Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

[MoreCoffee]

Which church? RC, EO, OO, P, A.

Why not be clear? "What RC teaches is RC teaching, but other Christians may teach something else."

The Catholic Church is the subject I addressed. The teaching in question is the teaching of Christ in the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[pilgrimage]

Quoted for truth.

It is important for discussions between Catholic christians and christians from other traditions to make this point as clearly as possible. What the church teaches is the teaching of Christ but what a saint or a doctor of the church opines is not necessarily the teaching of Christ. What a humble catholic says if he/she is saying what the church teaches has greater authority than what is said by an exalted theologian be he (or she) a saint or a doctor of the church if it is not the teaching of the church. Thus saint Jerome's opinions about this or that book in holy scripture it his opinion is not the teaching of the church is of less importance than what you or I write if we write what the church teaches about the same book.

is that to say, iow if you copy paste from your church teaching that is more reliable than what another church has as doctrine that isn`t availoable in copy paste form. That seems to be what you are saying, correct

 

[MoreCoffee]

is that to say, iow if you copy paste from your church teaching that is more reliable than what another church has as doctrine that isn`t availoable in copy paste form. That seems to be what you are saying, correct

No. I was speaking about the Catholic Church. What others do and what they have as official teaching is up to them and their leaders.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

That Paul and colleagues should go to the Gentiles did not exclude his preaching to the Jews as well (Rom 1:13–16) or Cephas to Gentile areas.

I asked what it means where it speaks of God working effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision as He did with Paul in his ministry to the Gentiles.

Could you at least tell us what the church says this means if you're not willing to do that?

 

[BobRyan]

is that to say, iow if you copy paste from your church teaching that is more reliable than what another church has as doctrine that isn`t availoable in copy paste form. That seems to be what you are saying, correct

No I think he is using a "to each his own" when it comes to "magisterium" so then to follow that pattern - you would simply affirm whatever your magisterium says on the subject just as he does.

Some people think that is the solution that solves everything. Or at least is "the best solution"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by Root of Jesse

Me? I'm nobody. But if I tell you what the Church teaches, then it's not me speaking, but the Church. Same with a priest. If he teaches in concert with what the Church teaches, then he's in communion. If not, then not.

You may not realize it, but this is true even with what you think you understand of the Doctors of the Church. They are not authoritative if they present opinion. So when Jerome thought the DC should not be part of the Canon of Scripture, he was not speaking for the Church. And even though he said this, he did obey the Church. I know, it's a concept that's hard for you to grasp.
​

Quoted for truth.

It is important for discussions between Catholic christians and christians from other traditions to make this point as clearly as possible. What the church teaches is the teaching of Christ but what a saint or a doctor of the church opines is not necessarily the teaching of Christ. What a humble catholic says if he/she is saying what the church teaches has greater authority than what is said by an exalted theologian be he (or she) a saint or a doctor of the church if it is not the teaching of the church. Thus saint Jerome's opinions about this or that book in holy scripture it his opinion is not the teaching of the church is of less importance than what you or I write if we write what the church teaches about the same book.

The idea of affirming the "magisterium" is an interesting one but Christ had something to say about it when He hammered the magisterium "sola scriptura" in Mark 7:6-13.

Demonstrating the doctrine does NOT come from man's traditions or doctrines.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[MoreCoffee]

Mark chapter seven is about the leaders of the Jews. It has nothing whatever to do with the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

 

[BobRyan]

I am not arguing that the magisterium of the Catholic church even existed in the first century.

I am pointing to the pattern that we have in Christ - in Mark 7 the Magisterium of His day, of the "one true nation church started by GOD at Sinai" the magisterium with the priesthood ordained by God and the pattern for succession of priests ordained by God - was "hammered" by Christ "sola scriptura" demonstrating that doctrine DOES come from the Bible and is worthless when it comes from man, from tradition that contradicts the doctrine of the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[MoreCoffee]

The pattern is made evident in saint Mark's gospel the seventh chapter. Consider what it says and it will be evident that the traditions of the ancients are condemned because they contradict the teaching of Moses in the law.

The Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered round him, and they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with unclean hands, that is, without washing them. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, keep the tradition of the elders and never eat without washing their arms as far as the elbow; and on returning from the market place they never eat without first sprinkling themselves. There are also many other observances which have been handed down to them to keep, concerning the washing of cups and pots and bronze dishes. So the Pharisees and scribes asked him, 'Why do your disciples not respect the tradition of the elders but eat their food with unclean hands?' He answered, 'How rightly Isaiah prophesied about you hypocrites in the passage of scripture: This people honours me only with lip-service, while their hearts are far from me. Their reverence of me is worthless; the lessons they teach are nothing but human commandments. You put aside the commandment of God to observe human traditions.' And he said to them, 'How ingeniously you get round the commandment of God in order to preserve your own tradition! For Moses said: Honour your father and your mother, and, Anyone who curses father or mother must be put to death. But you say, "If a man says to his father or mother: Anything I have that I might have used to help you is Korban (that is, dedicated to God)," then he is forbidden from that moment to do anything for his father or mother. In this way you make God's word ineffective for the sake of your tradition which you have handed down. And you do many other things like this.' (Mark 7:1-13)​

 

[hedrick]

It is a fact, not an opinion.
What Christ taught is the teachings of Christ.

It's not outlandish to think that Christ gave to his Church the authority to speak for him. There are NT indications of that. That was the context of More Coffee's original statement. He was just noting that not every Catholic speaks in this role.

However that kind of statement is dangerous in an ecumenical context such as CF, since it can easily take on the meaning that my church speaks for Christ and yours doesn't. Thus it's probably best to be really careful about that kind of language here, unless one is truly trying to attack other churches (something that I'm sure none of the participants here would do).

 

[MoreCoffee]

It's not outlandish to think that Christ gave to his Church the authority to speak for him. There are NT indications of that. That was the context of More Coffee's original statement. He was just noting that not every Catholic speaks in this role.

However that kind of statement is dangerous in an ecumenical context such as CF, since it can easily take on the meaning that my church speaks for Christ and yours doesn't. Thus it's probably best to be really careful about that kind of language here, unless one is truly trying to attack other churches (something that I'm sure none of the participants here would do).

That issue was dealt with in the post which is quoted below.

is that to say, iow if you copy paste from your church teaching that is more reliable than what another church has as doctrine that isn't available in copy paste form. That seems to be what you are saying, correct

No. I was speaking about the Catholic Church. What others do and what they have as official teaching is up to them and their leaders.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

No. I was speaking about the Catholic Church. What others do and what they have as official teaching is up to them and their leaders.

So, it's NOT submission to Christ - it's a denomination (and it's own leaders) calling for docilic submission to it itself as God Himself.

IMO, this very ROMAN concept of dictatorship you promote is unchristian. And your insistence that we are to submit to whatever denomination demands it just shows it's not submission to Christ - but to some denomination that seeks to surplant Him with itself.


Now, please address the issue of this thread.... see post # 1.



Thank you.


A blessed Holy Week to you and yours....


- Josiah

 

[fhansen]

So, it's NOT submission to Christ - it's a denomination (and it's own leaders) calling for docilic submission to it itself as God Himself.

IMO, this very ROMAN concept of dictatorship you promote is unchristian. And your insistence that we are to submit to whatever denomination demands it just shows it's not submission to Christ - but to some denomination that seeks to surplant Him with itself.


See post # 3.


Thank you.


A blessed Holy Week to you and yours....


- Josiah

And the alternative is that we submit to ourselves, as humans are wont to do anyway, to our private, personal interpretation of Scripture.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You misunderstand me. Since the teaching of the Catholic Church is the teaching of Christ accepting it is accepting Christ's call to obedience to him.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

And the alternative is that we submit to ourselves, as humans are wont to do anyway, to our private, personal interpretation of Scripture.

Well... that is what the RCC insists upon.

No, there are other alternatives than the POWER-GRABS of individual persons, churches, denominations, sects, cults: all seeking to displace God with itself. The very, very ROMAN obsession with unmitigated, unaccountable, absolute, God-like POWER and lording it over others is (IMO) not Christian (or wise) - it's just the obsession of Rome being applied by those who above all seek it - to substitute self for God. To confuse authority with Dictator.


See post # 3.



Thank you.


A blessed Holy Week to you and yours....


- Josiah

 

[Albion]

Well... that is what the RCC insists upon.

He probably didn't mean it this way, but fhansen was bumping up against the truth of the matter with his comment.

We all do that, both Catholics and Protestants.

No one holds any opinion about Scripture unless he has made a personal decision about it. If you are well-enough informed to know what it is saying, or if you simply defer to some other person to decide it for you, or if you reject Scripture altogether...it's all the same when it comes to "personal interpretation." It's ALL personal interpretation.

 

[MoreCoffee]

He probably didn't mean it this way, but fhansen was bumping up against the truth of the matter with his comment.

We all do that, both Catholics and Protestants.

No one holds any opinion about Scripture unless he has made a personal decision about it. If you are well-enough informed to know what it is saying, or if you simply defer to some other person to decide it for you, or if you reject Scripture altogether...it's all the same when it comes to "personal interpretation." It's ALL personal interpretation.

Not so much as personal interpretation as following one's conscience. It is never safe to go against one's conscience.

 

[Albion]

Not so much as personal interpretation as following one's conscience. It is never safe to go against one's conscience.

Conscience isn't a method of interpreting facts, however, so.... ??

 

[MoreCoffee]

Conscience isn't a method of interpreting facts, however, so.... ??

Conscience is a part of the will and it is the will with which decisions are made thus what one decides to follow is a matter for decision and hence for the will and one's conscience.

 

[Albion]

Conscience is a part of the will and it is the will with which decisions are made thus what one decides to follow is a matter for decision and hence for the will and one's conscience.

It still isn't the interpretation itself. Yes, I agree that we ought (not that we can say everyone does) to follow our consciences in this regard as in other matters.