Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

[fhansen]

/

So...you're renouncing your earlier argument that unity is to be had by "coming under the teachings of a singular church, where unity necessarily prevails, rather than under the private interpretations of Scripture, where unity obviously doesn't prevail?"

Shall we agree, then, that unity is not going to be had if everyone joined one certain denomination, and this fact in turn rebuts the fond notion that Sola Scriptura is a unique cause of doctrinal disunity?

If you persist with this line of thought I may start using your doh-boy icon. If I come under the teachings of a singular church then you can bet I'll be unified in beliefs with that church, along with anyone else who comes under its teachings. Otherwise I'll be remaining outside its teachings, not in unity.

 

[Souldier]

I think that perhaps some religions have dogmas that are not found in scripture, and i think they are unnecessary. I also think that dogmas which are found in scripture are getting ignored by many churches. This situation calls for simplicity. We must take those unnecessary things away so we can more clearly see those things which are necessary. More is not better, more is just a distraction.

 

[brinny]

I think that perhaps some religions have dogmas that are not found in scripture, and i think they are unnecessary. I also think that dogmas which are found in scripture are getting ignored by many churches. This situation calls for simplicity. We must take those unnecessary things away so we can more clearly see those things which are necessary. More is not better, more is just a distraction.

Interesting. More can also quite possibly be not only a distraction, but chaotic as well.

Thank you kindly for sharing.

 

[fhansen]

No, you don't understand! Even though the teachers of the church teach against the church, doesn't mean there is disunity in the church, just disunity with those teachers, which isn't actually disunity, because the church teachers are teaching against the church! Don't you understand Albion! /sarcasm

Eta: I wonder if they also acknowledge the sedevacanists?
Sedevacantism[bless and do not curse]is the position, held by a minority of traditionalist Catholics, that the present occupant of the papal see is not truly pope and that, for lack of a valid pope, the see has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...CJliPonEVmZsXlnnQ&sig2=OCiVZP-Ddg1YyY0BquEtEA

Sedevacantists have been excommunicated from the church because of their divisiness, because of their refusal to unify.

 

[brinny]

Pardon my ignorance on "dogmas"

What exactly is a "dogma'?

Thank you kindly.

 

[SpyderByte]

If you persist with this line of thought I may start using your doh-boy icon. If I come under the teachings of a singular church then you can bet I'll be unified in beliefs with that church, along with anyone else who comes under its teachings. Otherwise I'll be remaining outside its teachings, not in unity.

So you refuse to admit that there are teachers within the rcc that teach contrary to the rcc's doctrines?

 

[fhansen]

So you refuse to admit that there are teachers within the rcc that teach contrary to the rcc's doctrines?

No, I refuse to admit that there's disunity in RC teachings. Individuals can teach whatever they want. I encounter false teachers often, inside and outside the church. IOW, some teachers don't teach Catholicism. At any rate, this whole argument is disingenuous. The OP is addressing Catholic dogma, not the opinions of mavericks.

 

[concretecamper]

NO! You'll always have humans doing that stuff, whether due to sin or simply their limitations. Infallibility is only said to be guaranteed at the level of the magisterium. Roman Catholic beliefs can be found in the Catechism. Heck, the Church doesn't even agree with everything Aquinas said for that matter.

It is very hard for some to understand that not every member of the RCC speaks for the Magisterium of the RCC. I guess they are applying the same fluid teaching that exist within their own denomination.

 

[concretecamper]

No, I refuse to admit that there's disunity in RC teachings. Individuals can teach whatever they want. I encounter false teachers often, inside and outside the church. IOW, some teachers don't teach Catholicism. At any rate, this whole argument is disingenuous. The OP is addressing Catholic dogma, not the opinions of mavericks.

Oh you better believe there are some screwy things being taught by Catholics. But it ain't Church teaching for sure.

 

[Souldier]

Interesting. More can also quite possibly be not only a distraction, but chaotic as well.

Thank you kindly for sharing.

You're welcome.

 

[Souldier]

Pardon my ignorance on "dogmas"

What exactly is a "dogma'?

Thank you kindly.

I think that a dogma is a truth that is accepted as truth without question.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny View Post
Interesting. More can also quite possibly be not only a distraction, but chaotic as well.

Thank you kindly for sharing.

You're welcome.

I appreciate your genteel acknowledgement brother.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Souldier]

I appreciate your genteel acknowledgement brother.

Thank you kindly.

 

[SpyderByte]

It is very hard for some to understand that not every member of the RCC speaks for the Magisterium of the RCC. I guess they are applying the same fluid teaching that exist within their own denomination.

Oh you better believe there are some screwy things being taught by Catholics. But it ain't Church teaching for sure.

So you admit that there are teacher in the rcc teaching "screwy things" yet refuse to acknowledge that as disunity? If the rcc teaches that universalism is not true, yet it's teachers believe and teach universalism, how is that unity?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I am still thinking that the table of contents in a bible is a dogma that isn't included in the inspired scriptures. Is't that what thread title and original post asked for, a list of dogmas that are not in the inspired scriptures?

 

[Souldier]

I am still thinking that the table of contents in a bible is a dogma that isn't included in the inspired scriptures. Is't that what thread title and original post asked for, a list of dogmas that are not in the inspired scriptures?

Is this whats known as a straw man argument?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Is this whats known as a straw man argument?

No, it is an observation about bibles. The table of contents is not inspired yet it defines the limits of what is accounted to be the only inspired and infallible standard for doctrine for Christians. Thus the table of contents is not contained in the inspired scriptures yet it is a dogma defining the limits of inspired scripture.

 

[concretecamper]

So you admit that there are teacher in the rcc teaching "screwy things" yet refuse to acknowledge that as disunity? If the rcc teaches that universalism is not true, yet it's teachers believe and teach universalism, how is that unity?

The teacher in the Church......the Magisterium does not teach or never taught universalism. That does not mean particular members will accept that....same thing goes for a thing like contraception.

However there is not a part or branch of the RCC that does teach universalism or teaches contraception is moral.

If you can't tell the difference, I can't help you.

 

[SpyderByte]

Is this whats known as a straw man argument?

Yes.

 

[SpyderByte]

The teacher in the Church......the Magisterium does not teach or never taught universalism. That does not mean particular members will accept that....same thing goes for a thing like contraception.

However there is not a part or branch of the RCC that does teach universalism or teaches contraception is moral.

If you can't tell the difference, I can't help you.

You have a governing body, I get that, as pretty much every church does, but you cannot call it unity when that church's teachers (Priests, etc) teach exactly the opposite of what the governing body decrees. That means everyone they teach now believes opposite of what the church actually decrees. As a good analogy, take prohibition in the 1920's. The government declared alcohol illegal, and yet people went right on making and consuming it. Is that unity?