www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Mary as the Ark of His Covenant

>And thanks for the compliment on my name Shiloah -
>yes, it was a very intentional choice . With it I express
> that I have bound myself to the One Who
> was sent by the Father for our Salvation.
I was thinking of the meeting place named Shiloah, the valley within which was the tent of tabernacle, before Israel had a human king and before the first temple was built. While Israel was a confederation and not yet a kingdom.

The word Shiloah has the meaning of a meeting place, where the presence of God (the Shekinah in Tabernacle) and the people, both come together to meet. It also has the meaning of social and civil law. It is related to the Arabic word used by Muslims to mean social and civil laws based upon the clerical interpretation of the Koran, which is civil law is called �Sheriah� (perhaps not spelled correctly).

It is good that you have some biblical study background. I think I detect that you have done a lot of study and reading.

Let me address this part �
Yes� all true� but what I am saying is that it is called The Law - not because it IS the Law - but because it is a reflection of the Law.

Let us consult a learned Jew of the time for how the word �Law� was used.

St Paul said �The Law of my members fighting against the Law of my mind captivates me in the Law of sin.�

Paul identified four �Laws�.
The Law of the members.
The Law of the mind.
The Law of sin.
The Law of the Spirit of Life.

Let me expound.

The Law of the members. (the way the body tends to operate)
The Law of the mind (the way our psychology of our minds tends to operate)
The Law of sin (the way sin tends to operate)
The Law of the Spirit of Life (the way God tends to operate)

Let us take a modern example with - the Laws of Physics. I can take a text book on Physics and place it before you and say �These are the Laws of Physics� but if you were to believe that these laws existed inside the book and within its words - you would be wrong. The book is merely a means to convey to your mind - something of a human experience of the existence of these laws in operation within material things. The laws that the book is speaking of - really exist within the - experience - of how things work and interact.

The Law (in any of the cases above) is invisible, intangible, and only knowable with the mind through the evidence of its working within - material things and events. These laws are not directly knowable with the senses but are indirectly known through observing them at work in - things.

Can you reach within the body (the �members�) and take hold of the laws by which the body operates? Can you place these laws in you hand and then place them inside a box and mail them to me? Of course not. Neither can you place �The Law� within a book. You can write a book which speaks of your experiences of the Laws of Physics at work - but what you write remains your witness to the experience of the laws as they work in things - and the laws that are written in the book do not become the laws of physics themselves. Things - do not read and refer to book of physics before they move to do their thing.

For Christians, as well as for the Jews, the Torah is a book of witness (human testimony) to the Law as it has operated within Jewish history. It is called �The Law� in that regard. Yet it is true, many Christians and many Jews mistakenly consider scripture to be The Law itself, and ascribe to a book an infallibility which should only be ascribed to a living God. While for any Christian it is plainly called by the Church, the Old Testament (meaning it is a compilation of the written testimony of witnesses to what Providence had done within Jewish history) and the New Testament is the compilation of a written testimony of those who had some direct experience of Jesus Christ and what he had done within his human time within Jewish history. The keyword here is - testimony - these are books of the testimony of witnesses and not books of instructions on �how to�. The �How to� remains in the magisterial of the church which is mystically connected to the Living Word who is the person of the resurrected Jesus Christ. The church existed before these books were written and can very well exist without - these books.

Even if scriptures - were - infallible - there is no infallibility guaranteed to any man that he would infallibly understand scriptures correctly. It is well known that some people claim to have a personal and infallible understand scriptures and these become cults.

Within the church, a personal understanding of scriptures is a progressive evolution and development. Portions of it we come to understand better over years, and portions of it we come to know that we had misunderstood. What we may believe that we have been inspirited to have insight into some lines or portion of scripture - is often best compared with what the church itself (as the chosen human author and compiler of scriptures) understands of that portion of scriptures to mean. If the church herself has not defined a meaning for some portion of scriptures we can often consult and consider the opinions of noted members of the church (such as the early fathers).

While the Torah (the five books of Moses) is called the Law for the reasons I gave above� the Torah itself is divided into 5 books. Only the last three contain instructional social laws applicable to the society of the Jews - which instruction of social laws are also a reflection of �The Law� which is given testimony of in Genesis and Exodus.

At that time and within that Jewish culture - religious laws were also social and civil laws (no differentiation yet being made like we have today).

If you find the Torah to be instructional for yourself then you would be referring to the last three books, of which Leviticus is instructional for the priesthood and Temple services, and Numbers and Deuteronomy is instructional for social and civil laws.

To be true to these instructions today - you would have to become an Orthodox Jew.

>He was understood by the believers to be the Living Word of God,
Yes� this is what I was saying. The resurrected Jesus himself is the experiential �Word� of Logos and he is alive and well and among us as, what we call today, Providence.

>Yes, certainly the human beings who wrote down the Books of the Bible
> were not infallible, but they were chosen vessels for the purpose, and I will
>not dispute their righteousness,
Chosen people, not infallible, very true. But you, perhaps, are using �righteousness� in the wrong way� for while we may think of righteousness as being �right� as opposed to �wrong� it rather means sanctified, of justified, and does not mean error free. To be a saint is to have a habitual cooperation with the living Will of God as it is revealed within our conscience (con=together and science=knowledge of laws).

>"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book,
>If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that
> are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book
>of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the
>holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
This is a simple instruction and should not be complicated nor taken personally unless you are a book publisher. It says that anyone who would make a copy of this book (for example a scribe) is not to freely to add his own thoughts to it, or re-arrange it, or leave sections out. If anyone is going to make a copy then he should make an exact copy or an accurate and full transliteration of it. This was the common and well known traditional Jewish way to �print copies� of any book of this nature.

In any event, I can tell that, while we agree on some things - we would go round and round in semantics and details if we were to continue - and to semantic details is not something I do not wish to further.

I have no critic of you.

Cheers - my friend.
-ray

Ray, I have never met anybody who took the time and had the expertise to explain things to me like you do. I want to thank you very much and I think, your words are valuable not just for me, but for many readers on this forum as well. Therefore, whatever you do for Christ is not in vain. I listen to your words very attentively and carefully and try to appropriate what you say to my understanding, or in another word, I try to absorb it. It is refreshing and sometimes I think you might be a college professor. I don't want to go around in semantics either, Ray. I try to glean insight from the spiritual understanding and experience of the valued members of this forum. I don't want to be contrary or critical of anybody, but respectful and receiving.

What you tried to explain in the first part of your discours, is that what is called empirism? To learn through experience? Like, for in stance, you mention the experiential Word or Logos; the experience of the law; the experience of Jesus Christ etc.

But, Ray, I had submitted a quote from the webpage of http://www.goholycross.org/ which reads: "The Church is the only authentic and infallible teacher of the revealed truth. "

How can they say the Church is infallible if it is composed of fallible people? Does this need to be related to John 14:26 where Jesus says: "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." and also John 16:13-14 : "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you."

Ray, I am aware of 2.Tim.3:14-17 in which we read the words of the Apostle Paul " But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15. And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

I understand that the 'holy scriptures' Paul speaks of here, are the Tanakh or the Old Testament, since the New Testament hadn't been written yet. But in general these verses say that ALL Scripture is good for the purpose of equipping the believers, right? That means, there is nothing wrong with 'going by the book', is there, as long as it is done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and according to 2.Cor.3:5-6 which reads: "Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
6. Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."

So, let's no longer discuss semantics but rejoice in the Life we have received through Jesus Christ and His Life-giving sacrifice, and through His Holy Spirit, which also is the portion in todays Scripture readings Acts 8:5-17.

Have a blessed day,
Shiloah

Well � if you put it like that� I guess I would be lacking if I did not continue a bit with you regarding the idea of infallable scriptures.

I note that you do have a sincere dedication and have done plenty of accurate self study.

>"The Church is the only authentic and infallible
>teacher of the revealed truth.�

This is linked to what we have been talking about (any infallability with scriptures) so let us look at it.

A few months back I made a post on the subject of - revealed truth. What it is (in context of the church) and of how very few items there are of it, how it must be clearly labeled by the Church, and how most of the items of it were defined by the early Church Councils within the first couple of hundred years of early Christianity.

Revealed truth (or often called simply �the faith�) is God�s own knowledge - given to us through infallible declarations of the magisterium of the Church.

Theo=God
ology=knowledge
("God�s knowledge" or "God's own knowledge" or "knowledge belonging to God")

As God�s own knowledge these items can not be obtained by us through the use of human reason. There are really very few of them and they are such things as; God is a Trinity, Jesus was fully God and fully man, there are seven sacraments, etc..

For an item to be - of revealed truth - it must be declared such, clearly, by Church Councils. Let us ignore for this discussion any role the Pontiff of Rome may have.

Our point is that an item of �revealed truth� must be clearly and publicly declared - by Church Council - as such. And very few items have been done like this.

Since the overwhelming majority of these things were declared by very early Church Councils - we Christians of today take them for granted. We are raised, with the knowledge of them. We are so familiar with them that we forget that these are the revealed truth that is "The Faith". We already know them well and they have - already - been revealed - and already been defined.

Revelation (the items of revealed truth) was complete with the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Not only by what he himself taught to the apostles (which scriptures does not fully relate to us) but also by what the apostles experience of the humanity of Jesus himself.

Revelation within the church is considered - closed - with the death of the last apostle which knew Jesus directly. So revelation was closed to humanity with the death of John the apostle. There is nothing further that God will reveal to humanity in the way of �God�s own knowledge�. This was done completely and fully (to the extent that God desired that we know anything) with the humanity of Jesus Christ and the apostle who knew him directly. Therefore, in a sense, what the Church authority has done (after the assention) was to define this revelation and declare it publicly - as infallible.

Of course, while there is a guarantee to us that the Church can infallibly define the few items of revealed doctrine (when it does so in the prescribed way) - there is no similar guarantee whatsoever that any member of the church can read or hear - and fully understand without error - what the Church has defined as infallible.

These things are really very simple but there is tendency to make them complicated and �mysterious�.

The church is given an infallible chrism when it defines infallible doctrines of - revealed faith - and when it teaches how these items of revealed faith pertain to our moral life. We, as Chritians, share in that infallability when we teach what the church teaches. This should not be confusing.. for example.. the church has declared that God is a Trinity - and if I were to say to someone "God is a Trinity" - I now participate in that infallability. This is really kind of simple and plain to understand.

Bingo. There - the story ends. The church has infallibility - regarding these few items of theology and how these items pertain to our moral life.

End of infallability story.

The church also teaches us the moral life - apart from revealed faith or truth. When it does this it is not infallible. For example, by reason alone we can attain to the truth that we should not steal, we should not murder, we should not commit adultery, and many more moral precepts. These truths are revealed, by God, to any man and all men through natural means, and our human reason may figure these things out. These natural truths are not considered �revealed truth� in the same sense of the deposit of revelation of Jesus Christ. When the church teaches on these natural subject, even trough the use of scriptures, there is no guarantee that all she says is completely without error in the teaching. Some of what she might say or teach on these subjects - may be - opinions. As opinions - they may be right or they may be wrong - or they maybe mostly right or a bit wrong etc.. but of course we should respect them and give them our best consideration in good conscience.

The church does not take the place of personal conscience. She is an aid to the formation of good conscience but she is not a substitute for conscience. The work of sactification remains between God (Providence come to us daily) and the person being santified. That work is intended for form our personality through attention to our conscience. The church aids us in this - but the work is between God and our own cooperation in day to day life events.

The early fathers of the church often gave their own opinions regarding many religious matters and doctrines. And these opinions remain just opinions. Period. As opinions they may be right and they many be wrong or that may be paritially right.

Many of them we conflicting opinions and that gave rise to the need for Councils to settle matters once and for all. It did not matter if the greater number of church members or fathers held any particular opinion. A majority, or democratic vote, was not the thing that made some stance - become infallible teaching. Only the results of Church Councils (we here ignore any discussion of the role of Pontiff) became infallible church doctrine of revealed faith. So while it is interesting to read the early church fathers and may be a source of good context to the doctrines defined by the early church - the only thing that really matters on the bottom line is what the Councils themselves defined as infallible doctrine of - revealed faith or revealed truth.

Supernatural revelation (God�s own knowledge) is called - theology. While theology may be evidenced in scriptures - it is not derived from scriptures nor is it even contained in scriptures. What is in scriptures is called �economy� and it is the humanly written history of witnesses to the acts of God�s Providence throughout the history of the Jews. To be inspired means that these humans were motiveated and given intuition - but it does not mean thier free will was suspended or that they were given a chrism of being error free. These writers remained fully human with all human limitations intact.

It is the purpose of the final, body resurrection, to make humans "error free" (if we want to think of it that way). To be a saint does not mean one is error free. To be a saint is a condition of the will - and not of the intellect. It is "Thy will be done" and not a state of intellecual enlightenment.

>"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom
> the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things,
>and bring all things to your remembrance,
>whatsoever I have said unto you."
Be aware of the context. Jesus is here speaking directly to his apostles telling them that the Holy Spirit will reminded them of things that Jesus himself (in his humanity) had said to them. The meaning of �teach you all things� is all things that are needed to do their job as apostles.

In context, this is straight forward. He is speaking to some one or some group and telling them to continue in the things which they had learned from the apostles, as these things are assured. Notice that when speaking of scriptures the pre-requisite for gaining anything from them is �through faith in Jesus Christ� placing Jesus Christ and the apostles just mentioned - above scriptures. Pinning any value and ability of scriptures to profit anyone - to - the guaranteed (assured) presence and operation of Jesus Christ within his apostles.

What does that quote say further?
Answer: That the writing of scriptures was motivated by God, that scriptures are good to use when trying to understand some doctrine the church has defined, that scriptures are a good tool to use when one is an authority (priest, deacon, bishop) charged with giving reproof or giving instructions about the moral life, and that scriptures are a good addition to the basics. It is not meant to mean that scriptures alone - make on �toughly furnished unto all good works.�

When considering the entire quote you gave above.. It is all joined and the first portion sets the stage for the later portion. One should not - isolate - each sentence into its own meaning - but rather follow the build up of thought. In the mind of the writer of this quote, scriptures is �in addition to� the foundation which is what is assured by the authority (�knowing of whom thou hast learned them [from]�)

These things can seem difficult and become tinted by personal opinions and interpretations which are not grounded either in history of the Church.

My main purpose in this discussion has been to address your belief that scripture are in some way infallible and may be used as our main foundation and instruction of faith.

-ray

Thanks again, Ray. You really have done double duty for me I think we should either return to the original topic of this thread now or call this topic closed, don't y'all think? Although indirectly it still had to do with Mary the Ark in a way.

See you on some of the other pastures of this Forum,

Shoshana, overfed (no offense, Ray. I just need some little nap time to digest all that heavy meat :p )

One last thing and I swear I will leave you alone

You can forget everything I have ever said or will say - if you read this book...

(free oline) http://www.thegenesisletters.com/Providence/Caussade/Default.htm

(amazon.com)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...193528?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Within it will will find how it is that God's Will comes to us daily and how it is that we cooperate in our santification. This is the 'core' that makes a saint. It is the main and central doctrine of all Doctors of the Church. Father Caussade has a gift to give this in simple language.

-ray

Hey Guys and Gals,

I would love to get back into your discussion but I cannot stay on the computer long enough to do it.

Here is a good site on Scripture

There are audio discussions on here with Mark Shea, Bob Sungenis, Scott Hahn, and Patrick Madrid on Sola Scritura:
http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/sola_scriptura.asp

http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/scripture.asp
Part of an article, address for it is below:
A THIRD COLLECTION OF WRITINGS

About 100 B.C., a third collection of writing was added to the Bible of the Old Testament. In this collection are books of exhortation to courage based on God's constancy in dealing with His people; there are books of meditation and prayer, searching for the proper response to God's action in the world. Among these books is the great prayerbook of Israel and of all Christians, the Psalms.

All these books were gathered and explained by the living Church of the Old Testament; through these books, the living voice of that Church nourished the eager yearning of the people for the perfection of the Kingdom of God on earth through His own Chosen People. Into this atmosphere of yearning, Jesus came, proclaiming that perfect Kingdom as now in their midst. Those who were willing to make the sacrifice of all for the sake of that Kingdom became themselves the new Kingdom of Jesus. They in their lives for God, in their public worship of God, in their obedience to the commands of Jesus were commissioned to bring all the world into the unity of holiness with God. "I pray . . . for those also who through their word are to believe in me, that all may be one, even as thou, Father, in me and I in thee; that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that thou hast sent me" (John 17:19-22). "But they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the preaching by the signs that followed" (Mark 16:20).

Very shortly, the Church gathered the sayings and deeds of Jesus into set forms of oral recital. Through these the early Christians learned the perfection of what was taught them in their Scriptures, the Old Testament. Very shortly also, these sayings and deeds began to be put in written form for a more thorough instruction of the meaning of the life of Jesus. The account of the sufferings and death of Jesus probably came first in writing. Then also, the sayings and deeds of Jesus which make known that He is truly a divine person, equal with God the Father and yet distinct from Him. Finally, our four Evangelists gathered together this traditional material for special areas of the Church and particular audiences within the Church.

AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

This was the Gospel, the "good news" that was preached by the living voice of the Apostles and of those with whom they shared their commission from Christ our Lord. The written form of this Gospel was also proposed on the authority of the living Church as the official interpretation of the Scriptures in the light of the events and sayings of the life of Jesus. Because the Church was able even to reverse some of the clear teachings of the Old Testament, as in the case of Acts 15:6-11, it is not difficult to see that the writings containing these decisions would soon be recognized as on a par with the Scriptures of the Old Testament themselves.

Before 200 A.D., most of the New Testament writings which we now have were acknowledged by the Church through God's revelation as written by God Himself through the hand of man, as were the Old Testament Scriptures. Before 400 A.D., all our New Testament writings had been carefully screened from other works that pretended divine origin, and were recognized as God's legacy to His Church for the instruction of the faithful in all ages.

Our information about the recognition of divine authorship in the New Testament writings is clear. First, these works had to propose the same truths of God as were being proposed by the living Church of that time. Christ founded His Church as His living voice and His Mystical Body; nothing that contradicted that divine institution could have come from God Himself. Secondly, these works had to be of Apostolic origin, either directly by being written by an Apostle, or indirectly by being acknowledged as authoritative in Apostolic times. It was on the Twelve that Christ said He would found His living Church in the world; hence those works which were acknowledged in Apostolic times as of divine authority had another mark of divine inspiration. Finally, these works made up that Bible which the Church used in divine worship and instruction of the people throughout the world. As founded by Christ, the Church was to last until He came again in glory; it could not disappear nor betray His final commission: "Behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world" (Matt. 28:20). When used by the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit of truth (John 16:13), these writings were thus known as written by God. Through these three conditions combined, the Church came to know by the end of the fourth century what were and what were not the writings which God had truly written after the time of Jesus: our New Testament.

If you are aware of the content of the Old Testament as used by Catholics and as used by other Christians, you know that there is a very considerable difference. In Catholic Bibles, there are seven books that are not usually found in other Christian Bibles: the books of Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, and 1 and 2 Machabees. Small portions of Daniel and Esther are also found in Catholic Bibles in addition to the parts found in other Christian Bibles. It is important to see how this difference came about.

You have seen how the process of gathering God's writings had been going on for centuries before the coming of Christ and after His coming. The Church at the time of Jesus had gathered many of these writings. But at no point up to then had God said that this was enough. In fact, God continued the process of inspiration through the Apostolic age.

When our Lord came among men, there was yet another group of writings produced in the Old Testament Church, but not yet finally recognized by it as inspired. They were widely circulated in the Greek translation of the Scripture, intermingled with the books that had already been acknowledged as inspired; hence, many were then putting them on an equality of authorship with the other Scriptures.

When our Lord founded His Church as the perfection of the Church of the Old Testament, this Greek translation with its seven extra books and parts of two other books became the official Bible of the Christian Church. As the true Church of God now, after the coming of Jesus, this Church had not only the right but also the duty to decide on the inspiration of these books. During that period when the Church was investigating the divine origin of the New Testament writings, it was likewise looking into the origin of these books as of divine authorship. The result was that the Church admitted all of them to the Canon of the Scriptures, that is, the list of the inspired writings that God had written for His Church. Tested by the norms of true doctrine and continual use in the worship and instruction of the Church, these Old Testament books were found acceptable, just as the New Testament books were. The same living Church, the continuation of our Lord as Savior, accepted these writings of both the Old and New Testaments, and gave them to the Church for its spiritual benefit.

For over a thousand years, these books were all accepted in the Church and used by the Church for the instruction and benefit of the faithful. At the time of the Reformation, these books were rejected in most other Christian bodies. The Old Testament Scripture as used among the Jewish people was considered the norm of the content of the Old Testament. To be sure, the leaders of Judaism had determined that the Scriptures were completed with their Bible, and could not be added to. But that decision was taken at almost 100 A.D., several generations after the coming of Christ, and at a period when the Christians were already recognizing the inspired Scriptures containing the sayings and deeds of Christ written after His Ascension into heaven. Without a true appreciation of the living Church, embodying in its own life the life and teachings of Jesus, the Reformers were misled into rejecting what had been acknowledged as inspired Scripture in the Christian Church for more than one thousand years. http://www.cin.org/kc3-3.html

Dear Pani Rose...

I have not listened to the audio yet but I can comment on the bit that you quoted. My comment would be that this is a fine, general, explanation for the common Christian who does no real scriptural studies - and what you quoted should not be taken to be the official stance of the Church (because it is not as given). It does not explain how - the church views scriptures as error free and what that means - and if one went by this simplified explanation which says that God�s hand had authored scripture and the writers wrote what God wanted written �and no more� - then one would have to wonder why such a long line of Church scholars (even before Jerome until today) one would have to wonder why they have dedicated their time to comparisons of varied codexs, translations, study of cultures, error corrections, and a myrid of other factors. And finally - if scripture are �error free� then one would have to attribute that to only the original books directly from the authors hand - and none of these exist anymore so if all we have is translations with errors and we no longer have the original error free scriptures - then what is the use??

If one really wants to get into scriptures - one needs to get their information directly from the Church (in the case of Catholics that would be the Pontifical Biblical Institute) and to actually take academic classes (if they can). In the case of Orthodox the only site I can recommend is the Orthodox Center for The Advancement of Biblical Studies (www.ocabs.,org perhaps the first Orthodox site for real biblical studies).

For the Catholic and Byzantine, a much better description of scriptures and what they are to the church is available in the Catechism of the Catholic church.

While all Christians are encouraged by the Church to study scriptures, most Christians think that means - to read them - and never really step over into real study. And some who try to step over into study simply do their own study (ignoring centuries of Church scholars) and have no anchor to kept them from cementing into themselves self-interpretations that they hold onto as if God himself had revealed these things to them.

In all things about Christianity, I always say �get real - get your feet on the ground� which means that Christianity - does - correspond with - reality.

Less than "real scripture study" reading or listening to Scott Hahn and such - is a very good start in the right direction.

-ray

Ray wrote:
"And some who try to step over into study simply do their own study (ignoring centuries of Church scholars) and have no anchor to kept them from cementing into themselves self-interpretations that they hold onto as if God himself had revealed these things to them."


Ray, do you believe that God by His Holy Spirit (still) reveals things to people?

And what would be your interpretation of John 16:13, which of course would not be your self-interpretation but that of the Church?

Shiloah, trying to follow your train of thoughts

Yes.. I do.. emphatically I do believe that the Holy Spirit does personal revelation to individuals - and that some grasp something of the communication while others ignore them for the most part for varied reasons.

In fact, I would go so far as to say �If any man love me (and does the fathers will) I will come and live with that man.� (paraphrased) I would say that if a man, living the Christian life, does not occasionally have some - real and personal experience of God - then something is missing - progress is not being made.

This is not to say that a Christian should have a constant experience of God - nor is it to say that a man will fully and well understand what God�s inspirations that come to him may mean. Our measure of our own holiness is not by the amount nor �quality� of spiritual experiences. Experiences, if and when they might come, are meant to fortify us to endure difficult things which come after it. The measure of sanctification or progress is by how well a man carries his own cross - than by how enlightened God may or may not have temporarly made him. Holiness is not in the intellect but rather takes place in the will. It is more accomplished within the 'dark night' of St John of the Cross than in the moments of joy and bliss.

I notice that you, yourself, told us that God had lead you to a portion of scriptures recently� this is very plausible to me. I have seen God do this to others and I have experienced it myself - and there is ample history of this type of thing happening in the lives of several saints. That God may do this kind of thing and on occasion does - can not be denied. Several times, Saint Francis of Assisi, when faced with something which he had no other means to know the will of God about - opened scriptures randomly and took whatever passage of line he landed on - to contain an indication of the will of God about the matter. God favors that we progress spiritual by the ordinary and normal ways - but he often times notices that we need special and extra ordinary help and he may give it with intent that we return to the ordinary and normal ways.

Such occasional experiences of communication between the soul and God happen to a soul of whom God is working with. Plenty of recognized Catholic and Orthodox spiritual writers (Doctors of the West and Theologians of the East) who have written works to help guide us in the spiritual life, talk about these things and how to understand them and how a soul should handle them if and when they might come on occasion. For example St. John of the Cross and St. Symeon the New Theologian. For example� most times the soul who might receive something like this - should not act right way - or perhaps should not act at all - because we tend to misunderstand some communication or perhaps it is that God intends the soul to fully understand the communication years and years later. If we try to second guess him we just complicate things. In any event the soul should not second guess what God intends to do or say by the communication but should rather just allow what grace may have been given within the communication - to normally, naturally, and peacefully - do its own work without the interference of our ego and intellect. This is true detachment as opposed to a false detachment which denies that this this do happen or on the other hand gets all puffed up thinking 'I must be holy and specially selected!". In other words any such real communication will have its own good effects in its own good time. It will - come to fruit - by itself - nothing needed on our part but to continue in the normal way of living an ordinary moral life within the settings that God arranges for us.

God speaks to us daily �through the things that he has created� and when Paul says this - he is not just being romantic or poetic. He is telling us this plainly and stright forward.

In fact, this is part and parcel of the book I recommended to you called Abandonment to Divine Providence by Jean Pierre Caussade - who explains very well and simply - how God works with people every day and how it is that we can cooperate with his Will - daily.

Holiness is a matter of the will (Thy will be done)so at some point in the spiritual life God expects us to know what he is doing and to voluntarily cooperate with him. Is this not simple and reasonable? Can someone do your will - if he has no idea what your will is?? Jesus calls these 'servants' (those who do God's will but do not know that they are doing it) and those of who he converses and cooperate he calls 'friends'. Everyone is a servant - very few are friends. Judas was a servant ("Go,do what you do, quickly.") while we are called to be friendsand to knowingly cooperate with him - daily. This cooperation takes place mostly within the bounds of our vocation (be it priesthood, marriage and family, or other).

It does one, not much good� to have faith in God - to believe in Jesus - and to ignore eating the daily bread prepared for us by God himself. For 40 days after the resurrection Jesus continually revealed himself to his disciples as hidden within ordinary daily events. The disciples would be about doing some ordinary thing and - surprise - Jesus reveals that he was contained, but veiled to our senses, in this ordinary event all the while. Exactly how God does this he does not care to tell us (thinking now of the stranger on the way to Emmaus).

Friendship with Jesus, is how Jesus describes his relationship with us - a friendship - and it seems to me that we do not return the friendship if - for our part of the conversation - we ignore God when he speaks to us - and so I discount them who say that we should at all times completely ignore and spiritual communications we receive from God - as well as I discount anyone who is overly seeking such communications.

God - is a friend (in Jesus Christ) as well as a father (in the Father)� and is with us to help us in our part (the Holy Sprit) - so Jesus has described God�s relationship to us�. so it is that while we can expect God to arrange things in ways so that he can accomplish his work in us (�let us form man in our own likeness�) everyday and at all times it also reasonable to assume that, on occation, God wishes to converse with us. And how would you yourself feel if you were talking with your wife (assuming you are married) and she ignored you and did not answer and instead went of to watch TV or call a girlfriend??

This part of the spiritual life (God�s work within us and his communication) is very well laid out by the spiritual fathers and doctors of the Church - within the doctrine of �Providence� which doctrine and practice is central to any real progress in sanctification. Alas - it is a doctrine and practice ignored in most of Christianity for the past few hundred years� replaced by science. (this is not to say that science is false or an anti-christ or anything like that).

What has come to replace real spiritual life and progress toward union with God while still in the body - is a false tendency to believe that the faculty of human faith (the ability for a human to have faith in anything) is alone what is needed. And so a hope that (after death) Jesus will have mercy and admit us to heaven.. Becomes the total of our Christianity. In that way, any real progress we could make �down here� is put off for some future time where we hope God (during judgment) looks back over our life and decides to have mercy and admit us. While this sort of thing may happen - it is clearly to fly against (the waiting while not really progressing in the spiritual life) clearly against what the apostles and so many good writers on the spiritual life - want us to do. To sum up = if a man does not have an occasional personal revelation of God in the way of experiencing something of God (an experience of the mind and intuition) then he is either not progressing or he has fooled himself.

These are not easy subjects to talk about because the doctrine of spiritual progress and how God works within and upon a soul (person) has long grown dust. TV and movies add to the confusion.

Now I am not a spiritual director, I do not advise people beyond what is reasonable for my state in life (an ordinary father of 3 boys) and there are very few spiritual directors today who actual know what they speak of� oh! They think they know - but it is book learning with no real experience�. So it is that God himself does provide direction for those souls who really seek him - by way of �coincidence� and intuitions - and other ways.

The book Abandonment to Divine Providence by Jean Pierrei Caussade (and some other like it) is the only safe way that I know to tell someone about how it is that God works on us every day - and how we should respond in cooperation. From the first few pages (if you read more with your heart than your head) your heart will tell you �yes.. There is something here!� and if you, with reason and patience, practice what it tells you then within a time you will begin to become aware of God�s part that he is doing to you and your �friendship� really begins because you have now picked up your end of the phone and entered into the conversation.

Any personal revelation that God might occasional give to someone - will always echo and reverberate with what has been already revealed to the Church. If there is any good any person might gain, himself, from such things, it lays in how any such personal revelation quietly confirms what the Church is already saying and teaching. In other words, all private revelation should boil down to what the proper authority of the church is already saying about how and why we live the moral life.

Now.. Another subject� you asked me how it is that a church (the people who are the authorities magistrium) can be infallible even while being human. This is not a complicated thing but we often complicate it way too much. I believe I gave you the example of � that God is a Trinity is revealed theological truth� and if you yourself were to say to someone �God is a Trinity� then you yourself would be participating in the Church�s infallibility. You should keep this simple in your mind and not make it too complicated. If you said to someone �God is a Trinity� then you have spoken infallibly � but there is no guarantee that the person who heard you would understand it correctly or not. You have spoken a revealed truth (something that human reason can not obtain by itself) that Jesus had given to the apostles (it is not contained in scriptures nor can it be reasoned to by reading scriptures if you had not previously known through the Church that God is a Trinity) and you are then participating through the church (you learned it from the church) in its infallibility. End of story. Do not complicated into some �magic power� nor think that everything that the church might say - is infallible. Only very few items within the church are infallible - most other items in the church pertain to the way the church humanly organizes itself or to normal aspects of living a spiritual and moral life.

If you look at �infallibility� it should make reasonable sense to you. It is a reasonable - thing and not really �mysterious�. When every you see the truth of something and you speak that truth - you are speaking infallibly (without error) - now all you need do is raise that to the level of the church - and consider that Jesus always spoke infallibly (every word) but it is also fact that we often do not understand and often misunderstand - his parables. Sometimes we understand a parable that he spoke - a bit - and sometimes we later understand it better� and sometimes we find that we had misunderstood it completely. So it is that just because something is �infallible� it does not necessarily follow that everyone who hears or reads that thing - receives it infallibly (without error).

>And what would be your interpretation of John 16:13,
>which of course would not be your self-interpretation but that of the Church?

I am not aware of any infallible statement by the Church on the interpretation of John 16:13. I am not aware of any Council defining the meaning of John 16:13 in any infallible way.

The church has defined very little of scriptures in any infallible way� because� Theology is defined in an infallible way (as I said - theology is revealed truth that God alone can give and is itself not contained in scriptures) while scriptures (economy) contains those things which can be reasoned to and understood through natural human ways.

If I were to guess at the meaning of John 16:13 I might consult the writings of early fathers as to their opinions. Obviously, some weight would have to be given to these early fathers many of whom were well on the way in sanctification (remember that being a saint is not being error free). I would probably find several varied opinions but there would probably be a similar thread - a similarity - between them. Next I would consult that Catechism (well, I might have done that first also) and tried to understand any comments given there about this portion. Next (because I have good years of background in the Jewish culture of the time) I would read what comes before it and what comes after because there is a flow and continuity to scriptures and we should very seldom try to take a meaning from a line in isolation (without context). Next (if I wanted of be as precise as possible) I would research the Greek used and take a look at the Hebrew equivalent (because most of the NT originated in Hebrew or Aramaic and was later transliterated into Greek)� then I would search my mind for anything of good spiritual writers that I might have once read commenting on it� then� finally� I would throw all these into the pot and use my human reson and intuition (knowledge of human nature) and probably come up with a pretty good idea what Jesus was talking about.

In around line 16:16 Jesus is hinting to them regarding his crucifixion and resurrection - where - he will later appear to them bodily in his resurrected nature. In line 16:18 we hear one of the apostles give a fuller account of what Jesus had just said by the apostle quoting Jesus also having said �Because I am going to the father.� and so we can say that Jesus� �going to the father� is connected with this time in which the apostles will not see him and with the event of the death and resurrection.

From 16:1 on we can see that Jesus was telling the apostles of his going away and coming again (so that they would experience his resurrected body) - before hand - so that when he did appear to them in his resurrected body they could remember that Jesus had said that he would do that.
Sop far it seems that Jesus is telling them (but not in a plain way) that he will die (be taken form them) and that event of his death will also be a reuniting with his father. It appears that Jesus did not want them to fully understand yet and that he would have them fully understand only after the event (ah.. You see? What I say� often are not given the full understanding right ways but things may be clear much later if we are patient). And the disciples took it to mean that Jesus would be separated from them but it appears they did not connect this with his death being the separation.

Jesus seems to be combining his going to the father - with sending the holy spirit (now that would seem to vindicate the filoque) but in any event - the spirit is given the name �advocate� meaning to speak on another�s behalf. And in line 12 we see this confirmed when Jesus says that �I have more to tell you - but when the advocate comes he will give guidance in the rest� (all truth). And �what he declares to you� means as if someone who had been charged to deliver something to someone is completing the task assigned �he will declare the things that are coming.�

Now I would note that Jesus is specifically speaking to his apostle here� and the subject from the context is the coming event of his death and his resurrection (by which he was taken away, died, and laid in a tomb) and his first appearance to them (as a group) by entering into the lock upper room (in his resurrected body) where they had gathered. In that context then the appearance of the �advocate� would be the Holy Spirit which came to them on that occasion as the rushing sound of wind and tongues of flame settling upon their heads.

Now here is 16:13 �
Now in as much as we can tell that Jesus is specifically speaking to the apostles about the specific event that will take place when they are locked in the upper room and Jesus enters it in his resurrected body - and the sound of a great wind and flames descending at the moment they receive the holy spirit - we can now turn to where every these events are given in the gospels.

Jesus appear in the upper room (John 201:10)
Holy Spirit is received for the first time (Acts 2:1)

Jesus stayed bodily with them for 40 days, after which time he ascended and immediately after his ascension they gathered in the same room and the holy spirit was received. The results of the reception of the holy spirit were that they were given the gift (not of their own human capability) to tell others of Jesus and the good news (gospel).

It is interesting that Jesus seems to combine these two events. Yup - they happened in the same room but at different times. Yet Jesus - seems to consider them almost - a single event - one directly joined to the other. Hmmm.. Interesting.

That is as far as I would take the meaning of John 16:13 and no further. You are thus saved from anymore of my extensive yakking J

-ray

Ray, you move me to tears with your "extensive yakking" - I thank you from the bottom of my heart. I just can't believe that someone would take so much time and dedication to answer a little question - with so much love and good-will! I don't know what to say.

It is not always real easy but I make my way through your posts with an open mind and heart - because you are so innocent in what you say. You just want to magnify the Lord and do Him justice and not say anything that would be wrong according to your understanding of the writings.

Thank you for treating me like royalty, Ray. God bless you for being so willing to be used in His hand.

I promise I will read that book, but it's going to take a while. I will take a lot over the week-end though.

As for the filioque - I don't have a problem with that. Jesus says in John 10:30 "I and my Father are one." This is perfectly congruent with the Schema of Dt.6:4 "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord". Considering the fact that Jesus and the Father are one, Jesus could breath on the Apostles and impart the Holy Spirit. Considering the "Oneness" of God, it helps to look at Gen.1:1-3 to see how the Three-in-One or triune presence of the Godhead, expressed in the name "Elohim", cannot be divided and has to be perceived as One complete and undivisible entity. The Nicene creed calls The Son Light of Light, and they certainly are of the same substance and are indivisible, meaning One cannot be existent nor imagined without the other. The same goes for the Holy Spirit.
I think it is a vain attempt of the human mind to try to separate what cannot be separated. If the Father is God and the Son is God also (and the Holy Spirit), is one of them a lesser God? Or are they two (three) Gods? No, Jesus says that they are One. He also says that it is the Father Who draws someone to Jesus (John 6:44 "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.") That is a picture like when you see an apple laying on the table and your spirit intermediates between your will and your muscles and your arm reaches out to pick up that apple to bring it to your mouth.

Jesus Christ is the incarnation of Dt.6:4. A separation and schism about this would not be necessary, provided man is willing. If anything is glorifying God, it is true. If it brings separation into the Body of Christ, it is false.

May the Lord bless you and your family,

Shiloah, who feels honored and considers you a gift of God's grace to this forum

Shiloah,

Not to butt in on you & brother Ray, I sorta understand what he is saying, I don't have Ray's gift for explaining or typing up a great post but here is my experience recently, the other day I fell back to a old sinful act and before I really realized the action, a common white wing dove landed on wall adjacent to my computer room window and started cooing, which I just shrugged off, until he flew into the screen twice, then I opened the curtains the wise guy stared at me from the wall. Then it dawned on me and wham I was acknowledging it was wrong and repenting.

Yes, we must be receptive and not so skeptical, the Lord does reach out to us, do we recognize it?

No more Playboy.com !

james

Thanks for that pratical lesson to our subject, Jacub. Yes, the Lord is watching over us and He has ways of communicating through His little 'helpers' anytime and everywhere. It is very reassuring, isn't it, and shows His great love for us. He certainly isn't one who doesn't care. He has His eyes on you, Jacub, and, as He says in Ps.32:8 " I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye."

And by the way, you're not butting in, Jacub, I was hoping other readers would participate in this topic, too.

Shiloah, grateful

Sorry RayK,

I posted quickly the other nite. I wasn't even suppose to up and about. I just wanted to give a general explantion and a place to listen to Scott Hahn on Shiloah questions..

If you are still discussing all of this later, maybe I can chime in more.

Pani Rose

If you want to get the chills that God is real and alive � let me relate this to your dove event.

Several years ago I knew this man (well - I still occasional speak with him) and the good Lord was busy at work upon him. He went through a period of Dark Nights (St. John of the Cross) where his intellect would become suspended (he would have difficulty just thinking) and he told me that � well� here in New England we have light gray or brownish doves� they come in pairs and mate for life.. I believe they are called Turtle doves. Almost never do you see one alone - when you see one the other is right next to it or very near by. This man told me (and I believe him explicitly) that several times the good Lord would present to him one lone dove - alone - and at the same time he would receive an inner communication (a clear intuition that was not his own) that another dark night was soon to be on the way. The dark night would not come as long as he remembered seeing the dove. It would come sometime later (days, weeks) but it would come when he had completely forgotten about the sign and the forewarning Then, when the dark night engulfed him - he would be reminded of the dove and that God had told him that this night would come upon him - and his faith was boosted to endure the discomfort.

Now some would call this synchronicity (as Jung did) but that would be a definition that is lacking a reference to God as Providence.

I do not suggest that people begin looking for �signs� or that anyone else see a dove and think it is a sign. These are very personal �conversations� between God and a soul. But I do bring it up because, apparently, He likes to use a dove from time to time.

By the way, I am not a charismatic and never have been. I have just had the good Providence to have run across and become friends with a few unusual people who live quiet but very spiritual lives. Do you think I would be so bold - otherwise? It might be wise for others to be couscous in what they say but I an 55 years old and that other �horizon� is coming into view - it is time I be more bold than cautious and I can take �the hit� if some do not like it.

Anyway, knowing about the �lone dove� gave me good chills when I read about the dove insisting itself at your window. It is a thing that shakes you to the very bones - to become aware that He is actually real and here and working. Good thing He is very understanding about our often failures (mine also) and is immediately ready to begin with us again. We do not begin as saint - we progress to it and it takes plenty of time and failures on the way.

Now, if no one minds, after hearing about the insistent dove at the windows, I am going off to sit quietly and just think what a wonderful thing it is that we have such a patient, helpful, and understanding God!

-ray

Thank you Ray,

I'm aware of but do not search for signs, somedays I forget where my reading glasses are 5 minutes after using them .

I guess the Holy Spirit speaks to all of us in a unique way that we can comprehend.

james