Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas? (2)

[Root of Jesse]

First of all, sorry but I can't possibly follow all the posts that have been added on this thread. However, I think that one of the arguments that Catholics are making in defense of the Magisterium of the RCC lies in that the Bible is ambiguous or, as St Augustine would have said, heretics can use Scripture to support almost anything twisting the language and such.

However, the Magisterium creates its own set of problems. Mainly that the Magisterium expresses itself in documents (Constitutions, Letters, Bullas and so on...) that can or must be interpreted. And they are, resulting in different branch of RC theologians interpreting the Magisterium in different ways. One example would be the question of papal infallibility.

The problem with your theory is that Scripture also must be interpreted in the proper context. But this is not a problem, either. You can study interpretations, or you can read what was written, and the context. When you do that, and you're in communion with what was meant, you're good.
People can and do interpret almost anything the way they want, the way that's most convenient for them. Lawyers get very good at it. But you must always place what was written in context, otherwise, you just get your own thought. And keeping things in proper context is what the Magisterium is about. They look at what is proposed, and see if it matches up with what has always been believed.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You are confusing everything.

Being blind to Rome's influence results in confident confusion.
You call Rome's church Christ's church.
Being personally responsible for governing one's self isn't easy.
Struggling to understand could be a euphemism for trying to obey.
I don't struggle to align myself with what I know is wrong.

That's a mischaracterization. Not blind to Rome's influence. There is no such thing as "Rome's Church". There is the Catholic Church, which is Christ's Church.
Being personally responsible only to one's self is not hard-you can permit yourself to do anything under your own law.
If you think you understand everything there is to know about Christianity based on your own beliefs, you're missing something. I don't struggle to align myself with what I know is wrong, either. I struggle to align myself with what I know is right.

 

[Root of Jesse]

On the other hand, you won't take communion in my church.

And you shouldn't take communion in mine.

 

[mluiesp]

The problem with your theory is that Scripture also must be interpreted in the proper context. But this is not a problem, either. You can study interpretations, or you can read what was written, and the context. When you do that, and you're in communion with what was meant, you're good.
People can and do interpret almost anything the way they want, the way that's most convenient for them. Lawyers get very good at it. But you must always place what was written in context, otherwise, you just get your own thought. And keeping things in proper context is what the Magisterium is about. They look at what is proposed, and see if it matches up with what has always been believed.

I agree that Scripture must be interpreted in the proper context (or rather contexts as it is a collection of different books written at different times, with different languages and so on and on...) but that's far from easy... unlike in Physics we can't make an experiment to refute or confirm our theories... and that's why we must be humble in our theologies and not force the people to believe, under the penalty of eternal damnation or a century or two in purgatory, anything that goes beyond what is taught by Scripture.

"What has always been believed", when it goes beyond Scripture, is ever harder to know. Firstly because the very first centuries of Christianity were filled with faith, zeal, and many good things but rather poor on formal Theology. Not to mention that there were divisions among Christians and what we all would call un-Orthodox groups almost everywhere. It is then very hard to say that the Immaculate Conception was believed by all Christians at all times. Even the first creeds of our faith (those predating Nicea) are very sketchy.

I'm OK if you personally believe whatever you fancy that goes beyond Scripture as long as you don't contradict it. However I protest being forced to believe what can't be proven from Scripture.

 

[mluiesp]

The Catholic Church has no dogma or doctrine about venerating body parts.

It is considered "popular piety", but certainly not a dogma. (Though the flower ladies may object )

 

[Root of Jesse]

I agree that Scripture must be interpreted in the proper context (or rather contexts as it is a collection of different books written at different times, with different languages and so on and on...) but that's far from easy... unlike in Physics we can't make an experiment to refute or confirm our theories... and that's why we must be humble in our theologies and not force the people to believe, under the penalty of eternal damnation or a century or two in purgatory, anything that goes beyond what is taught by Scripture.

Generally correct. But understanding the context of a particular document is essential. I wasn't speaking of Scripture as one body of work. You also have to take into consideration what the author meant to say, and that's where context comes into play. Who knows better than those associated with the author what the author meant?
Catholics are very humble about their theology-we don't presume to know better than those spoken of above. Those who think they know better are less than humble...
The Catholic Church has never forced people to believe anything, though she has always had great consideration for the eternal resting place of all souls. There is no time in eternity, so there's no such thing as a "century or two in purgatory." But it's nice to know that, if you're in purgatory, you will end up in heaven afterward.

"What has always been believed", when it goes beyond Scripture, is ever harder to know. Firstly because the very first centuries of Christianity were filled with faith, zeal, and many good things but rather poor on formal Theology.

We know what was believed back then because of the writings of those associates who followed the apostles and disciples. At the very least, we can say with certainty that what is being proposed does not contradict Scripture or post-Apostolic writings. What we believe never goes beyond Scripture. Every Catholic dogma has Scriptural basis.

Not to mention that there were divisions among Christians and what we all would call un-Orthodox groups almost everywhere. It is then very hard to say that the Immaculate Conception was believed by all Christians at all times. Even the first creeds of our faith (those predating Nicea) are very sketchy.

We call them heresies. Those do go against the Catholic faith, ergo against Scripture. And it's not a matter of "what's been believed by all Christians." It's what those in authority believed and taught. How do we know? They wrote it down!

I'm OK if you personally believe whatever you fancy that goes beyond Scripture as long as you don't contradict it. However I protest being forced to believe what can't be proven from Scripture.

All Catholic dogmas, with one possible exception (the canon of Scripture), can be proven, or demonstrated from Scripture. So then it becomes a matter of whether or not you want to believe the proof. That's where humility comes in.

 

[tadoflamb]

WHat do i need a pastor for? I have a bible. Where do you think pastor learns from? The bible.

At least i know that i will be following Paul and the Lord instead of a man who may or may not be following the Lord. Jeremiah also prophesied that God would put His laws in our heart and minds. Why dont you believe that scripture as well?

For one, my pastor gave me my first bible. For another, my pastor, like myself, was taught by the Church. And as to the other passage in Jeremiah you referenced, I've discussed that one with him as well. God said he'd give us shepherds and true to His promise, I've got one.

 

[tadoflamb]

So then, yet again we see the idea that unless one is in "the Church" (ie rcc) one is not properly a Christian. I'm amazed that this sort of backhanded way of calling Protestants non-Christian is allowed and apparently encouraged here+

Yet again, you've expressed a skewed version of what the Church really teaches. If you have been properly baptized, then you are a Christian. All the Catholics on this board believe that.

 

[mluiesp]

I've noticed the tradition that can't formulate dogma also has a hard time recognizing dogma when they see it. Perhaps they should excuse themselves from commenting on dogma until they've learned to define it.

Please elaborate, which is the dogma on relics?

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Catholic Church has no dogma or doctrine about venerating body parts. There is a cult that does that, but it's not required. If there are seven parts, they can be of one skull though, or hadn't you thought of that???

There are also many, many pieces of the True Cross.

But what does that have to do with what I said?

We are not talking about seven pieces of a skull which could help comprise a single skull. There are at least three complete skulls and at least four pieces of other skulls some of which are of the same portions of the skull. Therefore, we have an example of a doctrine developed beyond a scriptural basis which defies human understanding and requires suspension of all logic to believe.

You also raise the issus of the True Cross, and if you like we can go down that road, as well.

The fact is that, like the Marian Dogmas, these things evolved over time to the point where they have taken on a life of their own and have attracted their devotees.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Dogmatically, as in written in stone, at Trent. But actually, when the Councils of Hippo and Carthage were held, they actually asked the Pope to ratify the findings, thus making them universally held. So as early as 350 or so.

Thank you.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Denominations do have this issue, but the Catholic Church, being the Church, does not. I joined the Church as a result of studying Scripture and the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and much much more. I'm still studying. I will continue to study.

As well, many have joined other churches for very similar reasons.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I accept the dogmas as presented by the Church. Is there some specific dogma you're refering to which seems to be open to interpretation among the faithful?

As far as your denomination goes, it's just a piece of bread. That's why I won't be presenting myself for communion there. I can find bread anywhere.

Yep, and I can find it also in your mass. Following its consecration, if a spectroscopic analysis is done of it it will be discovered that it is bread and does not contain a single molecule of human DNA. Of course, you know this as well as anyone else. The "accident" of the bread remains. We have nothing whatsoever other than blind faith to consider it to be anything other than bread, do we?

 

[bbbbbbb]

For one, my pastor gave me my first bible. For another, my pastor, like myself, was taught by the Church. And as to the other passage in Jeremiah you referenced, I've discussed that one with him as well. God said he'd give us shepherds and true to His promise, I've got one.

I've got a pastor who is holy and sinless, and who sits at His Father's right hand to continually make intercession for His people. All things considered, I will take my Pastor any day over yours.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Bull. And you know it. Your church condemned every single non Roman Catholic at Trent, and even if they try to smooth things over now, they screwed up and can't change it because in their rush for power and to scramble to put the cat back in the bag, they labeled every Protestant as a heretic and going to hell read your own church documents and you wouldn't come across sounding ignorant. I'm sick of thinly veiled attempts to question my faith by a certain subset of apostate Christians. I'm done with this place.

IMO the Council of Trent was the greatest mistake ever made by the RCC. Its purpose was to create an unbridgable chasm between it and all other Christian bodies, especially Protestant bodies of believers.

 

[tadoflamb]

None of them are supposed to be open to interpretation, but they are being interpreted by the faithful. Among those, papal infallibility.

Once again, it doesn't matter what an individual Catholic thinks. If I, in any of these conversations, say anything that contradicts Catholic teaching, then the culpability is on me and not the Church.

My denomination? Really? Just a piece of bread? I certainly hope not to give that impression when I'm helping at the altar.

XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

[...]

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.​

That is straight from the 39 Articles of Religion. And the Anglo-Catholics among us (I'm not one of them, but still part of "my" denomination) go even further than that.

You know, I have to apologize and recognize that as an Anglican, and an altar server, that you and I have very much in common. So, I'm sorry for the crude manner in which I referred to your sacrament and I pray you will forgive me for my offense.

Never-the-less, you speak of a diversity of belief within your communion regarding Holy Eucharist which indicates that there isn't a dogmatic teaching on the sacrament, or at least, divergent opinions are considered legitimate. This is why I won't be presenting myself for communion in an Anglican or Episcopalian church. Maybe it's a valid Eucharist or maybe it's not. Because, I'm in doubt, I can not assent with my "Amen".

We both agree, receiving Holy Communion is a serious matter.

I apologize for disrespecting your sacrament.

 

[tadoflamb]

Please elaborate, which is the dogma on relics?

Like you said, there isn't a dogma on the veneration of relics.

 

[mluiesp]

Once again, it doesn't matter what an individual Catholic thinks. If I, in any of these conversations, say anything that contradicts Catholic teaching, then the culpability is on me and not the Church.

Or if I contradict the Bible the culpability is on me. Yet, my point is that the Magisterium is not greater than the Bible --and you would agree on that-- and it doesn't stop people from disagreeing. It's only that instead on disagreeing on what Romans 12 mean (or whatever) you disagree on what the Dei Verbum means or if Gaudium et Spes is authoritative or not or even if the pope is a real pope or not (the sedevacantist guys) and so on.

You know, I have to apologize and recognize that as an Anglican, and an altar server, that you and I have very much in common. So, I'm sorry for the crude manner in which I referred to your sacrament and I pray you will forgive me for my offense.

No problem. See my signature.

Never-the-less, you speak of a diversity of belief within your communion regarding Holy Eucharist which indicates that there isn't a dogmatic teaching on the sacrament, or at least, divergent opinions are considered legitimate.

The same happened in Western Christianity before the definition of Transubstantiation as dogma --. And for the individual priest having his particular (or no) theory about the Sacramente does not stop Grace from doing what Grace loves to do. That said, there are limits within Anglican orthodoxy even if our church discipline can be, sadly, too relaxed at times.

 

[Souldier]

Thanks for that, but the question remains, why are you still attempting to teach?

I didn't know i was. Did you learn anything?

 

[Root of Jesse]

So then, yet again we see the idea that unless one is in "the Church" (ie rcc) one is not properly a Christian. I'm amazed that this sort of backhanded way of calling Protestants non-Christian is allowed and apparently encouraged here+

This is true, but that doesn't mean it's a Protestant/Catholic issue. We believe all those properly baptized are "in the Church."