Doctrine that Adds to Scripture

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

My dear friend, do you realize what you are saying?????

You said.........
" if we are unable to believe in doctrines or definitions (creeds, if they are good creeds have their roots in scriptural principles) then any words added to the bible are evidence of a lack of faith in the pure gospel. Hence sermons ought be forbidden.

May I say to you that you as a Catholic do exactly that!!!!!!

The Rosary is NOT in the Bible at all, in any form or even a thought but you follow it. It is an ADDITION!

The act of crossing yourself is NOT in the Bible anywhere or is there even a hint of it being done.
It is an ADDITION.

You believe in Catholic teaching of Purgatory and it is NOT found any where in the Word of God.
It is an ADDITION.

You do not allow your bishops to marry and the Bible says that bishops MUST BE married. It is an ADDITION.

You bow down to a Statue of a woman every time you enter your church but the Bible says that we are not to bow down to idols or images. It is an ADDITION.

You believe that Mary was sinless all of her life. But the Bible says that ALL have sinned. That is an ADDITION!

You believe that Mary went to heaven without dieing. But the Bible says that ALL people die. That is an ADDITION.

With all due respect to you my friend, I think that you need to do some homework on your Catholic faith as you do not seem to know what it is that you believe.

I don't think you're understanding my argument. I am not saying we ought not have sermons. I am making an argument as to the absurdity of sticking to the text and forming no ideas outside the text. The very act of reading the text is to form an interpretation of it and thus potentially to go against what the text says by misunderstanding it or it's to come to a realisation that is not explicit in the text but necessarily follows from it. For instance, the Christian worship of Jesus is not explicit to the text but it is clearly formed from scripture's ideas about who Christ is.

Now I'm not going to address all of your complaints against the Catholic Church, namely because I am not Roman Catholic ( do you see under my profile name Orthodox or Catholic as a description?). I would simply have you address my main proposition, that if we cannot have creeds or doctrine, we should not be able to form any opinion on the bible except that which we quote from it. You're saying a lot of unbiblical things, such as crossing oneself being apparently not allowed. Yet the bible nowhere tells me it is wrong to use the sign of the cross. Why do you insist on going beyond the simple text and adding your man made interpretations to it? Simply quote it and leave your own man-made interpretation out of the picture.

(I hope you see the idea I'm getting at here. You obviously have doctrinal positions and beliefs which are not explicit to the bible but are drawn out from the text. We can talk about those in another thread but the point of this thread is to discuss whether or not it is possible to even have such ideas which are not explicit to the text).

 

[Major1]

I don't think you're understanding my argument. I am not saying we ought not have sermons. I am making an argument as to the absurdity of sticking to the text and forming no ideas outside the text.

Now I'm not going to address all of your complaints against the Catholic Church, namely because I am not Roman Catholic ( do you see under my profile name Orthodox or Catholic as a description?). I would simply have you address my main proposition, that if we cannot have creeds or doctrine, we should not be able to form any opinion on the bible except that which we quote from it. You're saying a lot of unbiblical things, such as crossing oneself being apparently not allowed. Yet the bible nowhere tells me it is wrong to use the sign of the cross. Why do you insist on going beyond the simple text and adding your man made interpretations to it? Simply quote it and leave your own man-made interpretation out of the picture.

(I hope you see the idea I'm getting at here. You obviously have doctrinal positions and beliefs which are not explicit to the bible but are drawn out from the text. We can talk about those in another thread but the point of this thread is to discuss whether or not it is possible to even have such ideas which are not explicit to the text).

I did not quote any complaints against the Catholic church.

Those comments were observation on what they do when in fact not a single one of those things is from the Bible.

You said............
" I am making an argument as to the absurdity of sticking to the text and forming no ideas outside the text."

The examples I posted that the RCC does was the answer to your question my friend. They insist on doing those things BUT NONE OF THEM ARE FOUND IN THE BIBLE!
They have NOT stuck with the text in any way and have made up rituals which they want to believe that are NOT found in the Bible.

 

[thecolorsblend]

The examples I posted that the RCC does was the answer to your question my friend. They insist on doing those things BUT NONE OF THEM ARE FOUND IN THE BIBLE!
They have NOT stuck with the text in any way and have made up rituals which they want to believe that are NOT found in the Bible.

I'm not sure why people are still surprised to discover that the Catholic Church (and also the great majority of the Christian world) does not believe in sola scriptura. More surprising still is how sola scriptura is assumed to be the default starting point and any other opinion needs to be justified.

Very confusing...

 

[bbbbbbb]

I'm not sure why people are still surprised to discover that the Catholic Church (and also the great majority of the Christian world) does not believe in sola scriptura. More surprising still is how sola scriptura is assumed to be the default starting point and any other opinion needs to be justified.

Very confusing...

What is even more confusing are the varieties of Sacred Tradition which various denominations insist is the ONE, TRUE, TRADITION.

 

[thecolorsblend]

What is even more confusing are the varieties of Sacred Tradition which various denominations insist is the ONE, TRUE, TRADITION.

Sacred tradition as understood in, say, the Orthodox Church isn't all that different from the Anglicans. And both of them are comparable to the Catholic Church in a lot of ways.

We're not as dissimilar from each other as it may seem.

 

[Major1]

I'm not sure why people are still surprised to discover that the Catholic Church (and also the great majority of the Christian world) does not believe in sola scriptura. More surprising still is how sola scriptura is assumed to be the default starting point and any other opinion needs to be justified.

Very confusing...

It really is not that hard to explain. You see, we either accept and obey what God has said in His written Word or we reject it.

When people place their faith more in the denomination they have chosen instead of the Word of God they must then reject Sola Scriptura.

 

[Major1]

What is even more confusing are the varieties of Sacred Tradition which various denominations insist is the ONE, TRUE, TRADITION.

Agreed!

 

[bbbbbbb]

Sacred tradition as understood in, say, the Orthodox Church isn't all that different from the Anglicans. And both of them are comparable to the Catholic Church in a lot of ways.

We're not as dissimilar from each other as it may seem.

That was true several centuries ago, but the Catholic Church in particular has been busy since then adding to Tradition in an apparent effort to distance itself from its siblings. In particular we see dogmas such as Papal infallibility and the four Marian dogmas as distinctly dividing the Catholic Church from others.

 

[thecolorsblend]

That was true several centuries ago, but the Catholic Church in particular has been busy since then adding to Tradition in an apparent effort to distance itself from its siblings. In particular we see dogmas such as Papal infallibility and the four Marian dogmas as distinctly dividing the Catholic Church from others.

Those are dogmas. The tradition, the sources considered authoritative origins, are largely the same between the Catholics, the Orthodox and the Anglicans. The same Church Fathers considered to have authority by Rome are held in basically the same esteem by Canterbury.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Those are dogmas. The tradition, the sources considered authoritative origins, are largely the same between the Catholics, the Orthodox and the Anglicans. The same Church Fathers considered to have authority by Rome are held in basically the same esteem by Canterbury.

Indeed, they are dogmas. Dogmas, along with the Bible, are considered to be part and parcel of Tradition. In the Catholic Church there is no separation between them. The Catholic Church believes in on-going revelation through its Magisterium. It does not teach that Tradition ended or is finished, unlike the Orthodox Churches which generally stop Tradition at various Ecumenical Councils (depending on which branch of Orthodoxy, of course). The net result is that the Catholic Church, through it continuing evolution of Tradition has furthered the distance between itself and other branches of Christianity and, to date, has not renounced any of those things which have served to separate it.

 

[thecolorsblend]

The Catholic Church believes in on-going revelation through its Magisterium.

The rest of your post has some basis in truth. But this part jumped out because it's not true.

From Vatican II: "[N]o new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord, Jesus Christ."

The Church's understanding of doctrine and tradition should be expected to improve over time and her teaching authority allows her to define dogma. But "new revelation" should not be something anybody expects.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The rest of your post has some basis in truth. But this part jumped out because it's not true.

From Vatican II: "[N]o new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord, Jesus Christ."

The Church's understanding of doctrine and tradition should be expected to improve over time and her teaching authority allows her to define dogma. But "new revelation" should not be something anybody expects.

I agree entirely. It is not necessarily new truth that the Catholic Church claims to receive, but the on-going revelation (refinement) of original revelation.

I will give two examples - one positive and one negative.

1. The doctrine of the Trinity. Nowhere in the Bible is the word "trinity" used, so that (according to the Catholic Church) the doctrine was revealed (developed) at later Church councils.
2. The dogma of papal infallibility. This highly controversial dogma not only has no basis in scripture (although it is argued that it is there by implication) it is of extremely recent origin (1871) with the result being, among others, a split in the Polish Catholic Church.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Papal infallibility is, to me, a logical extension of conciliar infallibility. Christians either explicitly or implicitly acknowledge that conciliar infallibility existed at least at one time... or else they would have a very difficult time accepting the biblical canon they have today.

The notion of papal infallibility is recently defined but not recently proclaimed. Traces of it date back to the first century. Some statements made by early Popes are nonsensical without a presumption of papal infallibility in the background.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Papal infallibility is, to me, a logical extension of conciliar infallibility. Christians either explicitly or implicitly acknowledge that conciliar infallibility existed at least at one time... or else they would have a very difficult time accepting the biblical canon they have today.

The notion of papal infallibility is recently defined but not recently proclaimed. Traces of it date back to the first century. Some statements made by early Popes are nonsensical without a presumption of papal infallibility in the background.

Interestingly, none of the Papal Bulls issued prior to 1871 have the dignity of being considered to be infallible proclamations. The fact is that no "ex cathedra" proclamations were even possible prior to 1871, although it is quite evident from the content of most, if not all, Papal Bulls that they were written as if these were infallible proclamations.

However, to your point. There is an ocean of difference between concilliar statements as at the Council of Trent, and unilateral proclamations.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Interestingly, none of the Papal Bulls issued prior to 1871 have the dignity of being considered to be infallible proclamations. The fact is that no "ex cathedra" proclamations were even possible prior to 1871, although it is quite evident from the content of most, if not all, Papal Bulls that they were written as if these were infallible proclamations.

That's not a major surprise since papal bulls were how the Vatican announced policy concerning a variety of subjects, of which none that I'm aware of concerned doctrinal issues.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That's not a major surprise since papal bulls were how the Vatican announced policy concerning a variety of subjects, of which none that I'm aware of concerned doctrinal issues.

Quite correct. Prior to 1871 the last, and final, council to make alterations and corrections to doctrine was the Council of Trent. Then, we have the highly-controversial Vatican II Council which was far from ecumenical (as was the Council of Trent) which made a wide-ranging number of shifts in practice, policy, and doctrine.

The bottom line is that Papal infallibility did not exist prior to 1871.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Quite correct. Prior to 1871 the last, and final, council to make alterations and corrections to doctrine was the Council of Trent. Then, we have the highly-controversial Vatican II Council which was far from ecumenical (as was the Council of Trent) which made a wide-ranging number of shifts in practice, policy, and doctrine.

The bottom line is that Papal infallibility did not exist prior to 1871.

Nice try. Acknowledge that I was correct about papal bulls, change the subject to councils and then reassert your original premise.

As I say, papal infallibility was presumed by faithful and by popes as far back as the first century.

I well recognize that this isn't your first rodeo, as it were. So surely you understand that the time at which a given dogma is defined usually has nothing to do with when it was first accepted.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Nice try. Acknowledge that I was correct about papal bulls, change the subject to councils and then reassert your original premise.

As I say, papal infallibility was presumed by faithful and by popes as far back as the first century.

I well recognize that this isn't your first rodeo, as it were. So surely you understand that the time at which a given dogma is defined usually has nothing to do with when it was first accepted.

Apparently your sources are vastly different than mine. Please verify your assertion that "papal infallibility was presumed by faithful and by popes as far back as the first century." Please also understand that I will naturally reject Catholic historical revisionism.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Apparently your sources are vastly different than mine. Please verify your assertion that "papal infallibility was presumed by faithful and by popes as far back as the first century." Please also understand that I will naturally reject Catholic historical revisionism.

Pope Clement I, Hermas, Ignatius of Antioch and probably others all assumed it before the end of the first century. My own sig contains a quote affirming it as well.

Those passages and others are why my Church believes in papal infallibility. As is frequently the case, dogmatically defining it made official what had been understood for a long time.

 

[Major1]

Nice try. Acknowledge that I was correct about papal bulls, change the subject to councils and then reassert your original premise.

As I say, papal infallibility was presumed by faithful and by popes as far back as the first century.

I well recognize that this isn't your first rodeo, as it were. So surely you understand that the time at which a given dogma is defined usually has nothing to do with when it was first accepted.

I do not believe that you are correct here. Would you please state your sources that claim the doctrine of infallibility in the 1st century church.