Why would the Catholic Church put together a Book that disproves thier own doctrine?

[maltmom]

Originally Posted by gigi4747

This is a great discussion with lots of interesting points being made! And maltmom, I like that you break out in Amens!

vis-a-vis the "undivided" church and which one is now the one true Church...it seems like one of the pre-eminent issues that divides us is the Real Presence. Was the doctrine of the Real Presence taught while the Church was still undivided? And if so, doesn't that make it improbable that any church that rejects the idea of the Real Presence is the church that Christ founded? (That said, it also seems to me that John 6 would exclude such a church [ie, one that denies the Real Presence] from being the one that Christ founded, regardless of what the early church did.) I'd be interested especially to hear non-Catholic views on this.

Thanks!

I remember as a Protestant child believing in the Real Presence. I asked once why we said it was just symbolic when Jesus said it is His Body and Blood. You can imagine that didn't go over well with my pastor. I guess I was Catholic then, I just didn't know it.

[submariner2]

Originally Posted by JonNC

Qualifications;

No pope - well, not in the sense of universal jurisidiction.
No Magisterium - depends on what is meant by their role.
No priests - depends on what is meant by their role
No praying to saints - the issue the Lutheran reformers had, primarily, was the requirement to ask intercession of the saints
No seven sacraments - the Lutheran reformers' main issue was in the finite numbering, and the lack of distinction between those established by Christ in the NT (Baptism, Eucharist, Confession/Absolution, and OT sacraments (annointing of the sick, marriage)

Jon

Jon,

Obviously the Reformers did not see support for those in scripture. (Neither do I) They also defined a sacrament as a distinctly Christian Rite insituted by Christ. Obviously a OT tradition would not fit that definition.

I am just trying to answer your question and not start an argument that has been going on on for centuries.

Rob

[submariner2]

dzheremi;9386645]I am confused as to what this could possibly mean. I do not mean this to be polemical (meaning, I am not challenging the right of the Roman Church to define its canon as it wishes, when it wishes), but it seems to me that St. Athanasius proposed the canon (obviously accepted by his own Church), which was accepted within a matter of about two decades by his Roman counterpart, and the Latin churches of North Africa, and eventually by the Eastern/Byzantine churches...yet for some reason, this canon is not considered to be accepted by the entire Catholic Church, but the one put forth ~1300 years later and accepted only by and within one church is? I realize that we have very different ideas of Catholicity, but the definition that would exclude the more widely accepted and ancient canon in favor of a later, more restricted canon seems...well, odd, to say the least.

dz,

You are presuming a formal acceptance by Athanasius' church. No evidence. Some individual churches accepted the 27 book NT canon but no evidence of the rest at least formally. Hence the need according to the Catholic church for the Trent canon. In addition the Jerome formula for the Vulgate (Deuterocanicals as apochrypha) was still acceted by many, which made some of the Catholic arguments with the Reformers difficult. Hence the need for the Trent canon as they saw it.

"He had no way to make it official church wide"...I would think that the history of the canon would make this point largely irrelevant. What "way" did he need, when the canon was in fact accepted by the churches mentioned earlier, spanning East to West? It seems like saying that it can't be considered "official" because it wasn't accepted according to some predetermined way (when, by the way, it was...the Eastern Churches, being conciliar, accepted it in council at Trullo...as did in fact the Western churches of North Africa at their own local councils) is missing the larger point - namely, that it was accepted (so proper procedure must've been satisfied by that acceptance, no? Or else Rome and the Berbers would have said no), including by those churches (Rome) that would later redefine the Canon in keeping with their subsequent histories.

Official means official. As I explained above it is difficult to argue precise doctrine without an official canon.

As far as I know as a Coptic Orthodox Christian, we follow his canon -- and we are his own church.

Thats fine. We are too. I pray for your church often regarding troubles they are facing in the present day. We christians should be accepting of each other and not rejecting.

Rob

[gigi4747]

Originally Posted by maltmom

Thanks!

I remember as a Protestant child believing in the Real Presence. I asked once why we said it was just symbolic when Jesus said it is His Body and Blood. You can imagine that didn't go over well with my pastor. I guess I was Catholic then, I just didn't know it.

This is getting me teary-eyed! Welcome home.

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by JustaServant

Asked this question today to a fundamentalist up in the apologetics playground. He is trying to disprove a Catholic teaching by using the "neutral source" of the Bible.
I thought I would ask both Catholics and non-Catholics this simple quesion.
It begins with the premise of course that the Catholic Church put together the Bible we have.
Why would the Catholic Church put together a Book that disproves thier own doctrine?

Fundamentalists will question the premise.

Best to focus on the preservation. Point to the immense number of Biblical manuscripts preserved in monasteries.

You might also point to the vast proportion of medieval theology dedicated to Biblical commentary (Aquinas is best known today for his philosophical work, but his primary task as a teacher was actually to comment on Scripture--philosophy was seen as a kind of preliminary to that task, just as modern Protestants might view the study of Biblical languages).

Edwin

[maltmom]

Originally Posted by gigi4747

This is getting me teary-eyed! Welcome home.

awww thank you. It's GREAT to be home.

[benjohnson]

Originally Posted by maltmom

Thanks!

I remember as a Protestant child believing in the Real Presence..

A Protestant who knows of the teal Body and Blood of Christ is called a Lutheran.

I'm glad you found a way to partake in the mystery among God's people.

[Patavium]

Originally Posted by submariner2

Pat,

You asked for an example and I gave it. Irenaeus obviously depended on Scripture for his theology. However good he was as a theologian does not make him a good historian. He was refering to stories he had heard on the history issue. He had no way to know if they were true or not. Most historians today say he was wrong from a history standpoint even though he contributed much to christian theology. Even Catholic historians say that the Roman Church was not founded by Peter and Paul.

Of course there are many other examples of ECFs expressing the sola scriptura belief.

Rob

Who is saying that Scripture is not important? SCRIPTURE IS IMPORTANT, it is just NOT THE ONLY source. Both TRADITION and SCRIPTURE are important that is what St. Irenaeus is teaching.

Also, You are CLAIMING quite a bit here my friend, but where is the PROOF?

[Patavium]

Originally Posted by Patavium

pablope,

He was not as you say teaching sola scriptura.


Let me expand this


We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
(St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, Book III Ch.1)

Here it is clear that St. Irenaeus support the Apostolic teachings passed down from Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and the Church they founded. I don't see where He supports the Johnny-Harry Preaching of Reformation? trying to improve on the Apostles (Yes, when you try to teach improving on the Catholic Church, you are trying to improve on the apostles).

[benjohnson]

Originally Posted by Patavium

Also, You are CLAIMING quite a bit here my friend, but where is the PROOF

If I could perhaps interject in answering your original question:

From my open personal and poor understanding, as a Lutheran, save one problem I have no significant qualms with the modern Catholic church as it stands after the counter-reformation. Your services are in the vernacular and you even have a catechism.

The only significant fly in the ointment is the declaration of Papal Infallibility. I'm ok with the Pope being infallible when he is at most times, but not with the iron clad pronouncement that at certain times he can pronounce doctrine. I have no objections to the pronouncements, but I could imagine that another Leo X should not have that power.

I don't think I'm the only one uncomfortable with this, as my more eloquent Orthodox friends could make a much better argument than I.

[Patavium]

Originally Posted by benjohnson

If I could perhaps interject in answering your original question:

From my open personal and poor understanding, as a Lutheran, save one problem I have no significant qualms with the modern Catholic church as it stands after the counter-reformation. Your services are in the vernacular and you even have a catechism.

The only significant fly in the ointment is the declaration of Papal Infallibility. I'm ok with the Pope being infallible when he is at most times, but not with the iron clad pronouncement that at certain times he can pronounce doctrine. I have no objections to the pronouncements, but I could imagine that another Leo X should not have that power.

I don't think I'm the only one uncomfortable with this, as my more eloquent Orthodox friends could make a much better argument than I.

I see. I welcome you Home, friend. Why don't you start reading a bit more about Papal Infallibility first?

Catholics do not affirm that either the Church or the Pope, her head on earth, is omniscient (all-knowing). They do not affirm that infallibility is equivalent to revelation of new truth or to inspiration. Nor do they affirm that it covers truths which are not integral to the faith or to morality (faith and morals). Neither the Church nor the Pope has the function of settling mathematical or scientific controversies. Nor is it supposed that within the region of revealed truth the Church or the Pope has the answer ready to hand at every moment, for any question that might be raised. There is a gradual ripening of theological thought, a slow deepening of the spiritual insight of the faithful.

See this video too http://www.catholic.com/video/scott-...-infallibility

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by benjohnson

If I could perhaps interject in answering your original question:

From my open personal and poor understanding, as a Lutheran, save one problem I have no significant qualms with the modern Catholic church as it stands after the counter-reformation. Your services are in the vernacular and you even have a catechism.

The only significant fly in the ointment is the declaration of Papal Infallibility. I'm ok with the Pope being infallible when he is at most times, but not with the iron clad pronouncement that at certain times he can pronounce doctrine. I have no objections to the pronouncements, but I could imagine that another Leo X should not have that power.

I don't think I'm the only one uncomfortable with this, as my more eloquent Orthodox friends could make a much better argument than I.

You might be interested in Avery Cardinal Dulles' article on "moderate infallibilism," found in his 1982 book A Church to Believe In.Dulles argues there that while Vatican I condemns the idea that the consent of the Church makes a Papal statement infallible, it does not rule out the possibility that the consent of the Church is one way in which we know that a statement has met the criteria for infallibility. In other words, you don't just woodenly run a papal statement through certain "objective" criteria to decide if it's infallible or not. You look in part at the way in which the statement has been received by the Church. I had the opportunity to speak briefly to Cardinal Dulles in 2004, and I asked him if he still held to this view. He said that he did.

You may ask, "Then what's the point?" I think with any doctrine you have to look at the error it excludes. Dogmas are apophatic--they don't define the faith exhaustively, but they mark out the space of the mystery. This is a characteristically Eastern approach, but it's one that is well in keeping with the teaching of the Roman Communion (contrary to what some Orthodox think).

George Florovsky's essay "The Authority of the Ancient Councils and the Tradition of the Fathers" argues, from an Orthodox point of view, that Councils are "charismatic" events in which the Spirit speaks to the Church, and should not be evaluated by some kind of objective, juridical standard. In other words, RCs like to accuse the Orthodox of having no clear doctrinal authority because they can't say in some objective way how a Council is or is not "Ecumenical." Florovsky makes, I think, an excellent case why this is not necessary.

But here's the thing: there's no reason that papal authority can't also be reconceived in this "charismatic" rather than juridical way. Perhaps Vatican I should be seen as a condemnation of a juridical conciliarism (of the kind RCs tend to assume Orthodox hold and then fault them for not holding) which would put limits on the ability of the Spirit to speak through the Pope even in the absence of a Council.

God bless,

Edwin

[KathleenGee]

The whole problem is the loss of faith in the Church Christ instituted...that must be run by carnate men, not the invisible Holy Spirit...because our perceptions deceive us.

Christ chose 12 apostles, not one.

Protestant denominations are founded by single men who lost faith. If they had only persevered with their issues....we would not have the dismantling of Christianity.

Again again again...Christ did not pass out Bibles. There weren't any but books...and those who followed the Septuagint tradition were those who later believed in Christ, the Messiah. So there were disputes even within Judaism of which to follow, the Mozaric or the Septuagint -- of which St. Paul himself was a follower.

Regarding the dispute now of St. Jerome disagreeing....the fact is it is the Holy Spirit at work in the Church that guided the choice of which books to use for public revelation, and that the true intent of Scripture is preserved by the Holy Spirit for those men who submit to the spirit of the Church Who is none other than Jesus Christ Himself....and His Holy Spirit Who guide us in an ever changing world.

It was the Protestants, 1500 years later, who began removing books.....and the Council of Trent took their concerns to great study, but through prayer and discernment, simply re-affirmed the original choice of the Church to comprise the specific books we use in our faith tradition, this going back 2000 years.

The Book of Wisdom had a single passage that was the foundation for the expansion of science by work of the Jesuits and Augustinian monks, etc...

And it was not the fault of the Church to not have been able to invent the printing press.

Or the fact that most people in the world could not read. Afterall, the epistles speak of the future when most can read and people travel back and forth and many marry.

In past times, many Catholics did not marry, and those who joined monasteries spent their work in developing the land around them for the welfare of the surrounding peoples in the countryside.

If it was necessary we be saved by book form, it would have been set up that way by Christ. But He established His church using carnate, weak men who were empowered by the Holy Spirit.

We have to take a look, not so much at the Council of Trent, that merely reaffirmed the Church's choice of books for Bible use, but to how people in ancient times related to the Word of God....

next post....

[KathleenGee]

Believers in Christ in ancient times, did not reflect on Bible quotes...but on the person....

I was born just a few years after the end of WWII, lived in a military city, and saw the tanks coming home, many still in uniform walking the streets, the sense that this terrible war was not many years back...and I was only 3 years old.

One of the oldest non-canonical texts is the Didache...addressed to the first Christians of first generations who lived immediately after the death of the Apostles.

How many of us wish we had lived in those ancient times, even to the time when Christ was alive...and the following question within our own beings: Would we be one of those who rejected Him?

Instead of following the Bible in text form, the experience of the Apostles and first generation of Christians reflected the freedom of God and human beings, this relationship....noting that Jesus broke not only the power of death, but that of time and space...His Eucharist, the Word Made Flesh, bringing us into the beginning of eternal life now.

What happened is that people were able to have a living encounter with Christ hundreds of years after His death and resurrection, just as real as those living in the times of Christ,

And that what people would miss of the original was not missing the Apostles holding bibles and preaching....but loosing the gaze of their personhood....

In essence faith is based on relationship between God and man, a living relationship, yes fed on the Word of God...but made into Flesh....so we gaze on Jesus in pictures and statues and devotions and many other forms in His creation....

The other point missing in Protestant/Catholic relations is the loss of fraternal charity.

Sola Scriptura is that...Bible alone, no Church, no loving fraternity.....

[ForeverGrace]

Originally Posted by KathleenGee

now.


Sola Scriptura is that...Bible alone, no Church, no loving fraternity.....

Kathleen, I only come to these forums about once or twice every three months. Nothing really ever changes. The same issues are rehashed over and over and over.

Still your posts always have a ring of charity about them, and it surely breeds a great deal of respect from those of us who choose protestantism.

But Sister, I have not only a church, but a loving Christian family that grows like concentric circles around the truth of Jesus Christ.

God Bless and thank you again for your kind spirit.