Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

[SpyderByte]

Why pretend? You haven't really said anything. Now go study. You could start with Ludwig Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma", then move on to conciliar docs. Read Catholic material if you truly want to understand Catholicism. Otherwise there's not much point in protesting it. I'm not feeling too embarrassed- sorry to hear you are. There- last word.

Oh good grief. I have read Ludwig Ott, and when I quote him as saying the opposite of what rcc apologists say here constantly, I get "well he's not infallible so he doesn't count there!"

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm not the one selling it so there's no need. I already know the Sword of the Spirit and its life giving results.

Words of men are not going to compare, not even worthy to be compared.

If somebody is telling me that there are more words of God than the holy scriptures, then that seems pretty important. Yet when asked for verification, check it out yourself.

I'm absolutely interested in any claim from any person concerning the word of God. You kicked off the point about there being more and then I asked if you'd elaborate.

That typically shows interest.

And again, sorry if it might offend anyone if we don't simply take YOUR word for it.

There's that premise where we let God be true and every man be a liar. Remember?

The rest of your post made me wonder if there was any interest on your part but since you say there is may I recommend that you try the google search I suggested?

 

[SpyderByte]

I'm still waiting for those scripture proofs for the perpetual virginity and bodily assumption!

 

[MoreCoffee]

Oh good grief. I have read Ludwig Ott, and when I quote him as saying the opposite of what rcc apologists say here constantly, I get "well he's not infallible so he doesn't count there!"

You know that he was a man not the church nor even a pope. His views are informed but they are not church teaching. He does quote rather a lot of church teaching but he himself points out that his material is not all de fide.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

The rest of your post made me wonder if there was any interest on your part but since you say there is may I recommend that you try the google search I suggested?

Google for validation of the word of God, now that is priceless Brother!

 

[MoreCoffee]

Google for validation of the word of God, now that is priceless Brother!

Is there a touch of sarcasm in your reply?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I'm still waiting for those scripture proofs for the perpetual virginity and bodily assumption!

I pray this doesn't turn into another Mary thread

http://www.christianforums.com/f726/
Mariology & Hagiography The forum to discuss the area of Christian theology concerned with Mary, the Mother of Jesus as well as the theology involving Saints.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7507180/
Perpetual Virginity

CUF.org :: Catholics United for the Faith
Catholic defense.

Mother of All Peoples - Protestant Reformers Defend Perpetual Virginity | Marian Apologetics | Articles - Petition for the Fifth Marian Dogma
Reformers

Orthodox Apologetics: Mary According to the Bible
Orthodox defense


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ST. AUGUSTINE AND THE PROTESTANT REFORMERS
As the greatest Christian theologian, St. Augustine, wrote --........

To further confirm the Catholic position, check out these statements from the major Protestant Reformers --
======================
Thus saith JOHN CALVIN -
=========================
Thus saith MARTIN LUTHER ===========================================
Thus saith ULRICH ZWINGLI --========================================================================
Thus saith French Reformed pastor CHARLES DRELINCOURT (1595 - 1669)
=============================================
(quotes from Max Thurian, MARY, MOTHER OF ALL CHRISTIANS, p. 40-41, 89, 195)
Max Thurian, who was a Calvinist when he wrote MARY, MOTHER OF ALL CHRISTIANS (NY: Herder and Herder, 1963) but later converted to the Catholic faith, summarizes the views of the Protestant Reformers --

Perpetual Virginity of our Lady and Marian Title Mother of God Theotokos

http://www.christianforums.com/t7769505/
The Assumption of Mary

The assumption that Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven is accepted in both Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox Church (though only an official dogma in the Roman Catholic). It has an interesting history…none!

Even the early writers under the Roman See (Irenaeus, Tertulian, Jerome, Augustine, and more) say nothing about it. I would think that something so amazing, so miraculous, so significant would at least have been mentioned,

The first church author to speak on the assumption, Gregory of Tours around 580 A.D., based his teaching on the Transitus, a confirmed false document condemned by two popes.

Pope Gelasius in 459 A.D. declared an anathema upon all those who would choose to adopt what he considered the heresy of the "Assumption of Mary", he likewise rebuked the Trabsitu as purious and false. This decision was again supported by Pope Hormisdas in the 6th century, when the alleged heresy began to resurface.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says “The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and finally in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite”

A strange commentary for something required to be believed. Why was it suddenly required around 100 A.D., and then made a dogma of the Church? In 1950, Pope Pius XII infallibly declared this an "official Catholic Doctrine which all Catholics are required to believe"!

Why would any believe this? Simply because they were told to? Just because we did not find her bones does not mean she was assumed. People in the early church may have hid them to protect them...relic hunters could have stolen them...but there is nothing yo assume she was assumed!

So it is not apostolic tradition, not scripture, not taught in the church until centuries later and on top of that it is based on spurious forgeries.

Why is it required?

Paul

 

[fhansen]

Oh good grief. I have read Ludwig Ott, and when I quote him as saying the opposite of what rcc apologists say here constantly, I get "well he's not infallible so he doesn't count there!"

Have you read much of Ott-or just a controversial point here or there? I can't speak for other posters. I've read very little from his work that I can fault -only one minor, questionable area so far. Very profitable IMO-and his book has received an imprimatur as well as being recommended in the past as training for priests, deacons, and teachers. It will lead to further study in Scripture, the Summa, Augustine, etc.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Why pretend? You haven't really said anything anyway. Now go study. You could start with Ludwig Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma", then move on to conciliar docs. Read Catholic material if you truly want to understand Catholicism.
Otherwise there's not much point in protesting it. I'm not feeling too embarrassed- sorry to hear you are. There- last word.

Or better yet, just hop on over to the OBOB Catholic board.....

http://www.christianforums.com/f26/
One Bread, One Body - Catholic A forum open to Christians to discuss various Catholic beliefs and issues.

1 Corin:10:17
For we, though many, are one bread and one body;
for we all partake of that one bread.

.............................

.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Athanasian Creed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Athanasian Creed, or Quicunque Vult (also Quicumque Vult), is a Christian statement of belief focused on Trinitarian doctrine and Christology.

My new definition of dogma:

When something scriptural is defined/defended with Wikipedia.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Anathemas are not dogmas.

But, dogmas that go beyond what scripture says should be anathemas.


You asked for an example of dogma. I provided the Athanasian Creed to be one as I explained in other posts that it goes beyond what is clearly stated in scripture. Instead of arguing an answer to your query, you just dismiss it.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes, and it isn't what the Catholic Church teaches. We don't say that the Marian dogmas are fully explained in holy scripture but we do say that they do not contradict holy scripture and that holy scripture does point to them albeit in subtle ways.

I am not much concerned about where Christians differ, we all know that there are many differences otherwise there would not be many churches and denominations and even more independent groups. But I was asked to give examples so I chose two.

• Mary's perpetual virginity and
• Mary as mother of God.

Albion objects that the latter is a mere title, okay, it may be little more than that yet it attracts endless posts in opposition to it in GT.

The former is a dogma and it is pointed to in holy scripture but not fully developed in it. Much as some elements of the Incarnation and the Blessed Trinity are not fully developed in holy scripture but are nevertheless affirmed by all Nicene Creed and Chancedonian formula supporting Christians.

The assertion that John the Baptist had seven heads does not contradict scripture, has been authenticated by the Catholic Church (there are at least seven skulls or portions of skulls of John the Baptist which have been venerated by the Catholic Church simultaneously and are still so to this day), and yet is not considered to be either a doctrine or a dogma in the Catholic Church. Surely, this is not an insignificant miracle is it?

 

[SpyderByte]

I'm just not going to get that biblical evidence of those 2 dogmas am I....

 

[bbbbbbb]

I'm just not going to get that biblical evidence of those 2 dogmas am I....

I definitely would not hold my breath waiting for any biblical support for them.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The assertion that John the Baptist had seven heads does not contradict scripture, has been authenticated by the Catholic Church ...

The above is just too silly to bother with.

 

[Rick Otto]

The above is just too silly to bother with.

And yet there the silliness is, bothering seven times.
Self consciousness isn't a strong suit.

 

[SpyderByte]

The assertion that John the Baptist had seven heads does not contradict scripture, has been authenticated by the Catholic Church (there are at least seven skulls or portions of skulls of John the Baptist which have been venerated by the Catholic Church simultaneously and are still so to this day), and yet is not considered to be either a doctrine or a dogma in the Catholic Church. Surely, this is not an insignificant miracle is it?

??????? Link???????

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Matthew 19:5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?

The Bible does not teach one to mean all that the Athanasian Creed claims.
The Bible does not teach that such specific knowledge is required for salvation.

Look at the difference between the Nicene and the Athanasian Creeds. One has known history, developed by committee. It shows a refined agreed on position. The other is of unknown origin, and obviously not a result of any position agreed on by any authorized committee. The creed goes beyond stating ones belief. With the damnation clause, it claims a new divine revelation. This creed written by a man has now added new conditions for salvation. Let me assure you that there are people in heaven that have not believed all in that creed.

How this dogma just appeared hundreds of years after Jesus and has continued to survive and is repeated as creed I find remarkable.

Could you actually quote the Athanasian Creed and show me where the problem is? Because this statement:

Matthew 19:5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?

The Bible does not teach one to mean all that the Athanasian Creed claims.

makes no sense.

 

[FredVB]

Knowledge of how there is unity of the heavenly Father, Logos, the Word with God that is God and who came in incarnation as Jesus Christ the Son, and the Spirit of God as the one being Yahweh is not how any will be saved, there isn't anything said in scriptures for that. But the Spirit of God is clearly God, and named in unity with the Father and the Son. Jesus Son of God is fulfilling things said only for Yahweh, such as in Zechariah 12 and 14.

Yahweh says, They will look on me whom they have pierced, and, They will mourn for him as one mourns for his only son, this is quoted being applied to Jesus in the new testament of the Bible. And then Yahweh will go forth, and fight the nations in the day of battle, and in that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which faces Jerusalem on the East. This is the place it was said Jesus would return just as he was seen where he ascended, and he will return in the battle of the nations.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, and it isn't what the Catholic Church teaches. We don't say that the Marian dogmas are fully explained in holy scripture but we do say that they do not contradict holy scripture and that holy scripture does point to them albeit in subtle ways.

I am not much concerned about where Christians differ,

Yep - that is the "Sola Scriptura" model - claimed.

What MC is claiming - is exactly what is claimed in "Sola Scriptura".

The next part though is to "show your work".... "do the math" that you claim to have done.

in Christ,

Bob