation of God was so completed in the Apostolic Age that neither a new economy nor a new public revelation is to be looked for.  This thesis is de fide from the universal preaching of the Church.  It stands opposed to Motanists, the Manicheans, the Fraticelli and the Preachers [p. 212] of the eternal gospel in the Middle Ages; it contradicts the Anabaptists and the Irvingites among Protestants.

Proof of Thesis.

I.  Proof from Scripture:

a.  No new economy is to be established, for in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the New Testament is compared to the Old Testament as a perfect and completed testament to an imperfect and incomplete one; (cf. St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, VIII, 7, 13) the kingdom is called firm, immoveable, faultless. (cf. XII, 27-28)  Further, the priesthood of the New Law is not to be revoked (cf. VII, 11 and the following), nor the form of the religion in which it has been established.

b.  New public revelations are not to be looked for.
1.  All that was to be revealed was made known to the Apostles.  "The Spirit of truth will teach you all truth... He will teach you all things." (St. John, XVI, 12-13; XIV, 26)
2.  The Apostles are the guardians and expounders only of the dogmas which have already been revealed.  "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you... O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust." (St. Matthew, XXVIII, 20.  St. Paul's First Epistle to Timothy, VI, 20.  St. Paul's Second Epistle to Timothy, I, 13.)

341  2.  Proof from Tradition:

a.  In the first centuries of the Church it was distinctly believed that nothing could be added to the doctrine which had been handed down by the Apostles.  This is evident from the testimony of St. Clement of Rome, of St. Ignatius, of St. Polycarp, and especially of St. Irenaeus.  He states: "It is not necessary thus far to search among others for the truth which it is so easy to accept from the Church, since [p. 213] the Apostles, like a rich man in a storehouse, have most abundantly gathered together in the Church all those things which belong to the truth." (Adversus Haereses, Book III, chap. 2-4; Book IV, chap. 26.)

b.  It was always the practice of the Church never to appeal to new revelations in order to condemn a heresy or to define a dogma, but rather to examine what was contained in Scripture or in Apostolic Tradition on the matter in question.

c.  The Vatican Council very clearly and expressly stated: "For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles." (D.B., 1836.)

C  The Progress of Dogma.

Errors. -- Many of the early Protestants denied all progress, even any accidental progress, of dogmas.  On the other hand, the Semi-Rationalists, under the leadership of Gunther, admit such progress that, through the help of the sciences and of philosophy, another sense of dogmas can be understood, different from that which the ancient Church defined.  The Modernists go further with their theory of the continuous evolution of dogmas.

1*  THE NATURE OF DOGMATIC PROGRESS

343  Thesis I: Progress of dogmas does not consist in this, that some other sense of meaning is to be attributed to them which is different from the sense understood by the Church.  This thesis is de fide from the Vatican Council: "If any one shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of science, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands, let him be anathema." (cf. D.B., 1818.) [p. 214]

344  Very justly has the Vatican Council solemnly condemned the Guntherian theory which:

1.  conceives the divine depositum as a philosophical doctrine which is to be completed and perfected by human ingenuity;

2.  transfers ecclesiastical magisterium from Bishops to philosophers and, in this way, overthrows the hierarchical order which Christ instituted;

3.  subjects faith to reason;

4.  destroys the infallible authority of the Church and the substantial immutability of dogma.

Those Rationalists and Modernists should be particularly careful who, under the pretext of progress and of criticism, wish to understand dogmas according to a sense which is loftier and more profound than which the Church has thus far understood.

345  Thesis II: Genuine progress of dogmas consists in this only, that a clearer and richer explanation of revealed doctrine is given.  This thesis is certain from the Vatican Council: "Let the intelligence, science, and wisdom of each and all, of individuals and of the whole Church, in all ages and all times, increase and flourish in abundance and vigor; but simply in its own proper kind, that is to say, in one and the same doctrine, one and the same sense, one and the same judgment." (D.B., 1800.)

To be sure, divine revelation, handed down in its totality by the Apostles, was not so entirely and explicitly made clear that no new definitions can be expected in order to explain this revelation; for:

1.  In the sources of revelation certain truths are contained obscurely only and implicitly.  This God most wisely ordained so that men might be induced to devoting their minds more intensively to revelation with the hope of discovering new aspects hidden in the depths of the Christian depositum.

2.  But the Church has the right to define clearly and explicitly those things which are obscure and implicit; this duty she has exercised from the first century.  (Tract on The Church, notes 251 and ff.) [p. 215]

Thus:
a.  In the course of time she enlarged the rule of faith imposed upon the catechumens;
b.  In councils, especially in OEcumenical councils, she defined more clearly, in new formulas, the consubstantiality of the Word, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, etc.  Actually, if in important dogmas there has been some increase, should not even a greater increase be expected in those truths of faiths [SPL: sic?] which are the conclusions and inferences of the fundamental dogmas, for example, in the subject of the cult of Christ, of the Blessed Virgin and of the Saints, etc.?

346  2*  THE MANNER IN WHICH DOGMATIC PROGRESS COMES ABOUT

According to all, dogmas increase at least:

a.  Through a lucid and scientific setting forth of dogmas which formerly were indeed believed explicitly, but in an obscure and popular or common manner.  Thus, the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity was at first indistinctly handed down under this general formula: "I believe in God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit"; then the Church successively defined that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, that the Holy Spirit is to be adored together with the Father and the Son, that the Son proceeds from the Father through way of generation, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, etc.

b.  Dogmas increase through the explicit setting forth of those which are contained only implicitly in the sources of revelation: this is obviously a major progress, namely, progress from implicit faith to explicit faith in regard to truths which are not explicitly to be believed from the necessity of salvation.  So, from the fact that in Christ there is a twofold nature, divine and human, the conclusion follows that there is likewise in Him a twofold will.

c.  Dogmas increase through the skillful and doctrinal setting forth of those which have been taught in passing or [p. 216] practically only: this progress, very similar to the preceding, applies only to secondary truths which it is not necessary to believe explicitly.  Thus, the validity of baptism administered by heretics was not expressly handed down from the beginning, but, when the controversy over this matter arose between St. Cyprian and St. Stephen, the subject was then explicitly defined.

Ther is some dispute as to whether or not progress can take place by defining truths which have been only virtually revealed, so that these truths can be believed and must be believed from divine faith.  This controversy has already been considered in section 326 and ff.

3*  THE CAUSES AND THE OCCASION OF THIS PROGRESS OR INCREASE

347  This progress occurs through the cooperation of God and of men.

a.  The primary efficient cause is the Holy Spirit by means of the assistance He gives; the secondary efficient cause is the Church teaching through her magisterium, ordinary or solemn.

b.  The disposing causes, offering cooperation which is only ministerial and preparatory, are the Fathers, the theologians, and the faithful.

c.  The instrumental cause is reason enlightened by faith.

d.  The occasional causes are the heresies which, by their rise, (according to St. Augustine) bring it about that the truths of faith "are examined more diligently, and are understood more clearly, and are preached more earnestly" (The City of God, L. XVI, C. II, n. 1; P.L., XLI, 477; refer to The Gift of Perseverance, C. XX, n. 53, P.L., XLV, 1026).

e.  The final causes are the glory of God and the sanctification of souls. [p. 217]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)