Which Trinity ?

[MiserereNobis]

But, apparently it wasn't recorded by his disciples.

Don't you agree that Jesus and His Apostles did and said much more than was ever recorded? Yet people saw and heard these things, yes? Especially the Apostles as regards to Jesus. Tradition existed before Scripture, because the Apostles saw and heard what Jesus was teaching before they ever wrote it down. And Jesus didn't write anything down that was recorded (I've often wondered what He was writing in the sand when the adultress was brought to Him...)

Especially when those that have the authority to correct such heresy (that would be the Apostles) are no longer found in the church.

That the Bishops are the successors to the Apostles is pure speculation.

You appeal to LDS doctrine to support the idea that only apostles can correct heresy. I appeal to Catholic doctrine that the Bishops are successors to the Apostles. Ultimately, both of these points are extra-Biblical (but not without hints in the Bible).

And don't forget Hellenized philosophers. The councils would NEVER have come up with this stuff without them.

Do you agree that truth is truth no matter where it is found?

Also, I have never heard that the councils claimed to be operating "under the guidance and protection of the Holy Ghost. I think some post council retrojection is going on.

Feel free to think what you think

Which, apparently, they did not record.

See above.

Nah, because the word of wisdom had been documented.

Your analogy isn't even close.

You know, it is far more useful to explain why my analogy isn't even close than just to say it isn't. Why don't you offer some arguments and evidence? I have nothing to respond to otherwise.

Edited September 19, 2012 by MiserereNobis

[Vance]

Don't you agree that Jesus and His Apostles did and said much more than was ever recorded?

Absolutely. I also believe that we don't have all that was recorded.

Yet people saw and heard these things, yes? Especially the Apostles as regards to Jesus. Tradition existed before Scripture, because the Apostles saw and heard what Jesus was teaching before they ever wrote it down. And Jesus didn't write anything down that was recorded (I've often wondered what He was writing in the sand when the adultress was brought to Him...)

True, but not relevant.

We both believe that Jesus revealed the true nature of God to His disciples. I believe that it was recorded and that we have it today and that heresy entered in and corrupted the true doctrine until it was restored through divine revelation.

You (if I have it right) believe that heresy entered in and (I realize you may not like the words I use) that it took the Hellenized/neoplatonic philosophers to get it back some centuries later.

Sorry, but I don't see any evidence that those philosophers were guided by the Holy Spirit.

You appeal to LDS doctrine to support the idea that only apostles can correct heresy. I appeal to Catholic doctrine that the Bishops are successors to the Apostles. Ultimately, both of these points are extra-Biblical (but not without hints in the Bible).

I guess I don't see the hints in the Bible that the Bishops are successors to the Apostles. I would be interested in them if you would be so kind as to provide them.

Do you agree that truth is truth no matter where it is found?

Yes, I do. But I don't think that the true nature of God can be found in the philosophies of men. I believe that God has to reveal them.

Feel free to think what you think

Thank you, I will. At least until I have a good reason to think differently.

I fully expect you to do the same.

You know, it is far more useful to explain why my analogy isn't even close than just to say it isn't. Why don't you offer some arguments and evidence? I have nothing to respond to otherwise.

I did. The word of wisdom was documented. No need to re-reveal it, or have a council to re-establish it. All that may be helpful is some added clarification. It really wasn't much of a stretch to say that "hot drinks" meant coffee and tea. It isn't like there were other hot drinks that were popular at the time.

[longview]

Do you agree that truth is truth no matter where it is found?

Yes. And you must carefully search the scriptures and compare verses and try to discern the context. The Apostles did warn against following "every wind of doctrine". This includes the "philosophies of men" expounded by Greek thinkers and others.

Question: what role do you think Emperor Constantine had in the Council of Nicea and the fact that he used Christianity as a way to increase his power over his empire? Why did he wait until he was on his deathbed before "consenting" to baptism? Paganism was a big part of his life and he was naturally attracted to assertions of the "Hellenized Philosophers" in support of the warped and unbiblical notions of the Trinity. It is documented that he exiled or put to death some of the dissenters.

As for me, I have searched the scriptures and I fully accept His words describing His mission to DO the WILL of His Father. I fully accept the testimony in Genesis that we are created in the IMAGE and LIKENESS of God. These are simple and strait forward truths. There numerous scriptures that amplify on this point. Zerinus did a excellent job in a recent thread expounding on KJV John 17 where he showed Jesus saying His disciples (and other followers) can be ONE among themselves AND also be ONE WITH God. KJV verse 22 shows Jesus emphasizing this point by saying "they may be ONE, even as we (Jesus and God the Father) are ONE.

[MiserereNobis]

I did. The word of wisdom was documented. No need to re-reveal it, or have a council to re-establish it. All that may be helpful is some added clarification. It really wasn't much of a stretch to say that "hot drinks" meant coffee and tea. It isn't like there were other hot drinks that were popular at the time.

First of all, the word of wisdom says that it is NOT a commandment. It was later leaders who said it was. I'm not pointing this out as a problem in the word of wisdom -- I'm pointing this out as an example in the LDS church of later leaders authoritatively interpreting/clarifying previous texts, even to the extent of an apparent contradiction.

As far as "hot drinks," I agree with you that it isn't much a stretch to say coffee and tea, but again, later leaders gave this an authoritative clarification, so that hot chocolate was not included and iced tea was.

My point, again, is that you should not dismiss so easily the idea of later authorities clarifying, expanding, and interpreting prior ideas/doctrines, because it happens in your church.

[Vance]

First of all, the word of wisdom says that it is NOT a commandment. It was later leaders who said it was.

Not until AFTER the membership voted to accept it as a commandment.

I'm not pointing this out as a problem in the word of wisdom -- I'm pointing this out as an example in the LDS church of later leaders authoritatively interpreting/clarifying previous texts, even to the extent of an apparent contradiction.

But you are making assumptions that are not correct.

As far as "hot drinks," I agree with you that it isn't much a stretch to say coffee and tea, but again, later leaders gave this an authoritative clarification, so that hot chocolate was not included and iced tea was.

So? Clarification is NOT the same as re-revealing it.

My point, again, is that you should not dismiss so easily the idea of later authorities clarifying, expanding, and interpreting prior ideas/doctrines, because it happens in your church.

Yeah, but that is not what happened in the councils. They were in the business of fabricating new doctrine based, not on scripture or revelation, but upon Hellenistic philosophies of men.

[Vance]

I guess I don't see the hints in the Bible that the Bishops are successors to the Apostles. I would be interested in them if you would be so kind as to provide them.

I was hoping for some references on this.

[Bart Burk]

Not until AFTER the membership voted to accept it as a commandment.

But you are making assumptions that are not correct.

So? Clarification is NOT the same as re-revealing it.

Yeah, but that is not what happened in the councils. They were in the business of fabricating new doctrine based, not on scripture or revelation, but upon Hellenistic philosophies of men.

Didn't the idea of the logos or word in the first chapter of John's gospel come from Greek philosophy?

Edited September 21, 2012 by Bart Burk

[MiserereNobis]

Not until AFTER the membership voted to accept it as a commandment.

So the LDS membership gets to vote to determine what God commands? Please explain.

So? Clarification is NOT the same as re-revealing it.

And with this, the Catholic Church agrees with you. Nothing has been re-revealed.

Yeah, but that is not what happened in the councils. They were in the business of fabricating new doctrine based, not on scripture or revelation, but upon Hellenistic philosophies of men.

Yes, that's exactly what they set out to do. Each council opened with the statement "let's fabricate some new doctrines!"

/s

[Vance]

Didn't the idea of the logos or word in the first chapter of John's gospel come from Greek philosophy?

How do you know that it wasn't a later revision?

Also, if you look at the Greek closely it clearly and plainly separates "The God" from "The Word", yet ascribes divinity/godhood to "The Word".

[Vance]

So the LDS membership gets to vote to determine what God commands? Please explain.

??????

Are you trying to be obtuse?

NObody has claimed it was/is God's commandment. It was a word of advise from God to the Church. The Church chose to make it binding upon the Church.

And with this, the Catholic Church agrees with you. Nothing has been re-revealed.

True, it was fabricated.

Yes, that's exactly what they set out to do. Each council opened with the statement "let's fabricate some new doctrines!"

/s

Well, if it had been guided by the Holy Ghost, the debate wouldn't have been so heated and the consensus would have been unanimous.

It wasn't found in the Church prior to the councils, so yeah, it was fabricated.

[MiserereNobis]

??????

Are you trying to be obtuse?

Are you trying to be inflammatory?

NObody has claimed it was/is God's commandment. It was a word of advise from God to the Church. The Church chose to make it binding upon the Church.

I guess I am misinformed, then. I thought the word of wisdom was considered a commandment from God, and that if one did not live by it one was not a worthy member of the LDS church. Am I mistaken?

True, it was fabricated.

Yes, I guess you are trying to be inflammatory. Well, this is an LDS board -- have at it.

Well, if it had been guided by the Holy Ghost, the debate wouldn't have been so heated and the consensus would have been unanimous.

The Holy Ghost protects from ultimate error. Our theology easily accommodates heated debate and non-unanimous consensus yet the Church remains protected.

It wasn't found in the Church prior to the councils, so yeah, it was fabricated.

The first council was the Council of Jerusalem as described in Acts. Do you accept that council?

[Calm]

I guess I am misinformed, then. I thought the word of wisdom was considered a commandment from God, and that if one did not live by it one was not a worthy member of the LDS church. Am I mistaken?

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1983/04/a-principle-with-a-promise?lang=eng

[Vance]

The Holy Ghost protects from ultimate error.

Any scriptural support for this?

Our theology easily accommodates heated debate and non-unanimous consensus yet the Church remains protected.

New Testament versus indicate otherwise.

The first council was the Council of Jerusalem as described in Acts. Do you accept that council?

Yes, because the Apostles were there.

BTW, I think I think an argument coule be made that Acts describes at least 3 councils. The first being to bring "the twelve" to full strength.

[zerinus]

I guess I am misinformed, then. I thought the word of wisdom was considered a commandment from God, and that if one did not live by it one was not a worthy member of the LDS church. Am I mistaken?

The Word of Wisdom is a commandment; but I wouldn't describe a violater of that rule as "not a worthy member of the Church". That would suggest they don't deserve to be members. In that sense of the term we are all unworthy, and don't deserve to be members; because we are all imperfect, and fall short. But until they comply they are denied certain privileges, such as admission to the temple, or being considered for advancement in the priesthood.

[MiserereNobis]

The Word of Wisdom is a commandment; but I wouldn't describe a violater of that rule as "not a worthy member of the Church". That would suggest they don't deserve to be members. In that sense of the term we are all unworthy, and don't deserve to be members; because we are all imperfect, and fall short. But until they comply they are denied certain privileges, such as admission to the temple, or being considered for advancement in the priesthood.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Are members who do not follow the word of wisdom worthy to receive communion?

[ERayR]

When I was a Mormon, it always seemed to be Mormonism. I'm not sure what is and isn't Mormonism anymore. There are times I wish someone in Salt Lake City would just put together a catechism so that we knew for sure. They could always update it if they received new revelation. The closest thing I ever encountered to a catechism in Mormonism was McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, but we know the LDS Church didn't accept that as definitive. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism which BYU produced explicitly states that it is not official doctrine.

Joseph Smith was very much against creeds. He felt that creeds were limiting and constrictive.

[zerinus]

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Are members who do not follow the word of wisdom worthy to receive communion?

That would be up to their own conscience, I suppose. If a person commits a transgression that is serious enough to make them unworthy of the Sacrament, they would be advised by their bishops to abstain until they make reconciliation (D&C 46:4). But I am not sure if breaking the Word of Wisdom would be considered serious enough for the bishop to advise the individual not to partake. I have to see what the Church Handbook of Instructions says. I think it would be left to their own conscience to decide whether to partake of the Sacrament or not. If you have committed a minor offence that in your own judgement makes you unworthy to partake, you can make that dedcisiion for yourself, without referring to the bishop. This case might be one of those.

P.S. I looked, and it says that breaking the Word of Wisdom is not a cause for disciplinary action by the Church. That means that they could not be formally barred from partaking of the Sacrament. Some bishops my informally advise someone in that situation not to take communion; but I doubt it. I don't think that someone struggling with the Word of Wisdom would be advised not to partake of the Sacrament.

Edited September 22, 2012 by zerinus

[MiserereNobis]

Any scriptural support for this?

There are many verses that speak of the Holy Ghost as being most concerned with truth, particularly in John 14, 15, and 16, when Jesus promises the Holy Ghost to the disciples so that they will be able to remember all that He taught them.

Sacred Tradition dictates that one of the roles of the Holy Ghost, as a provider of truth, is to protect the Church from error, the opposite of truth.

By the way, what's the LDS doctrine on the infallibility of the LDS church? In other words, what's to keep another apostasy from happening and the priesthood taken away again?

New Testament versus indicate otherwise.

Which ones? It would be more helpful if you were a little more verbose in your responses -- it's hard to discuss things when all you say is one or two sentences (and it also makes your tone appear aggressive, in case that wasn't your intent).

Yes, because the Apostles were there.

Not just the Apostles, but the Apostles and the elders. The Catholic interpretation is that these elders were the Bishops. Who are these elders in the LDS interpretation and how does their authority relate to the Apostles, since they were at the Council?

BTW, I think I think an argument coule be made that Acts describes at least 3 councils. The first being to bring "the twelve" to full strength.

Interesting. What would the other council be?

From the Catholic perspective, the purpose of replacing Judas was not to keep the number of Apostles at 12, but to do exactly what they did, replace Judas. This is clear from the Peter's statements and the scriptural evidence he uses to justify the action.

Peter begins by telling them why they have replace Judas.

Acts 1:16

Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus:

Notice that he doesn't say anything about there always having to be 12 Apostles, but instead refers to a specific scripture/prophesy that concerns Judas specifically.

Here is that scripture that has been authoritatively interpreted by Peter to refer to Judas.

Acts 1:20

For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

Judas has been cursed for his treason -- his habitation is desolate. And because of his treason, his bishopric will be taken by another. Notice that the focus is again on Judas, not on the fact that there has to be 12 Apostles. And also notice that Judas' office, the one being filled by Mathias, is referred to as a "bishopric" (since Bishops are the successors to the Apostles).

Also, I'll point out that the criteria for a replacement is VERY clear. The Apostles were special and specific witnesses of Christ's life, therefore the replacement had to have been a disciple and a witness of Jesus' life from His baptism all the way to His resurrection and ascension.

Acts 1:21-22

Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us,

Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection.

The Apostles were the witnesses of Christ's temporal life -- that's what made them special and different from the other Bishops whom they appointed. The replacement for Judas had to also be a witness of Christ's temporal life -- that's what made him an Apostle.

Finally, this is all put together in the prayer before the casting of lots.

Acts 1:24-25

And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.

Judas' minstery and apostleship, his role as a special witness, is being given to another because he fell through transgression. It is not being given to another because there has to always be 12 Apostles. No Apostles were replaced after this, because this replacement was a special one-time case dealing with Judas and with Judas alone. And there could be no Apostles later on, because an Apostle has to have witnessed Christ's life from His baptism to His resurrection and ascension. And the office of the Apostle is called an apostleship, referring to their special role as witnesses (apostle means one who is sent forth) and a bishopric, referring to their priesthood authority.

Just for clarification, the first presidency are all apostles, right? So the LDS church has 15 apostles?

[SamIam]

Judas has been cursed for his treason -- his habitation is desolate. And because of his treason, his bishopric will be taken by another. Notice that the focus is again on Judas, not on the fact that there has to be 12 Apostles. And also notice that Judas' office, the one being filled by Mathias, is referred to as a "bishopric" (since Bishops are the successors to the Apostles).

Also, I'll point out that the criteria for a replacement is VERY clear. The Apostles were special and specific witnesses of Christ's life, therefore the replacement had to have been a disciple and a witness of Jesus' life from His baptism all the way to His resurrection and ascension.

I think we have to be a little careful with your explanation at this point in the use of the word "bishopric" as the subtleties of the term do not correlate to your expectations of it as a title of a specific position that was "the successors to the Apostles."

The two Psalms verses combined to support the reference Psalm 69:25 Psalm 109:8

KJV Psalms 69: 25 Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents.

KJV Psalms 109:8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

serve more to sustain translations that convey this type of meaning:

NIV (©1984)

Acts 1:20

"For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms, "'May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,' and, "'

May another take his place of leadership.'

The majority of respected Biblical commentaries and entomological research also sustains that:

The Greek word which is used here, ἐπισκοπὴν episkopēn, is taken from the Septuagint, and means the same thing as the Hebrew. It is well rendered in the margin "office, or charge."

It means charge or office in general, without in itself specifying of what kind.

It is the concrete of the noun ἐπισκόπους episkopous, commonly translated "bishop," and means his office, charge, or duty.

That word means simply having the oversight of anything, and as applied to the officers of the New Testament, it denotes merely "their having charge of the affairs of the church," without specifying the nature or the extent of their jurisdiction.

Hence, it is often interchanged with presbyter or elder, and denotes the discharge of the duties of the same office: Acts 20:28, "Take heed (presbyters or elders, Acts 20:17) to yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers" - ἐπισκόπους episkopous - bishops; Hebrews 12:15, "Looking diligently," etc. - ἐπισκοποῦντες episkopountes; Philippians 1:1, "with the bishops and deacons"; "Paul called presbyters bishops, for they had at that time the same name" (Theodoret, as quoted by Sehleusner); 1 Peter 5:2, "Feed the flock of God (that is, you who are elders, or presbyters, 1 Peter 5:1), taking the oversight thereof" - ἐπισκοποῦντες episkopountes. These passages show that the term in the New Testament designates the supervision or care which was exercised over the church, by whomsoever performed, without specifying the nature or extent of the jurisdiction.

It is scarcely necessary to add that Peter here did not intend to affirm that Judas sustained any office corresponding to what is now commonly understood by the term "bishop."

(From this Link:

http://bible.cc/acts/1-20.htm

)

The expectations that some organizations have that this refers to a specific office designed to cover the gap in ecclesiastical administration is a transitional meaning that has crept into common usage within Catholicism and is not consistent with good scholarship. It is upon this and other factors that the entire theory of assigning the status to Peter as the Bishop of Rome begins to surface many years after the deaths of the apostles. It is an effort to create an impression of magnified authority for men in lesser positions. Seeking to define a reasonable explanation for how to claim priesthood authority, the subtle implications of the words for overseer or general authority of a congregation or group were tweaked to embrace the highest level of priesthood authority remaining, Bishop, after the Apostolic authority passed. Thus by expanding upon the specificity of a general term it appears to lend credibility to a morphing of meaning where objectivity requires a more thoughtful consideration.

However, your expectation of the office of Apostle being one of "special and specific witnesses of Christ's life is very much consistent with LDS theology which also maintains the reality of ongoing "public revelation" as a means of fulfilling the criteria of witness.

Edited September 24, 2012 by SamIam

[Hestia]

Are you trying to be obtuse?

Vance, watch your tone. No need for personal insults.

[Vance]

There are many verses that speak of the Holy Ghost as being most concerned with truth, particularly in John 14, 15, and 16, when Jesus promises the Holy Ghost to the disciples so that they will be able to remember all that He taught them.

True, but not evidence that the HG was involved in the councils.

Sacred Tradition dictates that one of the roles of the Holy Ghost, as a provider of truth, is to protect the Church from error, the opposite of truth.

I would not expect your traditions to be any different. But traditions are not evidence.

By the way, what's the LDS doctrine on the infallibility of the LDS church?

There is none.

In other words, what's to keep another apostasy from happening and the priesthood taken away again?

The righteousness of the members as a whole.

Which ones?

Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

It would be more helpful if you were a little more verbose in your responses -- it's hard to discuss things when all you say is one or two sentences (and it also makes your tone appear aggressive, in case that wasn't your intent).

Sorry. I am no a person of many words. I will try to do better.

I is rather obvious that IF the Spirit was involved there would not have been debating going on. But rather a coming together in peace, love, joy, gentleness, etc. Thus becoming one with each other and with God as described in John 17.

Peter begins by telling them why they have replace Judas.

Acts 1:16

Which shows that the apostles were to be replaced with apostles.

Notice that he doesn't say anything about there always having to be 12 Apostles,

Nor does he say that there will come a time when the church would not have apostles.

But instead refers to a specific scripture/prophesy that concerns Judas specifically.

No, he is simply saying that this scripture is applicable in Judas's case. Nothing said precludes this scripture from being again and again. It is apparent that it was used when Paul and Barnabus were called to the apostleship.

Here is that scripture that has been authoritatively interpreted by Peter to refer to Judas.

Acts 1:20

See above.

Judas has been cursed for his treason -- his habitation is desolate. And because of his treason, his bishopric will be taken by another. Notice that the focus is again on Judas, not on the fact that there has to be 12 Apostles.

You are making conclusion that aren't required by the information provided.

It is rather obvious that one of the specific purposes and responsibilities of the apostles was to maintain pure doctrine.

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

1 Cor 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

No mention of Bishops.

[Vance]

Also, I'll point out that the criteria for a replacement is VERY clear. The Apostles were special and specific witnesses of Christ's life, therefore the replacement had to have been a disciple and a witness of Jesus' life from His baptism all the way to His resurrection and ascension.

Acts 1:21-22

Yet Paul didn't meet this requirement. You are assuming that a description of the pool of persons under consideration must be a requirement for all apostles.

The only real requirement in these verse is that "must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection", which would indicate that maintaining 12 was the more important factor here.

The Apostles were the witnesses of Christ's temporal life --

Excepting Paul of course.

The replacement for Judas had to also be a witness of Christ's temporal life -- that's what made him an Apostle.

You are assuming a requirement where no is given. The calling of Paul to the apostleship totally undermines your argument.

Judas' minstery and apostleship, his role as a special witness, is being given to another because he fell through transgression. It is not being given to another because there has to always be 12 Apostles.

That doesn't explain the calling of Paul and Barnabas to the apostleship.

No Apostles were replaced after this, because this replacement was a special one-time case dealing with Judas and with Judas alone.

Who did Paul and Barnabas replace?

And there could be no Apostles later on, because an Apostle has to have witnessed Christ's life from His baptism to His resurrection and ascension.

So, the apostles Paul and Barnabas weren't apostles?

And the office of the Apostle is called an apostleship, referring to their special role as witnesses (apostle means one who is sent forth) and a bishopric, referring to their priesthood authority.

And yet bishops were subordinate to the subordinates of the Apostles. And even lower if you are not allowing Paul and Barnabas to be apostles.

Timothy and Titus were subordinates of Paul (who apparently was subordinate to the twelve). And bishops were subordinate to Timothy and Titus.

[mfbukowski]

So the LDS membership gets to vote to determine what God commands? Please explain.

http://en.wikipedia....Sensus_fidelium

The concept of sensus fidelium (also referred to as sensus fidei fidelium, and related to sensus fidei fidelis, which is also called sensus fidei or sensum fidei) in Roman Catholic teachings can be implicitly traced back to the early Fathers of the Church. In literal terms, sensus fidelium simply means the "sense of the faithful" and refers to doctrinal truth recognized (sensed) by the whole body of the faithful. Note that sensus fidei by itself as commonly used in theological dialogue, which literally means the "sense of the faith", refers to this understanding as belonging to the individual believer within the community of the faithful.^[1]

While most Catholic doctrines and theological teachings either originate in scripture or are established by the higher levels of the Church hierarchy, sensus fidelium works from the ground up, from the beliefs of the masses of the faithful, not only as understood through the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible, but also as inspired by the Holy Spirit, which guides the faithful at large within the framework of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Lumen Gentium, in a passage later quoted by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, explains:

He does this not only through the hierarchy who teach in His name and with His authority, but also through the laity whom He made His witnesses and to whom He gave understanding of the faith [

sensus fidei

] and an attractiveness in speech so that the power of the Gospel might shine forth in their daily social and family life.

[2]

But sensus fidelium is not a basis for a democratic approach to determining the teachings of the Holy See. It stipulates that the concepts involved must be viewed under the guidance of the Magisterium. However, in his letter to the 1998 Inquisition Symposium, Pope John Paul II suggested that sensus fidei may also be used in the other direction, i.e. to reflect on the past actions of the Magisterium. He stated that:

One must appeal to the "sensus fidei" to find the criteria for a just judgment on the past of the life of the Church.

[3]

The pontiff then referred to the freedoms provided in the context of Dignitatis Humanae, stating that: "The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with both gentleness and power."

Some theologians have commented critically on the Church's failure to effectively listen to the sensum fidei, such as Donal Dorr, who has also noted a western and ethnocentric leaning in Catholic social teaching.^[4] There are opposing theologians, such as George Weigel, who believe that Catholic social doctrine is emerging as more liberal and attentive to this tendency in the community of the faithful.^[5]

A key example of the recent use of sensus fidelium was the development of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, as defined by Pope Pius IX. It came about not so much because of proofs in scripture or ancient tradition, but due to a sensus fidelium shared by the faithful and the Magisterium.^[6] The Vatican quotes in this context the encyclical Fulgens Corona, where Pope Pius XII supported such a faith:

If the popular praises of the Blessed Virgin Mary be given the careful consideration they deserve, who will dare to doubt that she, who was purer than the angels and at all times pure, was at any moment, even for the briefest instant, not free from every stain of sin?

[7]

And of course the faithful are always infallible, which proves conclusively there could not possibly have been an apostasy.

Edited September 25, 2012 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

http://en.wikipedia....Sensus_fidelium

And of course the faithful are always infallible, which proves conclusively there could not possibly have been an apostasy.

The statement does not say that the faithful are always infallible -- nice straw man

Notice that the Magisterium is invoked in the article, which specifically and rightly points out that the sensum fidelium is not a democratic approach to doctrine, but is under the guidance of the Magisterium, whose role is only infallible at very specific and certain instances (such as Pope Pius IX declaration of the Immaculate Conception).

However, based on the tone of your one line sarcastic response, I find it less likely that you were truly interested in trying to understand this. My apologies if I am mistaken in this assumption, but that is how it appears.

[Ahab]

Notice that the Magisterium is invoked in the article, which specifically and rightly points out that the sensum fidelium is not a democratic approach to doctrine, but is under the guidance of the Magisterium, whose role is only infallible at very specific and certain instances (such as Pope Pius IX declaration of the Immaculate Conception).

So someone in the Magisterium says something, or perhaps the whole Magiserium collectively say something, and then what?

Are you supposed to just believe it based on your own belief that what they are saying is true? How do you arrive at that belief?

What or who is it that leads you to believe what they say?

For us, or at least me and the many others who I know agree with me, we take what our Church leaders tell us as an idea that we can then ask God about, with God being the one (or 3) to tell us whether or not that idea is true, with him sometimes going into more detail to explain how it is true, even so far that we can use common sense to explain it to others.

From there it's just a matter of everyone else getting confirmation from God so they can also know what is true, and we fully expect everyone who agrees with God to also agree with us, eventually.