One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Faith, Religion, Spirituality
What We Learn From the Gratitude of Our Lady
Page 1 of 5 next> last>>
Dec 6, 2018 18:14:11   #
Doc110 Loc: York PA
 
12/05/2018 What We Learn From the Gratitude of Our Lady

Jeannie Ewing

What We Learn From the Gratitude of Our Lady

“You who are most bountiful, do return great favors for small services.”
– St. Andrew of Crete


Weary and hobbling on an ankle I’d just sprained after falling in our front yard, I dragged my daughters Veronica and Felicity to the voting precinct on a blustery, dreary autumn morning.

Veronica, in the throes of toddler-hood, was cranky due to the recent time change, and she was hungry.

Felicity was equally tired and leaning on my shoulder as I stood in line for who knew how long.

The weeks had not been kind to me: Sarah’s behavior had steadily declined, and she had yet to be diagnosed by a psychiatrist.

My husband Ben’s job grew more and more demanding, and the commute on a dangerous highway had become mentally draining.

For me, the fourth pregnancy at an advanced maternal age was not easy.

I had to receive frequent progesterone shots, which were painful, and blood tests every three weeks, as well as allergy shots and check-ups with various specialists.


Standing in line, then, I decided I could take no more.

In desperation, I prayed to Our Lady, “Please, dear Mother, please help me get through this line without any tantrums or major issues.”

Not surprisingly, she interceded for me.

It was unusual for me to take Veronica anywhere those days without her erupting into a major meltdown, but she remained calm and fairly content as I meandered through the voting line.

Should it surprise any of us, then, when we ask the Blessed Mother for favors, both great and small?

St. Alphonsus Liguori wrote in The Glories of Mary that merely greeting her with, “Hail, Mary” is enough to beckon her to our assistance for anything we need.

Praying one Hail Mary with sincere devotion is more than enough for her gratuitous favors, lavished upon our lives like spring rain showers.



Here are some lessons we can glean from Our Lady’s overwhelming gratitude to God:

She Is Generous to Us As God Was Generous to Her

“Then the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God”
(Luke 1: 30).

There is nothing Mary refuses a soul that is sincere, humble, and approaches her with genuine need.

'Authentic relationship of any kind requires vulnerability, and when we choose to open our hearts to her, she softens as any mother does, responding to us with whatever we need.

Consider moments in your life when you’ve asked a favor of Mary, and she never fails to deliver — often beyond our expectations or even desires.



Her Gratitude Is Sincere

“Gratitude of itself makes us sincere – or if it does not, then it is not true gratitude.”

– Thomas Merton

“He has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness” (Luke 1: 48).


If one reads the entire Magnificat prayer, it’s evident that Mary was pouring her heart to God in gratitude for the blessings of her life.

She had just received word that she was chosen to be the Mother of God, and after she accepted, her heart was flooded with thankfulness, expressed by praising and honoring God, reflecting upon her lowliness, and considering how God’s mercy is abundant to all those who are poor in spirit.


If we wish to imitate her, we must likewise make our lives a continual prayer of praise to God, recalling all of the ways He has blessed us with His incredible mercy and frequently reflecting upon His goodness.



She Is Always Responsive

“Gratitude therefore takes nothing for granted, is never unresponsive, is constantly awakening to new wonder and to praise of the goodness of God.”

– Thomas Merton

“My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior”
(Luke 1: 46-47).

One who practices grateful living is not glum and does not hang his head and wear a frown every day. Instead, a grateful person is:

Cheerful;
Kind;
Generous;
Helpful;
Welcoming;
Friendly;
Responsive to others’ needs.


These, and far more, exemplify the life of gratitude that Our Blessed Mother emanated with every fiber of her being. '

Despite how we feel, do we greet people with a smile and friendly wave or hello? If so, we are practicing the same gratitude of Our Lady.



'She Recognized That Everything Comes From God

“To be grateful is to recognize the Love of God in everything He has given us – and He has given us everything.”

– Thomas Merton

“The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name”
(Luke 1: 49).

One who grumbles and gripes about every little disappointment is not a person of gratitude.

It’s easy to get bogged down with the burdens of life; everywhere we turn, there’s some major national disaster or tragedy staring us in the face.

We cannot avoid the reality of suffering or of the effects of the human condition.

But we can choose to acknowledge that nothing happens in the world, or in our lives, without first passing through God’s hands.

That truth is hard to accept, because it means we have to wonder why God, who is perfect Love, would permit such horrific and disturbing pain.

When we trust with the heart of Mary, we don’t have to have all the answers to our questions.

We simply see God for who He is and thank Him for every good gift and cumbersome calamity alike.

A grateful heart is one that continually hopes, seeks what is good, and recognizes the beauty of life.

Reply
Dec 6, 2018 18:43:46   #
Rose42
 
Mary can't hear prayers. She is dead.

Exposing the Heresy of Mary worship/veneration

After his prophetic vision of the eternal glories of heaven at the end of the book of Revelation, the apostle John described how he was overwhelmed by what he’d seen.

And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. But he said to me, “Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God.” (Revelation22:8-9)

The Roman Catholic Church has committed the same error as John, promoting a mere citizen of heaven to an improper place of authority and honor. Despite the overwhelming testimony of Scripture, the Catholic Church has elevated Mary—a self-described servant of the Lord (Luke 1:38)—to the same level as God, if not higher.

In his Ineffabilis Deus in 1854, Pope Pius IX established as dogma the immaculate conception of Mary, which preserved her from inheriting original sin. His concluding statements provide a good summary of the Catholic view of Mary.

Let all the children of the Catholic Church, who are so very dear to us, hear these words of ours. With a still more ardent zeal for piety, religion and love, let them continue to venerate, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, conceived without original sin. Let them fly with utter confidence to this most sweet Mother of mercy and grace in all dangers, difficulties, needs, doubts and fears. Under her guidance, under her patronage, under her kindness and protection, nothing is to be feared; nothing is hopeless. Because, while bearing toward us a truly motherly affection and having in her care the work of our salvation, she is solicitous about the whole human race. And since she has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth, and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and saints, and even stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains. Her pleas can never be unheard.

Those words are echoed and expanded on throughout Roman Catholic history. Tradition dictates that Mary is part of the monarchy of heaven, soliciting grace and mercy from the Lord on behalf of sinners, and covering sin by distributing from her Treasury of Merit. She became a co-redeemer with Christ in His suffering on the cross, and is now a co-mediator alongside Him in heaven—essentially an alternative avenue of access to God. She replaces the Holy Spirit in bestowing aid and comfort to believers. In effect, she becomes an additional member of the Trinity.

That blasphemy stands in sharp contrast to what Scripture actually says about Mary, and even what she says about herself. Luke 1:46-55 records her humble reaction to the news that she would give birth to the Son of God.

And Mary said: “My soul exalts the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; for behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed. For the Mighty One has done great things for me; and holy is His name. And His mercy is upon generation after generation toward those who fear Him. He has done mighty deeds with His arm; He has scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart. He has brought down rulers from their thrones, and has exalted those who were humble. He has filled the hungry with good things; and sent away the rich empty-handed. He has given help to Israel His servant, in remembrance of His mercy, as He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and his descendants forever.”

The God she praised—the God of the Bible—does not need to be coaxed or wooed to distribute His blessings. He’s not harsh, distant, or indifferent—He’s gracious, righteous, and merciful. Rather than glorifying herself, she humbly worshiped the Lord.

Scripture actually has very little to say about Mary. There’s no description of her physical appearance, nothing about her life, her later years after Christ’s death, or her own death and burial. And when she does briefly appear with the disciples and the other believers on the day of Pentecost, she’s not an object of worship or even a leader in the early church—she’s just one among many. There simply are no biblical examples of anyone ever praying to her, honoring her, or venerating her.

Nor does she play a role in any biblical explanation of the gospel. Paul wrote a magnificent treatise on the doctrine of salvation that we know as the book of Romans, and all he said about the mother of Jesus is that she was “a descendent of David” (Romans 1:3). He’s even less specific in Galatians, another lengthy exposition of the pure, true gospel in which he simply said that Christ was “born of a woman” (Galatians 4:4).

Contrast that with the unending Catholic volumes on the life of Mary, the miracles of Mary, the death of Mary, the apparitions of Mary, and on and on it goes. That’s why it’s often a shock for Catholics to read the Bible and see how little is actually said about Mary.

But that’s what happens when you elevate tradition to the level of Scripture and ascribe to men the infallible characteristics that only belong to God. It warps the truth of Scripture and distorts the Person and work of Jesus Christ.

God alone is our Redeemer, our Deliverer, our Benefactor, and our Comforter. He alone is to be worshiped, venerated, adored, and petitioned. The testimony of Scripture is clear.

Gather yourselves and come; draw near together, you fugitives of the nations; they have no knowledge, who carry about their wooden idol and pray to a god who cannot save. Declare and set forth your case; indeed, let them consult together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the Lord? And there is no other God besides Me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none except Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. (Isaiah 45:20-22)


https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B130227/~

Reply
Dec 6, 2018 19:57:36   #
Doc110 Loc: York PA
 
Rose stop being a minion's ass . . .

We catholics believe in Saints, Angels and Our Blessed Mother.

There have been so many profound Marian apparitions.

You can provide all argumentation that you want,

a. There is nothing Her Son-Jesus will not do for his mother,
b. There is nothing The Father will not do for his daughter
c. And There is nothing that the Holy Spirit will not do for the Holy Family.

Hummmmm rose42 it seems that you made an oxymoronic statement again.

The Soul never dies, Try disproving the Marian Apparitions . . . and profound messages and warnings she has given.

It defies all science and protestant logic.

You bought into the Protestant kool-aid

You really are a hate-filled person.

I really would not to meet you in real life . . .

I think I will start attacking your protestant faith through a comparison chart and start pointing out your heresies.



Rose42 wrote:


Mary can't hear prayers. She is dead.

Exposing the Heresy of Mary worship/veneration

After his prophetic vision of the eternal glories of heaven at the end of the book of Revelation, the apostle John described how he was overwhelmed by what he’d seen.

And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. But he said to me, “Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God.” (Revelation22:8-9)

The Roman Catholic Church has committed the same error as John, promoting a mere citizen of heaven to an improper place of authority and honor. Despite the overwhelming testimony of Scripture, the Catholic Church has elevated Mary—a self-described servant of the Lord (Luke 1:38)—to the same level as God, if not higher.

In his Ineffabilis Deus in 1854, Pope Pius IX established as dogma the immaculate conception of Mary, which preserved her from inheriting original sin. His concluding statements provide a good summary of the Catholic view of Mary.

Let all the children of the Catholic Church, who are so very dear to us, hear these words of ours. With a still more ardent zeal for piety, religion and love, let them continue to venerate, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, conceived without original sin. Let them fly with utter confidence to this most sweet Mother of mercy and grace in all dangers, difficulties, needs, doubts and fears. Under her guidance, under her patronage, under her kindness and protection, nothing is to be feared; nothing is hopeless. Because, while bearing toward us a truly motherly affection and having in her care the work of our salvation, she is solicitous about the whole human race. And since she has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth, and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and saints, and even stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains. Her pleas can never be unheard.

Those words are echoed and expanded on throughout Roman Catholic history. Tradition dictates that Mary is part of the monarchy of heaven, soliciting grace and mercy from the Lord on behalf of sinners, and covering sin by distributing from her Treasury of Merit. She became a co-redeemer with Christ in His suffering on the cross, and is now a co-mediator alongside Him in heaven—essentially an alternative avenue of access to God. She replaces the Holy Spirit in bestowing aid and comfort to believers. In effect, she becomes an additional member of the Trinity.

That blasphemy stands in sharp contrast to what Scripture actually says about Mary, and even what she says about herself. Luke 1:46-55 records her humble reaction to the news that she would give birth to the Son of God.

And Mary said: “My soul exalts the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; for behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed. For the Mighty One has done great things for me; and holy is His name. And His mercy is upon generation after generation toward those who fear Him. He has done mighty deeds with His arm; He has scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart. He has brought down rulers from their thrones, and has exalted those who were humble. He has filled the hungry with good things; and sent away the rich empty-handed. He has given help to Israel His servant, in remembrance of His mercy, as He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and his descendants forever.”

The God she praised—the God of the Bible—does not need to be coaxed or wooed to distribute His blessings. He’s not harsh, distant, or indifferent—He’s gracious, righteous, and merciful. Rather than glorifying herself, she humbly worshiped the Lord.

Scripture actually has very little to say about Mary. There’s no description of her physical appearance, nothing about her life, her later years after Christ’s death, or her own death and burial. And when she does briefly appear with the disciples and the other believers on the day of Pentecost, she’s not an object of worship or even a leader in the early church—she’s just one among many. There simply are no biblical examples of anyone ever praying to her, honoring her, or venerating her.

Nor does she play a role in any biblical explanation of the gospel. Paul wrote a magnificent treatise on the doctrine of salvation that we know as the book of Romans, and all he said about the mother of Jesus is that she was “a descendent of David” (Romans 1:3). He’s even less specific in Galatians, another lengthy exposition of the pure, true gospel in which he simply said that Christ was “born of a woman” (Galatians 4:4).

Contrast that with the unending Catholic volumes on the life of Mary, the miracles of Mary, the death of Mary, the apparitions of Mary, and on and on it goes. That’s why it’s often a shock for Catholics to read the Bible and see how little is actually said about Mary.

But that’s what happens when you elevate tradition to the level of Scripture and ascribe to men the infallible characteristics that only belong to God. It warps the truth of Scripture and distorts the Person and work of Jesus Christ.

God alone is our Redeemer, our Deliverer, our Benefactor, and our Comforter. He alone is to be worshiped, venerated, adored, and petitioned. The testimony of Scripture is clear.

Gather yourselves and come; draw near together, you fugitives of the nations; they have no knowledge, who carry about their wooden idol and pray to a god who cannot save. Declare and set forth your case; indeed, let them consult together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the Lord? And there is no other God besides Me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none except Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. (Isaiah 45:20-22)


https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B130227/~
br br Mary can't hear prayers. She is dead. b... (show quote)





Reply
 
 
Dec 6, 2018 20:01:58   #
Doc110 Loc: York PA
 
rose, you throw out words like heresies, idol worshipers, etc. like it's bath water,

You've become dull and mundane

Respond with facts, Facts, FACTs, no Supposition's, Innuendo's, Exaggeration's of your own Personal Emotional Belief's, Hypocritical Truth's, Empty Rhetoric devoid of Real Factual Substance and full of Regurgitated Dendrite Compost Opinions.

Not accusations.

Offer real definitive proof, other than that you are a blood-sucking tick . . . vermin.


Rose42 wrote:
Mary can't hear prayers. She is dead.

Exposing the Heresy of Mary worship/veneration

After his prophetic vision of the eternal glories of heaven at the end of the book of Revelation, the apostle John described how he was overwhelmed by what he’d seen.

And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. But he said to me, “Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God.” (Revelation22:8-9)

The Roman Catholic Church has committed the same error as John, promoting a mere citizen of heaven to an improper place of authority and honor. Despite the overwhelming testimony of Scripture, the Catholic Church has elevated Mary—a self-described servant of the Lord (Luke 1:38)—to the same level as God, if not higher.

In his Ineffabilis Deus in 1854, Pope Pius IX established as dogma the immaculate conception of Mary, which preserved her from inheriting original sin. His concluding statements provide a good summary of the Catholic view of Mary.

Let all the children of the Catholic Church, who are so very dear to us, hear these words of ours. With a still more ardent zeal for piety, religion and love, let them continue to venerate, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, conceived without original sin. Let them fly with utter confidence to this most sweet Mother of mercy and grace in all dangers, difficulties, needs, doubts and fears. Under her guidance, under her patronage, under her kindness and protection, nothing is to be feared; nothing is hopeless. Because, while bearing toward us a truly motherly affection and having in her care the work of our salvation, she is solicitous about the whole human race. And since she has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth, and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and saints, and even stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains. Her pleas can never be unheard.

Those words are echoed and expanded on throughout Roman Catholic history. Tradition dictates that Mary is part of the monarchy of heaven, soliciting grace and mercy from the Lord on behalf of sinners, and covering sin by distributing from her Treasury of Merit. She became a co-redeemer with Christ in His suffering on the cross, and is now a co-mediator alongside Him in heaven—essentially an alternative avenue of access to God. She replaces the Holy Spirit in bestowing aid and comfort to believers. In effect, she becomes an additional member of the Trinity.

That blasphemy stands in sharp contrast to what Scripture actually says about Mary, and even what she says about herself. Luke 1:46-55 records her humble reaction to the news that she would give birth to the Son of God.

And Mary said: “My soul exalts the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; for behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed. For the Mighty One has done great things for me; and holy is His name. And His mercy is upon generation after generation toward those who fear Him. He has done mighty deeds with His arm; He has scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart. He has brought down rulers from their thrones, and has exalted those who were humble. He has filled the hungry with good things; and sent away the rich empty-handed. He has given help to Israel His servant, in remembrance of His mercy, as He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and his descendants forever.”

The God she praised—the God of the Bible—does not need to be coaxed or wooed to distribute His blessings. He’s not harsh, distant, or indifferent—He’s gracious, righteous, and merciful. Rather than glorifying herself, she humbly worshiped the Lord.

Scripture actually has very little to say about Mary. There’s no description of her physical appearance, nothing about her life, her later years after Christ’s death, or her own death and burial. And when she does briefly appear with the disciples and the other believers on the day of Pentecost, she’s not an object of worship or even a leader in the early church—she’s just one among many. There simply are no biblical examples of anyone ever praying to her, honoring her, or venerating her.

Nor does she play a role in any biblical explanation of the gospel. Paul wrote a magnificent treatise on the doctrine of salvation that we know as the book of Romans, and all he said about the mother of Jesus is that she was “a descendent of David” (Romans 1:3). He’s even less specific in Galatians, another lengthy exposition of the pure, true gospel in which he simply said that Christ was “born of a woman” (Galatians 4:4).

Contrast that with the unending Catholic volumes on the life of Mary, the miracles of Mary, the death of Mary, the apparitions of Mary, and on and on it goes. That’s why it’s often a shock for Catholics to read the Bible and see how little is actually said about Mary.

But that’s what happens when you elevate tradition to the level of Scripture and ascribe to men the infallible characteristics that only belong to God. It warps the truth of Scripture and distorts the Person and work of Jesus Christ.

God alone is our Redeemer, our Deliverer, our Benefactor, and our Comforter. He alone is to be worshiped, venerated, adored, and petitioned. The testimony of Scripture is clear.

Gather yourselves and come; draw near together, you fugitives of the nations; they have no knowledge, who carry about their wooden idol and pray to a god who cannot save. Declare and set forth your case; indeed, let them consult together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the Lord? And there is no other God besides Me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none except Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. (Isaiah 45:20-22)


https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B130227/~
Mary can't hear prayers. She is dead. br br Ex... (show quote)

Reply
Dec 7, 2018 09:01:46   #
Rose42
 
The council of Trent was in response to the Reformation because the Reformers exposed Catholic heresies and the Catholic church had to fabricate doctrine to defend it.

"... it’s often a shock for Catholics to read the Bible and see how little is actually said about Mary.

But that’s what happens when you elevate tradition to the level of Scripture and ascribe to men the infallible characteristics that only belong to God. It warps the truth of Scripture and distorts the Person and work of Jesus Christ.

God alone is our Redeemer, our Deliverer, our Benefactor, and our Comforter. He alone is to be worshiped, venerated, adored, and petitioned. The testimony of Scripture is clear."

Reply
Dec 7, 2018 10:03:55   #
bahmer
 
Rose42 wrote:
The council of Trent was in response to the Reformation because the Reformers exposed Catholic heresies and the Catholic church had to fabricate doctrine to defend it.

"... it’s often a shock for Catholics to read the Bible and see how little is actually said about Mary.

But that’s what happens when you elevate tradition to the level of Scripture and ascribe to men the infallible characteristics that only belong to God. It warps the truth of Scripture and distorts the Person and work of Jesus Christ.

God alone is our Redeemer, our Deliverer, our Benefactor, and our Comforter. He alone is to be worshiped, venerated, adored, and petitioned. The testimony of Scripture is clear."
The council of Trent was in response to the Reform... (show quote)


Amen and Amen

Reply
Dec 7, 2018 13:28:04   #
Doc110 Loc: York PA
 
rose42

What is with your polemicist beliefs . . . . problem ?

Contentious argument that is intended to establish the truth of a specific belief and the falsity of the contrary belief


Why are you such a disbelieving simpleton ?

Why not join the Catholic Church and the True faith in Jesus Christ . . .

I will Give you several reason.

The Development of Doctrine, Is Catholic teaching a corruption of the “simple” Gospel ? (Part 1)

Brendan Murphy
https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/ByIssue/Article/TabId/735/ArtMID/13636/ArticleID/9477/The-Development-of-Doctrine.aspx
https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/ByIssue/Article/TabId/735/PID/13636/authorid/1038/AuthorName/BrendanMurphy/Default.aspx



Our Protestant brothers and sisters often wonder at the complexity of Catholic doctrine.

In particular, they may find it difficult to reconcile what they view as the “simplicity” of Jesus’ teachings with those of the Church today.

These Christians recognize — and Catholics acknowledge — that not all the Church’s teachings are explicitly found in Scripture or the preaching of the early Fathers.

Some doctrines were not stated fully and clearly until much later in the life of the Church.


As a result, many Protestants conclude that Catholic teaching is a corruption of the original Gospel message.

Catholics, on the other hand, see the doctrines of the Church as the necessary and logical development of the Gospel.

Their growth in richness and complexity represents the change from an embryonic form into maturity.


But how are we to demonstrate whether or not a particular doctrine (or body of doctrines) is a genuine development and not a corruption of the Christian faith?


One Catholic theologian who sought to provide an answer to this question was the eminent English convert Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801-1890).

Newman identified seven “notes” or characteristics of authentic developments, as opposed to doctrinal corruptions, in his famous work “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine”

(University of Notre Dame, 1989; page numbers below refer to citations from this edition). Let’s examine these characteristics one at a time.



Unity of Type:

The first note of genuine development Newman calls unity of type.

He considered this first criterion the most important of the seven.

What he means by type is the external expression of an idea.

The unity or preservation of type refers to the continual presence of a main idea despite its changing external expression.

When we see change in the teaching on a subject, can we discern nevertheless that the main idea remains unchanged?

If so, we know that the change is a genuine development, not a corruption.

Newman warns that the presence of any alteration in the external expression of an idea shouldn’t lead us to conclude that it’s a corruption, instead of a development, of the essential idea.

To illustrate this point, he uses the “analogy of physical growth, which is such that the parts and proportions of the developed form, however altered, correspond to those which belong to its rudiments” (p. 171).

In this sense, a full-grown bird is the development of an egg and not its corruption, even though they bear little physical resemblance to one another.

Newman offers the further caveat that many times “real perversions and corruptions are often not so unlike externally to the doctrine from which they come, as are changes which are consistent with it and true developments” (p. 176).

In fact, according to Newman, a major source of religious corruption is clutching too tightly to doctrines at one stage of their development and refusing to allow their future growth.

He notes that some of the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus’ time illustrated this problem. Christ frequently condemned them for following the letter of the law, but not its spirit — that is, its development.



Continuity of Principles:

The second note of genuine development is continuity of principles.

Newman insists that for a development to be faithful, it must preserve the principle with which it started.

While doctrine may grow and develop, principles are permanent.

Newman identifies the Incarnation as the fundamental truth of the Gospel.

Then he goes on to identify nine principles of the Christian religion: dogma, faith, theology, sacraments, Scripture and its mystical interpretation, grace, asceticism, the harm of sin, and the potential of matter to be sanctified.

In reference to these principles, Newman says:

“While the development of doctrine in the Church has been in accordance with, or in consequence of, these immemorial principles, the various heresies.

Which have from time to time arisen, have in one respect or other, as might be expected, violated those principles with which she rose into existence, and which she still retains.”
(p. 354)

The fifth-century theological movement known as Pelagianism provides an example of teaching that contradicted one of these principles.

Pelagians denied the reality of original sin and, as a consequence, denied that our salvation required any grace beyond what is already given us in human nature.

As a result, the Church recognized the movement as a heretical corruption rather than a development of the Christian faith, and so condemned its teachings.



Power of Assimilation:

The third note of genuine development is power of assimilation.

In introducing this criterion, Newman notes that in the physical world living things are characterized by growth, not stagnancy, and that this growth comes about by making use of external things.

For example, as human beings we grow by taking into our bodies external realities such as food, water and air.

In Newman’s terminology, then, when we make use of these re-sources we are assimilating them.

The food, water and air we consume don’t change who or what we are in any meaningful way.

Rather, they serve a valuable function in that they ensure our continued growth and vitality.

For Newman, a true doctrinal development is capable of assimilating external realities (such as non-Christian philosophical concepts, customs or rites) without in any way violating its principles.

In fact, in the process of assimilation it’s the external realities themselves that are transformed (once they are assimilated), not the doctrine.

In Newman’s view, the more powerful, independent and vigorous the idea, the greater its power to assimilate external ideas and concepts without losing its identity.

In the ancient Church, for example, Christian theology came to make use of philosophical terms and categories from contemporary Greek culture.

These forms of thought were employed to refine the precision of doctrinal formulations, helping the Church to define more clearly what she believed.

Logical Sequence:

The fourth note of genuine development is logical sequence.

By this Newman means that a doctrine that’s defined and professed by the Church at a point historically distant from its original founding can be considered a development, and not a corruption, if it can be shown to be the logical outcome of the original teaching.

Newman compares this process to the growth of a tree.

Someone looking at an oak tree could very easily draw the conclusion that it has nothing at all in common with an acorn.

Yet the mature oak tree is the logical development of the acorn.

Over time an acorn grows roots, bursts forth from the soil, begins to soar toward the sun, develops branches and grows leaves.

Each step along the way is the logical development of the previous step. Thus it is with the authentic development of doctrines as well.

One example Newman gives of a development through logical sequence is the dogma of purgatory. The original teaching of Christ and the apostles included the insistence that perfection is necessary to enter heaven and enjoy God’s immediate presence.

Yet the reality is that many who die in friendship with God, though ultimately destined for heaven, are far from perfect at that point.

So the need for a purging process after death, before entrance into heaven, is logically implied.


Anticipation of Its Future:

The fifth note of genuine development, which could be seen as a corollary of the previous one, is anticipation of its future.

Doctrines in some way imply or allude to their later development.

So authentic developments will have some logical connection to the original deposit of faith, however vague the “embryonic” form might have been in the earliest days of the Church.

For example, the Church solemnly declared at the fourth-century Council of Nicaea that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was himself truly and fully God, one in substance (or being) with the Father.

Such a declaration is nowhere found explicitly in Scripture.

Yet it expounded a point of doctrine that was implied by Scripture and the ancient baptismal formula of the Church.


Conservative Action:

The sixth note of genuine development is conservative action upon its past.

In other words, a development is not a corruption if the doctrine proposed builds upon the doctrinal developments that precede it, often clarifying and strengthening them.

A corrupt doctrine, on the other hand, is one that contradicts or reverses a preceding doctrinal development.

The differences between the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed are a perfect illustration of this criterion.

When we compare the two creeds we realize that, while the Nicene Creed is significantly longer, it in no way reverses the tenets of the Apostles’ Creed.

In fact, the former strengthens and expounds upon the points of the latter.


Chronic Vigor:

The seventh note of genuine development is chronic — that is, abiding — vigor.

As long as a doctrine maintains its life and vigor, its ongoing development is assured.

However, once a corruption enters into the process, it leads, by its nature, to death and decay.

Corrupted doctrines fail to display much historical longevity and ultimately die off.

As Newman says, “The course of heresies is always short;

It is an intermediate state between life and death, or what is like death;

Or, if it does not result in death, it is resolved into some new, perhaps opposite, course of error, which lays no claim to be connected with it.”
(p. 204)

In other words, once the original burst of apparent vitality wears itself out, many times the only thing left of a heresy is its external form.

This form, however, is more like a corpse than a living thing.

To take Pelagianism once more as an example, this heresy thrived only briefly, quickly dying off within 150 years.

A final observation:

In general, the seven notes are best applied to the entire process of doctrinal growth in the Church, though it’s certainly possible to apply some of the criteria to individual doctrines.


Necessary Change:

When we talk with our Protestant friends about the development of doctrine, we should point out that nearly every Christian tradition accepts this reality in some form or another.

For example, the Nicene Creed’s profession of the Blessed Trinity doesn’t appear explicitly in Scripture;

Instead, it’s a development of truths found in Scripture. Yet most Protestant denominations affirm this doctrine.

Newman’s seven criteria help us see that some kinds of doctrinal change, resulting in greater complexity, are not only legitimate but also necessary.

To borrow Newman’s analogy:

An acorn that somehow changed into a walnut would be a mutation.

But an acorn that never developed into an oak would be lifeless.

So it is with the “acorn” of the Gospel. TCA

Brendan Murphy lives in Carbondale, Pa., with his wife, Heather, and their two children. He has an M.A. in Systematic Theology from Fordham University.

Tags:
Church History,
https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/ByIssue/Article/TabId/735/PID/13636/TagID/36/TagName/ChurchHistory/Default.aspx

Doctrine,
https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/ByIssue/Article/TabId/735/PID/13636/TagID/157/TagName/Doctrine/Default.aspx

Gospels,
https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/ByIssue/Article/TabId/735/PID/13636/TagID/157/TagName/Doctrine/Default.aspx

Blessed John Henry Newman
https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/ByIssue/Article/TabId/735/PID/13636/TagID/1253/TagName/BlessedJohnHenryNewman/Default.aspx

Related articles
The worst sinners who became saints
https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/ByIssue/Article/TabId/735/ArtMID/13636/ArticleID/9813/The-worst-sinners-who-became-saints.aspx

Did the Council of Trent Change the Church?
https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/ByIssue/Article/TabId/735/ArtMID/13636/ArticleID/2565/Did-the-Council-of-Trent-Change-the-Church.aspx

What Is Father Wearing?
https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/ByIssue/Article/TabId/735/ArtMID/13636/ArticleID/16546/What-Is-Father-Wearing.aspx

From Ashes to Ashes
https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/ByIssue/Article/TabId/735/ArtMID/13636/ArticleID/14007/From-Ashes-to-Ashes.aspx

Mark, the Gospel of Miracles
https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/ByIssue/Article/TabId/735/ArtMID/13636/ArticleID/6176/Mark-the-Gospel-of-Miracles.aspx


Rose42 wrote:


The council of Trent was in response to the Reformation because the Reformers exposed Catholic heresies and the Catholic church had to fabricate doctrine to defend it.

"... it’s often a shock for Catholics to read the Bible and see how little is actually said about Mary.

But that’s what happens when you elevate tradition to the level of Scripture and ascribe to men the infallible characteristics that only belong to God. It warps the truth of Scripture and distorts the Person and work of Jesus Christ.

God alone is our Redeemer, our Deliverer, our Benefactor, and our Comforter. He alone is to be worshiped, venerated, adored, and petitioned. The testimony of Scripture is clear."
br br The council of Trent was in response to th... (show quote)

Reply
 
 
Dec 7, 2018 13:41:06   #
Doc110 Loc: York PA
 
Balmer the girl cheerleader, sycophant AOG lapdog.

Chew on this for a while.


Does your Assembly of God Church have these 8 Guiding doctrinal principles . . . have this type doctrinal affirmation. The answer. . . . No . . .

You Protestants don't know what to believe, thats because you follow a dead religion, . . . a man-Made false religious doctrine called Sola Scriptura . . . .

1. Unity of Type
2. Continuity of Principles
3. Power of Assimilation
4. Logical Sequence
5. Anticipation of Its Future
6. Conservative Action
7. Chronic Vigor
8. Necessary Change


Our Protestant brothers and sisters often wonder at the complexity of Catholic doctrine.

In particular, they may find it difficult to reconcile what they view as the “simplicity” of Jesus’ teachings with those of the Church today.

These Christians recognize — and Catholics acknowledge — that not all the Church’s teachings are explicitly found in Scripture or the preaching of the early Fathers.

Some doctrines were not stated fully and clearly until much later in the life of the Church.


As a result, many Protestants conclude that Catholic teaching is a corruption of the original Gospel message.

Catholics, on the other hand, see the doctrines of the Church as the necessary and logical development of the Gospel.

Their growth in richness and complexity represents the change from an embryonic form into maturity.


But how are we to demonstrate whether or not a particular doctrine (or body of doctrines) is a genuine development and not a corruption of the Christian faith?


One Catholic theologian who sought to provide an answer to this question was the eminent English convert Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801-1890).

Newman identified seven “notes” or characteristics of authentic developments, as opposed to doctrinal corruptions, in his famous work “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine”

(University of Notre Dame, 1989; page numbers below refer to citations from this edition). Let’s examine these characteristics one at a time.



Unity of Type:

The first note of genuine development Newman calls unity of type.

He considered this first criterion the most important of the seven.

What he means by type is the external expression of an idea.

The unity or preservation of type refers to the continual presence of a main idea despite its changing external expression.

When we see change in the teaching on a subject, can we discern nevertheless that the main idea remains unchanged?

If so, we know that the change is a genuine development, not a corruption.

Newman warns that the presence of any alteration in the external expression of an idea shouldn’t lead us to conclude that it’s a corruption, instead of a development, of the essential idea.

To illustrate this point, he uses the “analogy of physical growth, which is such that the parts and proportions of the developed form, however altered, correspond to those which belong to its rudiments” (p. 171).

In this sense, a full-grown bird is the development of an egg and not its corruption, even though they bear little physical resemblance to one another.

Newman offers the further caveat that many times “real perversions and corruptions are often not so unlike externally to the doctrine from which they come, as are changes which are consistent with it and true developments” (p. 176).

In fact, according to Newman, a major source of religious corruption is clutching too tightly to doctrines at one stage of their development and refusing to allow their future growth.

He notes that some of the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus’ time illustrated this problem. Christ frequently condemned them for following the letter of the law, but not its spirit — that is, its development.



Continuity of Principles:

The second note of genuine development is continuity of principles.

Newman insists that for a development to be faithful, it must preserve the principle with which it started.

While doctrine may grow and develop, principles are permanent.

Newman identifies the Incarnation as the fundamental truth of the Gospel.

Then he goes on to identify nine principles of the Christian religion: dogma, faith, theology, sacraments, Scripture and its mystical interpretation, grace, asceticism, the harm of sin, and the potential of matter to be sanctified.

In reference to these principles, Newman says:

“While the development of doctrine in the Church has been in accordance with, or in consequence of, these immemorial principles, the various heresies.

Which have from time to time arisen, have in one respect or other, as might be expected, violated those principles with which she rose into existence, and which she still retains.”
(p. 354)

The fifth-century theological movement known as Pelagianism provides an example of teaching that contradicted one of these principles.

Pelagians denied the reality of original sin and, as a consequence, denied that our salvation required any grace beyond what is already given us in human nature.

As a result, the Church recognized the movement as a heretical corruption rather than a development of the Christian faith, and so condemned its teachings.



Power of Assimilation:

The third note of genuine development is power of assimilation.

In introducing this criterion, Newman notes that in the physical world living things are characterized by growth, not stagnancy, and that this growth comes about by making use of external things.

For example, as human beings we grow by taking into our bodies external realities such as food, water and air.

In Newman’s terminology, then, when we make use of these re-sources we are assimilating them.

The food, water and air we consume don’t change who or what we are in any meaningful way.

Rather, they serve a valuable function in that they ensure our continued growth and vitality.

For Newman, a true doctrinal development is capable of assimilating external realities (such as non-Christian philosophical concepts, customs or rites) without in any way violating its principles.

In fact, in the process of assimilation it’s the external realities themselves that are transformed (once they are assimilated), not the doctrine.

In Newman’s view, the more powerful, independent and vigorous the idea, the greater its power to assimilate external ideas and concepts without losing its identity.

In the ancient Church, for example, Christian theology came to make use of philosophical terms and categories from contemporary Greek culture.

These forms of thought were employed to refine the precision of doctrinal formulations, helping the Church to define more clearly what she believed.

Logical Sequence:

The fourth note of genuine development is logical sequence.

By this Newman means that a doctrine that’s defined and professed by the Church at a point historically distant from its original founding can be considered a development, and not a corruption, if it can be shown to be the logical outcome of the original teaching.

Newman compares this process to the growth of a tree.

Someone looking at an oak tree could very easily draw the conclusion that it has nothing at all in common with an acorn.

Yet the mature oak tree is the logical development of the acorn.

Over time an acorn grows roots, bursts forth from the soil, begins to soar toward the sun, develops branches and grows leaves.

Each step along the way is the logical development of the previous step. Thus it is with the authentic development of doctrines as well.

One example Newman gives of a development through logical sequence is the dogma of purgatory. The original teaching of Christ and the apostles included the insistence that perfection is necessary to enter heaven and enjoy God’s immediate presence.

Yet the reality is that many who die in friendship with God, though ultimately destined for heaven, are far from perfect at that point.

So the need for a purging process after death, before entrance into heaven, is logically implied.


Anticipation of Its Future:

The fifth note of genuine development, which could be seen as a corollary of the previous one, is anticipation of its future.

Doctrines in some way imply or allude to their later development.

So authentic developments will have some logical connection to the original deposit of faith, however vague the “embryonic” form might have been in the earliest days of the Church.

For example, the Church solemnly declared at the fourth-century Council of Nicaea that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was himself truly and fully God, one in substance (or being) with the Father.

Such a declaration is nowhere found explicitly in Scripture.

Yet it expounded a point of doctrine that was implied by Scripture and the ancient baptismal formula of the Church.


Conservative Action:

The sixth note of genuine development is conservative action upon its past.

In other words, a development is not a corruption if the doctrine proposed builds upon the doctrinal developments that precede it, often clarifying and strengthening them.

A corrupt doctrine, on the other hand, is one that contradicts or reverses a preceding doctrinal development.

The differences between the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed are a perfect illustration of this criterion.

When we compare the two creeds we realize that, while the Nicene Creed is significantly longer, it in no way reverses the tenets of the Apostles’ Creed.

In fact, the former strengthens and expounds upon the points of the latter.


Chronic Vigor:

The seventh note of genuine development is chronic — that is, abiding — vigor.

As long as a doctrine maintains its life and vigor, its ongoing development is assured.

However, once a corruption enters into the process, it leads, by its nature, to death and decay.

Corrupted doctrines fail to display much historical longevity and ultimately die off.

As Newman says, “The course of heresies is always short;

It is an intermediate state between life and death, or what is like death;

Or, if it does not result in death, it is resolved into some new, perhaps opposite, course of error, which lays no claim to be connected with it.”
(p. 204)

In other words, once the original burst of apparent vitality wears itself out, many times the only thing left of a heresy is its external form.

This form, however, is more like a corpse than a living thing.

To take Pelagianism once more as an example, this heresy thrived only briefly, quickly dying off within 150 years.

A final observation:

In general, the seven notes are best applied to the entire process of doctrinal growth in the Church, though it’s certainly possible to apply some of the criteria to individual doctrines.


Necessary Change:

When we talk with our Protestant friends about the development of doctrine, we should point out that nearly every Christian tradition accepts this reality in some form or another.

For example, the Nicene Creed’s profession of the Blessed Trinity doesn’t appear explicitly in Scripture;

Instead, it’s a development of truths found in Scripture. Yet most Protestant denominations affirm this doctrine.

Newman’s seven criteria help us see that some kinds of doctrinal change, resulting in greater complexity, are not only legitimate but also necessary.

To borrow Newman’s analogy:

An acorn that somehow changed into a walnut would be a mutation.

But an acorn that never developed into an oak would be lifeless.

So it is with the “acorn” of the Gospel.


bahmer wrote:


Amen and Amen


Reply
Dec 7, 2018 13:46:04   #
bahmer
 
Doc110 wrote:
Balmer the girl cheerleader, sycophant AOG lapdog.

Chew on this for a while.


Does your Assembly of God Church have these 8 Guiding doctrinal principles . . . have this type doctrinal affirmation. The answer. . . . No . . .

You Protestants don't know what to believe, thats because you follow a dead religion, . . . a man-Made false religious doctrine called Sola Scriptura . . . .

1. Unity of Type
2. Continuity of Principles
3. Power of Assimilation
4. Logical Sequence
5. Anticipation of Its Future
6. Conservative Action
7. Chronic Vigor
8. Necessary Change


Our Protestant brothers and sisters often wonder at the complexity of Catholic doctrine.

In particular, they may find it difficult to reconcile what they view as the “simplicity” of Jesus’ teachings with those of the Church today.

These Christians recognize — and Catholics acknowledge — that not all the Church’s teachings are explicitly found in Scripture or the preaching of the early Fathers.

Some doctrines were not stated fully and clearly until much later in the life of the Church.


As a result, many Protestants conclude that Catholic teaching is a corruption of the original Gospel message.

Catholics, on the other hand, see the doctrines of the Church as the necessary and logical development of the Gospel.

Their growth in richness and complexity represents the change from an embryonic form into maturity.


But how are we to demonstrate whether or not a particular doctrine (or body of doctrines) is a genuine development and not a corruption of the Christian faith?


One Catholic theologian who sought to provide an answer to this question was the eminent English convert Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801-1890).

Newman identified seven “notes” or characteristics of authentic developments, as opposed to doctrinal corruptions, in his famous work “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine”

(University of Notre Dame, 1989; page numbers below refer to citations from this edition). Let’s examine these characteristics one at a time.



Unity of Type:

The first note of genuine development Newman calls unity of type.

He considered this first criterion the most important of the seven.

What he means by type is the external expression of an idea.

The unity or preservation of type refers to the continual presence of a main idea despite its changing external expression.

When we see change in the teaching on a subject, can we discern nevertheless that the main idea remains unchanged?

If so, we know that the change is a genuine development, not a corruption.

Newman warns that the presence of any alteration in the external expression of an idea shouldn’t lead us to conclude that it’s a corruption, instead of a development, of the essential idea.

To illustrate this point, he uses the “analogy of physical growth, which is such that the parts and proportions of the developed form, however altered, correspond to those which belong to its rudiments” (p. 171).

In this sense, a full-grown bird is the development of an egg and not its corruption, even though they bear little physical resemblance to one another.

Newman offers the further caveat that many times “real perversions and corruptions are often not so unlike externally to the doctrine from which they come, as are changes which are consistent with it and true developments” (p. 176).

In fact, according to Newman, a major source of religious corruption is clutching too tightly to doctrines at one stage of their development and refusing to allow their future growth.

He notes that some of the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus’ time illustrated this problem. Christ frequently condemned them for following the letter of the law, but not its spirit — that is, its development.



Continuity of Principles:

The second note of genuine development is continuity of principles.

Newman insists that for a development to be faithful, it must preserve the principle with which it started.

While doctrine may grow and develop, principles are permanent.

Newman identifies the Incarnation as the fundamental truth of the Gospel.

Then he goes on to identify nine principles of the Christian religion: dogma, faith, theology, sacraments, Scripture and its mystical interpretation, grace, asceticism, the harm of sin, and the potential of matter to be sanctified.

In reference to these principles, Newman says:

“While the development of doctrine in the Church has been in accordance with, or in consequence of, these immemorial principles, the various heresies.

Which have from time to time arisen, have in one respect or other, as might be expected, violated those principles with which she rose into existence, and which she still retains.”
(p. 354)

The fifth-century theological movement known as Pelagianism provides an example of teaching that contradicted one of these principles.

Pelagians denied the reality of original sin and, as a consequence, denied that our salvation required any grace beyond what is already given us in human nature.

As a result, the Church recognized the movement as a heretical corruption rather than a development of the Christian faith, and so condemned its teachings.



Power of Assimilation:

The third note of genuine development is power of assimilation.

In introducing this criterion, Newman notes that in the physical world living things are characterized by growth, not stagnancy, and that this growth comes about by making use of external things.

For example, as human beings we grow by taking into our bodies external realities such as food, water and air.

In Newman’s terminology, then, when we make use of these re-sources we are assimilating them.

The food, water and air we consume don’t change who or what we are in any meaningful way.

Rather, they serve a valuable function in that they ensure our continued growth and vitality.

For Newman, a true doctrinal development is capable of assimilating external realities (such as non-Christian philosophical concepts, customs or rites) without in any way violating its principles.

In fact, in the process of assimilation it’s the external realities themselves that are transformed (once they are assimilated), not the doctrine.

In Newman’s view, the more powerful, independent and vigorous the idea, the greater its power to assimilate external ideas and concepts without losing its identity.

In the ancient Church, for example, Christian theology came to make use of philosophical terms and categories from contemporary Greek culture.

These forms of thought were employed to refine the precision of doctrinal formulations, helping the Church to define more clearly what she believed.

Logical Sequence:

The fourth note of genuine development is logical sequence.

By this Newman means that a doctrine that’s defined and professed by the Church at a point historically distant from its original founding can be considered a development, and not a corruption, if it can be shown to be the logical outcome of the original teaching.

Newman compares this process to the growth of a tree.

Someone looking at an oak tree could very easily draw the conclusion that it has nothing at all in common with an acorn.

Yet the mature oak tree is the logical development of the acorn.

Over time an acorn grows roots, bursts forth from the soil, begins to soar toward the sun, develops branches and grows leaves.

Each step along the way is the logical development of the previous step. Thus it is with the authentic development of doctrines as well.

One example Newman gives of a development through logical sequence is the dogma of purgatory. The original teaching of Christ and the apostles included the insistence that perfection is necessary to enter heaven and enjoy God’s immediate presence.

Yet the reality is that many who die in friendship with God, though ultimately destined for heaven, are far from perfect at that point.

So the need for a purging process after death, before entrance into heaven, is logically implied.


Anticipation of Its Future:

The fifth note of genuine development, which could be seen as a corollary of the previous one, is anticipation of its future.

Doctrines in some way imply or allude to their later development.

So authentic developments will have some logical connection to the original deposit of faith, however vague the “embryonic” form might have been in the earliest days of the Church.

For example, the Church solemnly declared at the fourth-century Council of Nicaea that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was himself truly and fully God, one in substance (or being) with the Father.

Such a declaration is nowhere found explicitly in Scripture.

Yet it expounded a point of doctrine that was implied by Scripture and the ancient baptismal formula of the Church.


Conservative Action:

The sixth note of genuine development is conservative action upon its past.

In other words, a development is not a corruption if the doctrine proposed builds upon the doctrinal developments that precede it, often clarifying and strengthening them.

A corrupt doctrine, on the other hand, is one that contradicts or reverses a preceding doctrinal development.

The differences between the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed are a perfect illustration of this criterion.

When we compare the two creeds we realize that, while the Nicene Creed is significantly longer, it in no way reverses the tenets of the Apostles’ Creed.

In fact, the former strengthens and expounds upon the points of the latter.


Chronic Vigor:

The seventh note of genuine development is chronic — that is, abiding — vigor.

As long as a doctrine maintains its life and vigor, its ongoing development is assured.

However, once a corruption enters into the process, it leads, by its nature, to death and decay.

Corrupted doctrines fail to display much historical longevity and ultimately die off.

As Newman says, “The course of heresies is always short;

It is an intermediate state between life and death, or what is like death;

Or, if it does not result in death, it is resolved into some new, perhaps opposite, course of error, which lays no claim to be connected with it.”
(p. 204)

In other words, once the original burst of apparent vitality wears itself out, many times the only thing left of a heresy is its external form.

This form, however, is more like a corpse than a living thing.

To take Pelagianism once more as an example, this heresy thrived only briefly, quickly dying off within 150 years.

A final observation:

In general, the seven notes are best applied to the entire process of doctrinal growth in the Church, though it’s certainly possible to apply some of the criteria to individual doctrines.


Necessary Change:

When we talk with our Protestant friends about the development of doctrine, we should point out that nearly every Christian tradition accepts this reality in some form or another.

For example, the Nicene Creed’s profession of the Blessed Trinity doesn’t appear explicitly in Scripture;

Instead, it’s a development of truths found in Scripture. Yet most Protestant denominations affirm this doctrine.

Newman’s seven criteria help us see that some kinds of doctrinal change, resulting in greater complexity, are not only legitimate but also necessary.

To borrow Newman’s analogy:

An acorn that somehow changed into a walnut would be a mutation.

But an acorn that never developed into an oak would be lifeless.

So it is with the “acorn” of the Gospel.
Balmer the girl cheerleader, sycophant AOG lapdog.... (show quote)


More pagan doctrines from Doc110 have at it old boy.

Reply
Dec 7, 2018 13:54:46   #
Doc110 Loc: York PA
 
Rose42,

You don't prove anything,

Except to your opposition to the Catholic Church that has been going on for the last 501 years.

The only thing you present is your nativity to the True-Church that Jesus Christ Founded.

That Martin Luther, Calvin and other strayed down the wide road of Sola Scriptura which can't be found in the Bible.

And you haven't given any time to research and answer this point.

And your two biblical verses are feeble laughable at best shot's in the dark to answer the question I posed to you.


rose42, Since you cant or won't answer the question for the million time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


You lost the argument . . . Point to any Gospel verse in, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or Act's of the Apostles, where man-Made sola Scriptura doctrine can be found.


I challenge you Rose42 to prove Martin Luthers man-Made sola Scriptura doctrine is in the Bible . . . .

Where Jesus Christ, teach, Instruct or spoke, "Sola Scriptura" ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Enough said, . . . end of subject . . . .


Doc110

Rose42 wrote:


The council of Trent was in response to the Reformation because the Reformers exposed Catholic heresies and the Catholic church had to fabricate doctrine to defend it.

"... it’s often a shock for Catholics to read the Bible and see how little is actually said about Mary.

But that’s what happens when you elevate tradition to the level of Scripture and ascribe to men the infallible characteristics that only belong to God. It warps the truth of Scripture and distorts the Person and work of Jesus Christ.

God alone is our Redeemer, our Deliverer, our Benefactor, and our Comforter. He alone is to be worshiped, venerated, adored, and petitioned. The testimony of Scripture is clear."
br br The council of Trent was in response to th... (show quote)

Reply
Dec 7, 2018 14:02:47   #
Doc110 Loc: York PA
 
Rose42,

Another coined quotation from an anti-Catholic Web-site with no URL link . . . address.

Rose you are so predictable

Get a life . . . Stop being a gullible belligerent protestant TROLL . . .

"To be deep in history, is to cease to be Protestant."
Venerable, Cardinal Henry Newman, former Episcopal Bishop convert


Doc110


Rose42 wrote:


The council of Trent was in response to the Reformation because the Reformers exposed Catholic heresies and the Catholic church had to fabricate doctrine to defend it.

"... it’s often a shock for Catholics to read the Bible and see how little is actually said about Mary.

But that’s what happens when you elevate tradition to the level of Scripture and ascribe to men the infallible characteristics that only belong to God. It warps the truth of Scripture and distorts the Person and work of Jesus Christ.

God alone is our Redeemer, our Deliverer, our Benefactor, and our Comforter. He alone is to be worshiped, venerated, adored, and petitioned. The testimony of Scripture is clear."
br br The council of Trent was in response to th... (show quote)

Reply
 
 
Dec 7, 2018 15:21:38   #
Doc110 Loc: York PA
 
Balmer,

Yes you boorish lout, sycophant girl cheerleader.


Bet you $20.00 dollars you didn't read the OPP religious Article post . . . All you do is post anti-Catholic polemist replies.

You can dish it out but you can't take it. When answers are given, and questions asked about, your church beliefs and church doctrinal facts.


You have a dead Protestant religion, the Assembly of God and your Lutheran Church are dead hollow empty religions . . . .


Here is one heretical Donatist-pagan Protestant doctrinal biblical foundation called Sola Scriptura.

A man-Made spiritual death, by a man-made person Martin Luther, it's a dead doctrine called Sola Scriptura.



I challenge you Balmer, to prove Martin Luthers man-Made sola Scriptura doctrine is in the Bible . . . .

Point to any Gospel verse in, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or Act's of the Apostles, where man-Made sola Scriptura doctrine can be found.


Where Jesus Christ, taught, Instructed or spoke, "Sola Scriptura" ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Enough said, . . . end of subject . . . . you're all wind, a blow-hard and you have no facts, Facts, FACTs to support anything you say.

It's a Protestant "Straw-Man" polemist conjecture fallacy argument.

All you provide is Conjecture, Supposition's, Innuendo's, Exaggeration's of your own Personal Emotional Belief's, Hypocritical Truth's, Empty Rhetoric devoid of Real Factual Substance and are full of Regurgitated Dendrite Compost Opinions

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah,


Doc110


bahmer wrote:


More pagan doctrines from Doc110 have at it old boy.


Reply
Dec 7, 2018 17:37:14   #
Rose42
 
Doc110 wrote:
Rose42,

You don't prove anything,


Sure I have as have others with regards to various heresies of the Catholic church and also that Scripture is sufficient for our faith. All proven with God's word. You have....nothing but man's words fabricated to his own ends not God's.

Quote:
Except to your opposition to the Catholic Church that has been going on for the last 501 years.


Opposition to idolatry was recorded in the Old Testament and the New. The warnings against false teachers such as popes for instance are all in the Bible. These all predated the Reformation. The Reformation merely brought it to light and informed a public that was kept in the dark by the Catholic church. People were not allowed to have their own Bible in English even. That alone proves the Catholic church isn't Christian.

Quote:
That Martin Luther, Calvin and other strayed down the wide road of Sola Scriptura which can't be found in the Bible.


Answered and proven MANY times. See the thread on Scripture is Sufficient.

Quote:
And you haven't given any time to research and answer this point.


Again, see the thread on Scripture is Sufficient.

Quote:
And your two biblical verses are feeble laughable at best shot's in the dark to answer the question I posed to you.


Like other Catholics on this forum you show a callous disregard for God's word. There is nothing feeble in His word.


Quote:
rose42, Since you cant or won't answer the question for the million time. .


Shame on you for continuing to lie Doc. It's been answered many times. If you want to continue to call God's word a lie that's on you and no one else.

https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-146336-1.html

And -

If Catholics want to say we need sacred tradition in order to be properly equipped doctrinally and spiritually, then they must establish that the Bible is not sufficient for teaching, or proof, correction, and training in righteousness and doctrinal issues.

These verses are also in the Catholic version of the bible so we can prove sola scriptura with the Catholic version.

Tim. 3:16-17, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate--equipped for every good work."

Psalm 19

7 The law of the Lord is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the testimony of the Lord is sure,
making wise the simple;

8 the precepts of the Lord are right,
rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the Lord is pure,
enlightening the eyes;

9 the fear of the Lord is clean,
enduring forever;
the rules[d] of the Lord are true,
and righteous altogether.


10 More to be desired are they than gold,
even much fine gold;
sweeter also than honey
and drippings of the honeycomb.

Reply
Dec 7, 2018 17:58:46   #
Doc110 Loc: York PA
 
Rose42,

Read the dam articles and stop the Straw-Man, Ad-Homomums and Red-Herring, fallacy idioms.

And stop avoiding the questions that I ask you . . .

1. I challenge you Rose42 to prove Martin Luthers man-Made sola Scriptura doctrine is in the Bible . . . .

Where Jesus Christ, taught, Instruct or spoke, "Sola Scriptura" ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


Rose42 wrote:


Shame on you for continuing to lie Doc. It's been answered many times. If you want to continue to call God's word a lie that's on you and no one else.

https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-146336-1.html

And -

If Catholics want to say we need sacred tradition in order to be properly equipped doctrinally and spiritually, then they must establish that the Bible is not sufficient for teaching, or proof, correction, and training in righteousness and doctrinal issues.

These verses are also in the Catholic version of the bible so we can prove sola scriptura with the Catholic version.

Tim. 3:16-17, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate--equipped for every good work."

Psalm 19

7 The law of the Lord is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the testimony of the Lord is sure,
making wise the simple;

8 the precepts of the Lord are right,
rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the Lord is pure,
enlightening the eyes;

9 the fear of the Lord is clean,
enduring forever;
the rules[d] of the Lord are true,
and righteous altogether.


10 More to be desired are they than gold,
even much fine gold;
sweeter also than honey
and drippings of the honeycomb.
br br Shame on you for continuing to lie Doc. I... (show quote)

Reply
Dec 7, 2018 18:25:13   #
Doc110 Loc: York PA
 
Rose42,

Learn something.

Oral Tradition in the New Testament
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/oral-tradition-in-the-new-testament

What are the 3 stages of gospel writing?

Formation of the Gospels.

Oral Tradition Convinced that JESUS was the Messiah the apostles preach and baptize.
The the Apostles oral preaching took three forms. Kerygma: Preaching to unbelievers. ...
Actual writing of the New Testament.

Rose42, another way for you to understand

The first stage being the period of Jesus' life,
The second stage being the period of Oral Tradition and
The third stage being the period of the Evangelists and their writings of the Bible.

First, we find passages in the New Testament in which oral Tradition is cited in support of doctrine.

This evidence is particularly significant because it shows that, for the apostles, oral Tradition was trustworthy when formulating and developing elements of the Christian faith.

This becomes an excellent biblical precedent for the Catholic Church's practice of basing some Christian dogmas primarily on Tradition rather than on explicit biblical testimony.

Second category of passages, the New Testament authors draw on oral tradition, but not so explicitly in support of doctrine.

Although these examples are not as important for our Catholic apologetic, they are significant in that they show the extent to which the earliest Christians,
including the apostles themselves, reckoned with the twin witnesses of Scripture and Tradition when they expounded the faith.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/oral-tradition-in-the-new-testament

Although Jesus strongly indicts his opponents of hypocrisy for not following their own teaching, he nevertheless insists that the scribes and Pharisees hold a position of legitimate authority, which he characterizes as sitting "on Moses' seat." [David Hill informs us that Moses' seat was "not simply a metaphor. There was an actual stone seat in front of the synagogue where the authoritative teacher (usually a scribe) sat." The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 310.] One searches in vain for any reference to this seat of Moses in the Old Testament. But it was commonly understood in ancient Israel that there was an authoritative teaching office, passed on by Moses to successors.

As the first verse of the Mishna tractate Abote indicates, the Jews understood that God's revelation, received by Moses, had been handed down from him in uninterrupted succession, through Joshua, the elders, the prophets, and the great Sanhedrin (Acts 15:21). The scribes and Pharisees participated in this authoritative line and as such their teaching deserved to be respected.[ L. Sabourin, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (Bombay: St. Paul Publications, 1982), vol. 2, 793.]

Jesus here draws on oral Tradition to uphold the legitimacy of this teaching office in Israel. The Catholic Church, in upholding the legitimacy of both Scripture and Tradition, follows the example of Jesus himself.

In addition, we see that the structure of the Catholic Church--with an authoritative teaching office comprised of bishops who are the direct successors of the apostles--follows the example of ancient Israel.

While there are groups of Christians today that deny continuity between Israel and the Church, [This strain of thought, called dispensationalism, cropped up around 1850 through the writings of J. N. Darby and was widely promulgated through the study notes in the Scofield Reference Bible.

Matt.15:6,
6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Mark 7:3-4
(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.)

1Cor 11:1,
1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

1 Thess 2:13,
13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.

2 Thess 2:15,
15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Tim 2:2
2 And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.

The Word of God is Transferred Orally

Mark 13:31 – heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus’ Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:15 – Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.

Mark 3:14; 16:15 – Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn’t He have said a word about it?

Luke 10:16 – He who hears you (not “who reads your writings”), hears me. The oral word passes from Jesus to the apostles to their successors by the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit. This succession has been preserved in the Holy Catholic Church.

Luke 24:47 – Jesus explains that repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached (not written) in Christ’s name to all nations. For Protestants to argue that the word of God is now limited to a book (subject to thousands of different interpretations) is to not only ignore Scripture, but introduce a radical theory about how God spreads His word which would have been unbelievable to the people at the time of Jesus.

Acts 2:3-4 – the Holy Spirit came to the apostles in the form of “tongues” of fire so that they would “speak” (not just write) the Word.

Acts 15:27 – Judas and Silas, successors to the apostles, were sent to bring God’s infallible Word by “word of mouth.”

Rom. 10:8 – the Word is near you, on your lips and in your heart, which is the word of faith which is preached (not just written).

Rom. 10:17 – faith comes by what is “heard” (not just read) which is the Word that is “preached” (not read). This word comes from the oral tradition of the apostles. Those in countries where the Scriptures are not available can still come to faith in Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 15:1,11 – faith comes from what is “preached” (not read). For non-Catholics to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, they must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever.

Gal. 1:11-12 – the Gospel which is “preached” (not read) to me is not a man’s Gospel, but the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Eph. 1:13 – hearing (not reading) the Word of truth is the gospel of our salvation. This is the living word in the Church’s living tradition.

Col. 1:5 – of this you have “heard” (not read) before in the word of truth, the Gospel which has come to you.

1 Thess. 2:13 – the Word of God is what you have “heard” (not read). The orally communicated word of God lasts forever, and this word is preserved within the Church by the Holy Spirit.

2 Tim. 1:13 – oral communications are protected by the Spirit. They abide forever. Oral authority does not die with the apostles.

2 Tim. 4:2,6-7 – Paul, at the end of his life, charges Timothy to preach (not write) the Word. Oral teaching does not die with Paul.

Titus 1:3 – God’s word is manifested “through preaching” (not writing). This “preaching” is the tradition that comes from the apostles.

1 Peter 1:25 – the Word of the Lord abides forever and that Word is the good news that was “preached” (not read) to you. Because the Word is preached by the apostles and it lasts forever, it must be preserved by the apostles’ successors, or this could not be possible. Also, because the oral word abides forever, oral apostolic tradition could not have died in the fourth century with all teachings being committed to Scripture.

2 Peter 1:12, 15 – Peter says that he will leave a “means to recall these things in mind.” But since this was his last canonical epistle, this “means to recall” must therefore be the apostolic tradition and teaching authority of his office that he left behind.

2 John 1:12; 3 John 13 – John prefers to speak and not to write. Throughout history, the Word of God was always transferred orally and Jesus did not change this. To do so would have been a radical departure from the Judaic tradition.

Deut. 31:9-12 – Moses had the law read only every seven years. Was the word of God absent during the seven year interval? Of course not. The Word of God has always been given orally by God’s appointed ones, and was never limited to Scripture.

Isa. 40:8 – the grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God (not necessarily written) will stand forever.

Isa. 59:21 – Isaiah prophesies the promise of a living voice to hand on the Word of God to generations by mouth, not by a book. This is either a false prophecy, or it has been fulfilled by the Catholic Church.

Joel 1:3 – tell your children of the Word of the Lord, and they tell their children, and their children tell another generation.

Mal. 2:7 – the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and we should seek instruction from his mouth. Protestants want to argue all oral tradition was committed to Scripture? But no where does Scripture say this.


Learning through Oral Apostolic Tradition

Matt. 15:3 – Jesus condemns human traditions that void God’s word. Some Protestants use this verse to condemn all tradition. But this verse has nothing to do with the tradition we must obey that was handed down to us from the apostles. (Here, the Pharisees, in their human tradition, gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents, and this voids God’s law of honoring one’s father and mother.)

Mark 7:9 – this is the same as Matt. 15:3 – there is a distinction between human tradition (that we should reject) and apostolic tradition (that we must accept).

Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:22 – Paul also writes about “the traditions of my fathers” and “human precepts and doctrines” which regarded the laws of Judaism. These traditions are no longer necessary.

Acts 2:42 – the members obeyed apostolic tradition (doctrine, prayers, and the breaking of bread). Their obedience was not to the Scriptures alone. Tradition (in Greek, “paradosis”) means “to hand on” teaching.

Acts 20:7 – this verse gives us a glimpse of Christian worship on Sunday, but changing the Lord’s day from Saturday to Sunday is understood primarily from oral apostolic tradition.

John 17:20 – Jesus prays for all who believe in Him through the oral word of the apostles. Jesus protects oral apostolic teaching.

1 Cor. 11:2 – Paul commends the faithful for maintaining the apostolic tradition that they have received. The oral word is preserved and protected by the Spirit.

Eph. 4:20 – Paul refers the Ephesians to the oral tradition they previously received when he writes, “You did not so learn Christ!”

Phil. 4:9 – Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. This refers to learning from his preaching and example, which is apostolic tradition.

Col. 1:5-6 – of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, which has come to you. This delivery of the faith refers to the oral tradition the Colossians had previously received from the ordained leaders of the Church. This oral tradition is called the gospel of truth.

1 Thess.1:5 – our gospel came to you not only in word, but in the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul is referring to the oral tradition which the Thessalonians had previously received. There is never any instruction to abandon these previous teachings; to the contrary, they are to be followed as the word of God.

1 Thess. 4:2 – Paul again refers the Thessalonians to the instructions they already had received, which is the oral apostolic tradition.

2 Thess. 2:5 – Paul yet again refers the Thessalonians to the previous teachings they received from Paul when he taught them orally. These oral teachings are no less significant than the written teachings.

2 Thess. 2:15 – Paul clearly commands us in this verse to obey oral apostolic tradition. He says stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or letter. This verse proves that for apostolic authority, oral and written communications are on par with each other. Protestants must find a verse that voids this commandment to obey oral tradition elsewhere in the Bible, or they are not abiding by the teachings of Scripture.

2 Thess. 2:15 – in fact, it

Reply
Page 1 of 5 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Faith, Religion, Spirituality
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.