Replies

New doctrine. I used transubstantiation as an example. The doctrine evolved until a new word was needed to describe it, and to define it as essential belief - enough that people were killed for refusing to accept it.

As I pointed out from the Catholic Encyclopedia, ‘sacred tradition’ evolves until it declares what was previously hidden...to put it in very favorable terms. Referring to the Immaculate Conception as an example, it says, “The revealed truth was indeed in the deposit of truth in the Church, but it was not formulated in explicit terms nor even in clearly equivalent terms; it was enveloped in a more general truth (that e.g. of the all-holiness of Mary), the formula of which might be understood in a more or less absolute sense (exemption from all actual sin, exemption even from original sin). On the other hand, this truth (the exemption of Mary from original sin) may seem in at least apparent conflict with other certain truths (universality of original sin, redemption of all by Christ)...Finally scrutinizing with fresh care the deposit of revelation, they there discovered the pious opinion, hitherto concealed, as far as they were concerned in the more general formula, and, not satisfied to hold it as true, they declared it revealed.”

Yep. Although the Apostle Paul said he taught the whole counsel of God, and John said not to run ahead but to abide in their teaching, the Catholic Church “discovered the pious opinion, hitherto concealed”.

Please be frank about it. Admit that it is finding things not taught as truth before.

Mark Shea describes it thus: “Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. That is why the Tradition that does not change can seem to have changed so much. For this common teaching, life and worship is a living thing-a truth which was planted as a mustard seed in first century Jerusalem and which has not ceased growing since-as our Lord prophesied in Mark 4:30-32. The plant doesn’t look like the seed, but it is more mustardy than ever. And this is an entirely biblical pattern, as we discover when we consider the circumcision controversy in Acts 15.”

He argues that Paul taught a seed, and from it the Catholic Church has revealed a grown bush. But Paul and John said they taught the whole counsel of God, not fragments. To abide in it, not to grow it.

Transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception, etc were not revealed by the Apostles.

In his essay “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine”, Cardinal Newman wrote:

“In truth, scanty as the Ante-nicene notices may be of the Papal Supremacy, they are both more numerous and more definite than the adducible testimonies in favour of the Real Presence. The testimonies to the latter are confined to a few passages such as those just quoted. On the other hand, of a passage in St. Justin, Bishop Kaye remarks, “Le Nourry infers that Justin maintained the doctrine of Transubstantiation; it might in my opinion be more plausibly urged in favour of Consubstantiation, since Justin calls the consecrated elements Bread and Wine, though not common bread and wine [Note 22] ... We may therefore conclude that, when he calls them the Body and Blood of Christ, he speaks figuratively.” “Clement,” observes the same author, “says that the Scripture calls wine a mystic symbol of the holy blood ... Clement gives various interpretations of Christ’s expressions in John vi. respecting His flesh and blood; but in no instance does he interpret them literally ... His notion seems to have been that, by partaking of the bread and wine in the Eucharist, the soul of the believer is united to the Spirit, and that by this union the principle of immortality is imparted to the flesh.” [Note 23] “It has been suggested by some,” says Waterland, “that Tertullian understood John vi. merely of faith, or doctrine, or spiritual actions; and it is strenuously denied by others.” After quoting the passage, {25} he adds, “All that one can justly gather from this confused passage is that Tertullian interpreted the bread of life in John vi. of the Word, which he sometimes makes to be vocal, and sometimes substantial, blending the ideas in a very perplexed manner; so that he is no clear authority for construing John vi. of doctrines, &c. All that is certain is that he supposes the Word made flesh, the Word incarnate to be the heavenly bread spoken of in that chapter.” [Note 24] “Origen’s general observation relating to that chapter is, that it must not be literally, but figuratively understood.” [Note 25] Again, “It is plain enough that Eusebius followed Origen in this matter, and that both of them favoured the same mystical or allegorical construction; whether constantly and uniformly I need not say.” [Note 26] I will but add the incidental testimony afforded on a late occasion:—how far the Anglican doctrine of the Eucharist depends on the times before the Nicene Council, how far on the times after it, may be gathered from the circumstance that, when a memorable Sermon [Note 27] was published on the subject, out of about one hundred and forty passages from the Fathers appended in the notes, not in formal proof, but in general illustration, only fifteen were taken from Ante-nicene writers.”

Think for a moment about the very TITLE of his essay: An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

That is what I’m saying - that Catholic doctrine develops. What wasn’t known, now is - according to Catholics. And while I think Newman wrote it prior to becoming a Catholic, consider Shea’s statement: “Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth...”

Those who say the Constitution is a living document don’t do so because they want to abide in it. They do so to escape it. Think about it.

Regarding baptism, you ask, “Why set one against the other?”

Because Jesus was answering Nicodemus. In context:

“Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’”

Born again. Do you doubt that the FIRST birth Jesus is referring to is physical birth? Born again requires the first birth to be physical birth, and Jesus is saying (to a Jew, remember, one of God’s Chosen People) that it isn’t enough to be born a Jew, but you must be born AGAIN.

To suggest Jesus was interjecting water baptism in the middle of a discussion on needing more that physical birth is silly. Water baptism has no role in the discussion.

You must be born again. Physical birth as a Jew won’t suffice, you must also be born again of the Spirit. Two births - physical, and spiritual.

THAT is why I say the water refers to childbirth. It fits in the context of needing two births.

You write: “Going “THROUGH” water saved him and his family from earthly death; just as going THROUGH the waters of Baptism (think “immersion”) saves us from eternal death.”

No. Noah wasn’t saved from death by water. The threat of death WAS the water - a flood, remember? During a flood, water doesn’t save you from death. It DOES force you to go elsewhere. It separated Noah from the evil world.

In like manner, water baptism doesn’t save us from death, but separates us from the world around us be declaring our repentance and decision to be born again as new creations. It saves us FROM THE WORLD.

As for the Eucharist, Newman makes mention of it above. If it is the wafer and wine that truly becomes the blood and flesh of Jesus, and all who partake are saved, then we could give it to street people and save them apart from their will. It takes a hard heart to believe that Jesus, answering a question of the Jews, was instituting the Eucharist (Thanksgiving) and saying it literally becomes his blood and flesh, and saves anyone who partakes.

So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”

35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

40For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

56Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

Jesus is using the miracle of the manna to tell the Jews, in response to their argument, that God HAS sent a sign: Jesus, the Bread of Life. There isn’t a hint of transubstantiation in there...