If a Protestant Gives You a Bible

[Vicomte13]

There seem to be a few issues here.

First, what is the status of the dogma in question? I found the exact wording given by concretecamper here, and the source is clear that the claim is not without exception. Indeed, there seems to be no dogma which states that baptism by water is perfectly necessary--without any possible exceptions--for salvation.

Second, what is the doctrinal status of the Catechism? It is simply not possible to say that the Catechism has some sort of absolute doctrinal weight. For example, in the discussion surrounding capital punishment Ratzinger as head of the CDF explicitly said that Catholics are free to contradict the Catechism's teaching on capital punishment in a way that they are not free to contradict the teaching on abortion and euthanasia.

This example follows the general answer that the doctrinal weight of any part of the Catechism is derived from the source of that part (e.g. ecumenical council, local council, doctor of the Church, papal pronouncement, canon law, etc.). The Catechism represents the faith, but not all parts of the faith demand the same degree of assent. We can't just say, "Look, it's in the Catechism so it must be a dogma." That's simply not true.

You've convinced me.

Now, so that I can be sure not to fall into error again by mistaking an Infallible Doctrine of the Catholic Church, that I cannot dispute, for some teaching document that I can dispute, could you please give me a formal, official list of the Infallible Doctrines of the Church?

The source which needs to be official (obviously a list just prepared by some scholar, however erudite, will not do, because no scholar speaks with the authority of the Catholic Church).

Thank you.

 

[zippy2006]

You've convinced me.

Now, so that I can be sure not to fall into error again by mistaking an Infallible Doctrine of the Catholic Church, that I cannot dispute, for some teaching document that I can dispute, could you please give me a formal, official list of the Infallible Doctrines of the Church?

The source which needs to be official (obviously a list just prepared by some scholar, however erudite, will not do, because no scholar speaks with the authority of the Catholic Church).

Thank you.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that if the Church has not produced an exhaustive list of doctrines therefore 1) they do not exist, 2) there is not a hierarchy of doctrine, or 3) the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a compendium of infallible decrees. None of these follow, and your claims in this thread about the Catechism are mistaken. The Catechism is not an undifferentiated list of dogmas.

 

[Vicomte13]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that if the Church has not produced an exhaustive list of doctrines therefore 1) they do not exist, 2) there is not a hierarchy of doctrine, or 3) the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a compendium of infallible decrees. None of these follow, and your claims in this thread about the Catechism are mistaken. The Catechism is not an undifferentiated list of dogmas.

That's fine. But you have spoken, with what sounds like the voice of authority, that a PARTICULAR dogma is infallible and cannot be questioned. That dogma contradicts something that the Catechism says, but you have said, with the voice of authority, that where the Catechism departs from the infallible doctrines, that it is not to be regarded as binding (on whom, I am permitted to wonder, as the doctrine in question was the matter of whom God may save).

So, you're certain that one dogma is infallible, and that the teaching I read out of the Catechism must stand aside for it. That's a very strong claim of authority! Indeed, it asserts that I am to DISREGARD the Catechism promulgated by Rome and issued formally by the Pope, where it contradicts with the dogma you named regarding baptism.

That's a very strong claim. It means that I can't read the Cathechism and know Catholic doctrine that is absolute and certain. I read the Catechism cover to cover, along with Bible a few times. But you're telling me "No good, you cannot trust these documents to provide you with the Infallible dogma."

Ok. Well, this is pretty important. YOU know what the infallible dogmas are, apparently, and where the Catechism is wrong and cannot be trusted as written.

I want to be certain to be right, like you are, as you've decided to teach me here in front of the world. So I'm asking to know what the source is that you're reading that tells you that the Cathechism is wrong on that matter of dogma. I would like to read that source of dogmas myself, so I will know.

Obviously if there IS no such document that's a problem, because I'm reading documents of the Church, that say one thing, but you're schooling me that the documents I am reading are, in essence, wrong. So I'm asking for the document I can read that tells me which doctrine is right, so that when I come into these conflicts between the official Catechism and the True Faith, I will be able to clearly see where the Church has erred in the published Catechism.

This is very important to me - especially given my embarrassment at having been so publicly schooled because of my naive belief that the Catechism accurately and faithfully promulgates the faith.

Since this is obviously wrong, I'd like to get it right. I already know that I can't trust the Bible alone on the matter. That's elementary knowledge. I really thought that I could trust the promulgated catechism, but apparently not. You've told me there is higher authority, and used that higher authority to tell me that the dogma regarding baptism overrides and wholly supersedes the contrary statement in the official catechism.

I would like to read the source that you read that lets you accurately parse these dogmas. For surely there is a source that is not just a political opinion. Everything in the Church has been reduced to documents. So what are the documents that supersede the Catechism?

 

[zippy2006]

It seems that you've misread me and continue to do so.

That's fine. But you have spoken, with what sounds like the voice of authority, that a PARTICULAR dogma is infallible and cannot be questioned.

Where did I say that? And what dogma did I declare infallible?

So, you're certain that one dogma is infallible...

Where did I say that?

Ok. Well, this is pretty important. YOU know what the infallible dogmas are, apparently, and where the Catechism is wrong and cannot be trusted as written.

Again, I didn't say that. What I said is that the Catechism is not an undifferentiated list of dogmas, all requiring the same level of assent.

You've told me there is higher authority, and used that higher authority to tell me that the dogma regarding baptism overrides and wholly supersedes the contrary statement in the official catechism.

Again, you seem to be putting words in my mouth.

 

[Dale]

Have you checked what Catholics said about the scriptures in the council of Trent and in the catechism of the council of Trent? As far as I can tell their views about scripture and about its role in Catholic teaching have not changed.

Decree Concerning The Canonical Scriptures

The holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding, keeps this constantly in view, namely, that the purity of the Gospel may be preserved in the Church after the errors have been removed.

This [Gospel], of old promised through the Prophets in the Holy Scriptures,[1] our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, promulgated first with His own mouth, and then commanded it to be preached by His Apostles to every creature[2] as the source at once of all saving truth and rules of conduct.

It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.

Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession.

It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council.[4]

They are the following:

Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second.

Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.

If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

Let all understand, therefore, in what order and manner the council, after having laid the foundation of the confession of faith, will proceed, and who are the chief witnesses and supports to whom it will appeal in conforming dogmas and in restoring morals in the Church.​

From Session 4 of the council of Trent - source Paul III Council of Trent-4

Ginger,

In post #97, I asked if post-Vatican II Popes have any more respect for the Bible than we find in Pius X.
You responded with a quote from the Council of Trent listing the books of the Bible. In effect, you said that the post-Vatican II Popes are bound by the decree of the Council of Trent. Unfortunately, this is a legalistic answer. I'm more concerned with what they think about the Bible and what they have learned from it than whether they are theoretically bound by a Council that defines the Bible.

Is there any sign that post-Vatican II Popes genuinely respect the Bible?
Nothing really comes to mind on that.

 

[GingerBeer]

Ginger,

In post #97, I asked if post-Vatican II Popes have any more respect for the Bible than we find in Pius X.
You responded with a quote from the Council of Trent listing the books of the Bible. In effect, you said that the post-Vatican II Popes are bound by the decree of the Council of Trent. Unfortunately, this is a legalistic answer. I'm more concerned with what they think about the Bible and what they have learned from it than whether they are theoretically bound by a Council that defines the Bible.

Is there any sign that post-Vatican II Popes genuinely respect the Bible?
Nothing really comes to mind on that.

I also gave you a quote from Vatican II.

 

[seashale76]

I was given a copy of the Book of Mormon by a Mormon Elder. I read part of it and decided that it was a very silly attempt to imitate the language of the Bible.

At the risk of a slight thread derail here (haven't read the rest of the thread- sorry), here is a relevant Mark Twain quote on the Book of Mormon.

If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle. Keeping awake while he did it, was at any rate. If he, according to tradition, merely translated it from certain ancient and mysteriously engraved plates of copper, which he declares he found under a stone, in an out of the way locality, the work of translating it was equally a miracle for the same reason.

The book seems to be merely a prosey detail of imaginary history with the Old Testament for a model followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint old fashioned sound and structure of our King James translation of the scriptures. The result is a mongrel, half modern glibness and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained, the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern, which was about every sentence or two, he ladeled in a few such scriptural phrases as, "exceeding sore," "and it came to pass," et cetera and made things satisfactory again. "And it came to pass," was his pet. If he had left that out, his bible would have been only a pamphlet.

Mark Twain Meets the Mormons

 

[bbbbbbb]

Ginger,

In post #97, I asked if post-Vatican II Popes have any more respect for the Bible than we find in Pius X.
You responded with a quote from the Council of Trent listing the books of the Bible. In effect, you said that the post-Vatican II Popes are bound by the decree of the Council of Trent. Unfortunately, this is a legalistic answer. I'm more concerned with what they think about the Bible and what they have learned from it than whether they are theoretically bound by a Council that defines the Bible.

Is there any sign that post-Vatican II Popes genuinely respect the Bible?
Nothing really comes to mind on that.

Actually, my personal observation has been that the Catholic Church is much more open to reading and studying the Bible and many of the local parishes here sponsor Bible studies. Interestingly, bingo seems to have become a thing of the past in the local Catholic parishes.

That said, the Bible studies are quite structured and support Catholic theology, which comes as no surprise to me.

 

[HighCherub]

Catholics are only allowed to read from a Catholic canon, which is translated and booked at their church's approval. That's the nature of Catholicism- their authority is ultimately the Pope.

It was also in the nature of many popes through the eras to be ridiculously pontificating and having a temper for anyone who went against them, hence particular quotes in the OP.

The Protestant canon is simply the absence of the Roman Church's authority that amended it further, and Protestants are free to study apocrypha so long as they keep in mind that they cannot be validated other than by the notions of the Catholic Church- although the first Protestant bibles contained the Apocrypha, they were tucked in the back rather then flowing with the rest so that people could make the distinction.