Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I would argue that the idea of transubstantiation is not new.

It's DOGMA. In one individual denomination. In my Catholic days, we were taught it was first suggested in the 10th or 11th Centuries, first officially stated by the individual RCC in 1215 and made dogma a few years after Luther's death. And obviously, it's absent in Scripture - but read the opening post.

The Church always believed in the literal meaning of "IS"

I agree. But not the literal meaning of Transubstantiation and Accident.

See the opening post.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[Albion]

Following up on bbbbbbb's post--

I think there are really questions here - first - within the context of the Church, are there any Christian dogmas that are not contained in Scripture: I would have to say no, with the caveat that some might be more clear than others

I agree with bbbbbbb on this. The EO doctrines based upon Tradition are considerably more plausible. Papal Supremacy and Infallibility, the Assumption of Mary, etc. that the RCC claims on the basis of "Tradition" are purely arbitrary, and I realize that the EO don't agree with them. But OTOH, this does show us the failings of using Tradition instead of Scripture since it illustrates the fact that every Catholic church has come up with a different Tradition. At least there is only one Bible.

The second part of the question then is what if you try to divide scripture outside the context of Tradition - can you still find all dogmas within?

Yes. But that is not Tradition AKA Sacred Tradition or Holy Tradition as it's usually understood. IOW, you are referring to a method by which we ascertain what the word of God, the Bible, IS. That's not to define a doctrine in itself.

Or, if taken to the logical extent - could someone, given a copy of the Bible, reproduce all of the Christian dogmas directly from Scripture?

Yes. All doctrines necessary to salvation, that is. Those who are not sympathetic to Sola Scriptura almost always fail to include this part of the matter.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

CaliforniaJosiah, I'm sure you've already done this but I didn't see it in the first two posts: Where does Scripture say that all doctrines necessary for salvation are contained within Scripture?

 

[concretecamper]

It's DOGMA.

yes

made dogma a few years after Luther's death.

yes, because of the heresy that was being taught.

And obviously, it's absent in Scripture - but read the opening post.

the word transubstantiation is missing in scripture, we can agree on that.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CaliforniaJosiah, I'm sure you've already done this but I didn't see it in the first two posts: Where does Scripture say that all doctrines necessary for salvation are contained within Scripture?

Respectfully, a different issue than the one of this thread (thus, not stated - it's a separate issue). But I do direct you to the opening post, the bottom section, "MY Response to This."


BTW, I have largely (although not entirely) agreed with your posts in this thread.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

yes

This, IMO, you boldly UNDERSTATED its status, perhaps to place it "off the table" of THIS thread?

the word transubstantiation is missing in scripture, we can agree on that.

IF you hold that Jesus plus the 12-14 Aposts plus the First Century Christians taught TRANSUBSTANTIATION/ACCIDENTS as dogma - as many Catholic fundamentalists insist - so that it's part of Apostolic Tradition - then it's probably a relevant example for this thread. But I would disagree with you that this new, unique RCC Dogma is taught in Scripture - indeed, I think all my Catholic teachers would, too. We were taught this comes from the Tradition and especially Magisterium of it itself (eventually) - not Scripture (although it doesn't exactly CONTRADICT Scripture - a point I now question but didn't then).

But yes, SOME would consider that unique new DOGMA to be an example of what the opening post is addressing..... Perhaps you are one of them.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[GlockMeister]

Required beliefs are usually defined in response to heresy (Not calling anyone a heretic here). So Arianism may have been an acceptible belief before the Church ruled on it at Nicea, but afterwards it was heresy and a sin to be an Arian.

Same principle applies to other divinely revealed dogma.

 

[concretecamper]

This, IMO, you boldly UNDERSTATED its status, perhaps to place it "off the table" of THIS thread?

??

IF you hold that Jesus plus the 12-14 Aposts plus the First Century Christians taught TRANSUBSTANTIATION/ACCIDENTS as dogma - as many Catholic fundamentalists insist - so that it's part of Apostolic Tradition - then it's probably a relevant example for this thread.

I would hold that scripture says, and the Early church Fathers reinforce, the literal meaning of "IS" as defined by the word transubstantiation as promulgated by Trent.

But I would disagree with you that this new, unique RCC Dogma is taught in Scripture - indeed, I think all my Catholic teachers would, too.

Funny, all the Catholic sources I have read pound home John 6. You must have had unique teachers.

We were taught this comes from the Tradition and especially Magisterium of it itself (eventually) - not Scripture (although it doesn't exactly CONTRADICT Scripture - a point I now question but didn't then

The Early Church Fathers certainly did reinforce this literal meaning.

(although it doesn't exactly CONTRADICT Scripture - a point I now question but didn't then).

Some LCMS's I have discussed this with agree that scripture does not contradict transubstantiation and that if push came to shove, they could accept it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It is odd to be told that I am confusing the real presence with a word, "transsubstantiation", that I haven't used in any of the posts in this thread, but I am used to being misrepresented in CaliforniaJosiah's posts so I won't take his misrepresentation to heart.

I do wonder at the diversity among posters on this thread. It is supposed to be a discussion about dogmas of the faith that are not present in the bible; by present in the bible some seem to mean explicitly stated in the bible and others have a different perspective that's closer to saying that the missing dogmas are not present in any form at all, neither explicit nor implicit nor even in embryonic form. But what I am curious about is the posts by various Lutheran participants. Some acknowledge Marian beliefs while others minimise them to the point of pious fancies that can be tolerated but ought not to be considered doctrines of any importance in Luthen faith, I am curious to have some of my Lutheran brothers and sisters expand on this theme, They are new to me.

By the way, as far as I know there are no Catholic teachings that are required to be believed by our separated brethren. As long as our separated brethren remain separate from us their beliefs are likely to be decided by their own faith traditions.

God be with you all to bless and to prosper you in your faith according to his will.

 

[fhansen]

The new, unique Eucharistic Dogma in the individual RC Denomination is Transubstantiation/Accidents. SOME would argue that this is an example of what the Opening Post is addressing. Are you defending/supporting this new unique Dogma of the singular RC Denomination with the thought of the opening post?



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

It was only a "new unique" way of stating the same old thing, sort of like coining the term "Trinity", for example: Jesus really subsists in the bread and wine, which is what most posters here are objecting to in this discussion; the Real Presence, IOW.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Jesus really subsists in the bread and wine

A keen repudiation of the new, unique RC Dogma.... but while I agree with you on that, that's not the issue of this thread.

See posts # 1 and 2.



Thanks!


Pax


- Josiah

 

[Thekla]

Beheading of St. John the Baptist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Head of St. John the Baptist at Amiens Cathedral | Atlas Obscura

Scientists find new evidence supporting John the Baptist bones theory - Telegraph

http://www.mgrfoundation.org/JdBRelics.jpg

MYSTAGOGY: The Skull (Head) of St. John the Baptist

Actually, the Mystagogy page describes several pieces of the skull of St. John the Baptist in different locations; this method is typical (i.e. dispersion of small pieces of a relic). Do recall that, roughly, a more ancient understanding of "symbol" is that the 'part makes present the whole'.

 

[Thekla]

I think the rage was not against God. I think it was against stubborn imbecility.
The objection is about your confusing what is truly spiritual with what is truly physical.

there is also the Incarnational

 

[sunlover1]

Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas ?
Not according to the Catholic Holy Bible, but it's no wonder the question was asked by a non-Catholic, because I'm not sure how all the other conflicting interpretations could possibly agree on what dogma is and isn't.
The only interpretation that the Catholic/Apostolic Church uses is that very same interpretation used to give us the Canonical Books compiled in our bibles, so if we all agree that the Holy Bible contains the correct Books in our Holy Bibles then why is their more than that One True Interpretation used by all other churches ?

I believe your bible contains books that mine does not.
Blessings.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I believe your bible contains books that mine does not.
Blessings.

Yes, my bible has seventy three canonical books and my bible has more in the prophet Daniel's book and more in the book of Esther than some bibles I have seen which contain only sixty six books.

 

[sunlover1]

Yes, my bible has seventy three canonical books and my bible has more in the prophet Daniel's book and more in the book of Esther than some bibles I have seen which contain only sixty six books.

I believe mine contains 66.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I believe mine contains 66.

Perhaps that is why some on this thread think that there are dogmas missing from their bible. If one's bible is seven books short of a complete canon and has missing chapters and verses from two other books then perhaps some dogmas went missing with the expurgated books and passages.

 

[Rick Otto]

I believe mine contains 66.

Is that like a sport model compared to a luxury model?
I enjoy luxury, but nothin' grips the road better than a sport model.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Is that like a sport model compared to a luxury model?
I enjoy luxury, but nothin' grips the road better than a sport model.

Keeps one earth bound. Not a good thing to be in spiritual matters.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Well... it's kind of missing the Trinity....

I see the similarity, but they're not the same thing. The one flesh shared between husband and wife is not the same as the oneness between the three members of the Trinity. Husband and wife are still two humans; the three members of the Trinity are truly and actually one God.

"The oneness of husband and wife is different than the oneness of God." So you say, but where does scripture say so? Where does scripture define what this oneness means so we can distinguish it from a different oneness? As you post, there is little scripture on the Trinity.

So why do churches feel compelled to adopt a creed that inculcates with so much verbiage not present in scripture and attach a damnation clause to it?

With the damnation clause it transitions from a creed/statement of man's belief to being a claimed statement of God. There is no more clear example of dogma in existence in the Christian community.

I command MoreCoffee for his defense of his "dogma" in the RCC. At least he does not state damnation for one that does not believe as he does.