Catholic Doctrines: Development versus Change

  • Thread starter Thread starter Soldier_Of_God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You might be right here. I was referring to Revelation 22:18-19
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Notice the bolded parts above. You err greatly in that the passage specifically states that it all applies only to “this book of prophecy”, therefore you are wrong here.
This could very well not apply to the entire bible as this book may have been written before some of the other books in the bible. I don’t know.
You do now. See above. There is no such passage anywhere in the Bible that applies to the entire Bible. It’s simply not there my friend. Look for yourself. This is called Sola Scriptura, and it’s a errant new wind of doctrine of modern men that has only existed for some 500 years or so. It has no basis in scripture and is the fundamental cornerstone of most of the modern n-C faith communities. (See Refuting the fundamental modern error of Sola Scriptura.)
Are you saying that the bible is not the final authority?
Are you saying that it is? Prove it from the Word of God, because, as I said before, having read the Bible many times I have yet to find it anywhere.

Yet I have found the following from St. Paul’s letters to Timothy. What does he specifically say is the pillar and ground of the truth?
[bibledrb]1 Timothy 3:15[/bibledrb]
 
I don’t think the RCC teaches it has closed the canon. Sure, it’s declared 73 books to be canonical but I’m pretty sure it never said these are the only inspired books.

Also, the council of carthage certainly didn’t close the canon.

As Raymond F. Collins notes:

“Doubts about the deuterocanonical books keep recurring in the history of the Church among those who are aware of the Jewish canon. Those who prefer the shorter canon or express some doubt about the full canonical status of the deuterocanonicals include Cyril of Jerusalem [A.D. 315-386], Gregory of Nazianzus [A.D. 325-389], Epiphanius [A.D. 310/320 – 403], Rufinus [A.D. 340/345 – 410], Gregory the Great [A.D. 540-604], John Damscene [A.D. 676-749], Hugh of St. Victor [A.D. 1096 – 11 February 1141], Nicholas of Lyra [A.D. 1270–October 1349], and Cardinal Cajetan [A.D. February 20, 1469 - August 9, 1534].” - The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999. p. 1042. (This is a landmark Roman Catholic Biblical commentary, btw)

Though all of these names should cause pause for thought (for instance, Cyril wrote a catechism explicating the beliefs of the Church!) I want to draw most attention to Gregory the Great and Cardinal Cajetan. The former is one of very few popes to be called ‘the great’ and the latter “At the Diet of Augsburg in 1518…was entrusted with the task of examining and testing the teachings of Martin Luther. He was also one of the nineteen Cardinals who refused King Henry VIII of England an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, causing the king to break with the Roman Catholic Church and establish the Church of England.”

So if Carthage did anything near closing the canon the above facts are near unintelligible.
What you seem to fail to understand is that the Church never defines something until it is attacked, and so the canon was accepted and settled by the early church, but was only actually defined and defended by the Council of Trent when it was attacked by Protestants. That is how it has always worked and how it continues to this day.
 
Zoiks! Can you say Can of Worms?

Yes, everything we believe must be in the bible.

Some teachings that contradict Jesus are praying repetitions, calling men “Father”.

You will have to explain how Revelation 11:3-12 is revelvant to this topic because I’m not sure.
“I will grant my two witnesses authority to prophesy for 1,260 days, wearing sackcloth.”

Scripture doesn’t say God is a trinity so that is what I am saying. It is one thing to speculate but its another thing to make people beholden to man’s theology.

Well, if the church was more reasonable, then maybe it could have worked something out where everyone could have remained in one church. But no, they had to make the issues do or die issues. They had to set themselves up as gods saying who will be saved and who won’t based on their power to excommunicate someone who has a slightly different view than theirs on a point that was NOT elaborated on or specified by Jesus or his apostles. That is rediculous. And this is what caused churches to split apart because of the attitude of Rome which is “MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY”.

That is a problem. If they can’t all get along then that is a problem. Its just a bunch of fighting like little kids - “I’m saved”, “No! I’m Saved”, “No I am.” “No I am.” “No you’re not!” “No, YOU’RE not!”… ad nauseum…
Christ’s natures are like this, …no, they are like this, no they’re not, yes they are, no theyre not, yes they are, - EXCOMMUNICATED, get the hell out of here.

Seriously? You can’t tell me this isn’t pure politics.
You are either a very poorly catechised Catholic and fail to understand or you are knowingly rejecting infallible teachings.

CCC 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."
 
Churchmilitant -
I was listening to you until I got to - How old are you anyways?

It is my policy not to dialoge with people who insult me, or are condescending or rude.
Or if they make attacks on my character or person.

Attack ideas, not people.

Good day. You’ll have to find someone else to debate with.
 
Churchmilitant -
I was listening to you until I got to - How old are you anyways?

It is my policy not to dialoge with people who insult me, or are condescending or rude.
Or if they make attacks on my character or person.

Attack ideas, not people.

Good day. You’ll have to find someone else to debate with.
That is certainly your prerogative, but you mistake my motives, nor should you make assumptions as to them which are not in evidence. It was not meant in any way to be any of what you have alleged.

It appears that you have misunderstood me in much the same way that you have misunderstood your own Catholic faith. You have taken offense where none was intended. 🤷

Either way, the info is out there and cannot be denied.

I was merely wondering how old you were because you seem young. Young enough not to have known the answers to the questions and assertions you have posed so far.

If you wish to bail… that is, of course on you, but it simply means that you have failed to prove and defend the positions you have so far taken.

I urge you to separate yourself from whatever persons, cults, or whatever you have apparently been studying with and do your own homework with regard to the Catholic faith.

There are many excellent online sources where you can get correct Catholic information and a series of those links follows.

Catholic Answers
Catholic Home Study Service
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Searchable Catechism of the Catholic Church
Bible Christian Society
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism
Scripture Catholic
 
promethius:
That is incorrect. The church teaches that general revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. There is nothing new to add to scripture at this point.
This is not the same thing as saying the canon is closed because there can still be inspired books before the death of the last apostle not included in the current canon. I’ve never heard this claim before.
I actually wasn’t referring to the council of carthage. Rather to Pope Damascus’ declaration of the Canon, which was affirmed at the Synod of Hippo, and then again at the Councils of Carthage. Basically by 410 AD the entire western church was using the single canon as taught by Pope Damascus… the same NEW testament Canon that all of Chrisendom uses today, and the same old testament canon that Catholics (and some protestants) still use.
If you were referring to the alleged Damasine canon I’m not sure why you said it took place in 397? Further, for about 1400 years the “damasine canon” was thought to have been the work of a different pope: Gelasius 1. Then, in like the 18th century (iirc) a French Jesuit thought the text didn’t sound like Gelasius’ other stuff and attributed it to Damasus, at a council we have no texts of. Oddly, this piece of work cites Augustine, so many regard it as a forgery. Even if it isn’t, you’re basing such a weighty conclusion on the speculative work of scholars.
No, Trent was were the Canon was infallibly settled. But it was Carthage, Hippo, and the Pope who promulgated the Canon which was infallibly declared at Trent. It is their new testament canon that protestants STILL use to this very day.
I don’t believe ecumenical councils are infallible so I don’t think Trent settled it. As I stated, Cardinal Cajetan (who was present for some of Trent, even being commissioned to review Luther’s works) believed in the “protestant” canon. Further, the canon proposed by those provincial councils includes a book not included in Trent’s, so they’re not in harmony. There is literally so much to be said about the points you’ve brought up, so much scholarship and history I’m always so surprised when Catholics make these sweeping historical statements. It’s like…wait…wat?
 
promethius:

This is not the same thing as saying the canon is closed because there can still be inspired books before the death of the last apostle not included in the current canon. I’ve never heard this claim before.

If you were referring to the alleged Damasine canon I’m not sure why you said it took place in 397? Further, for about 1400 years the “damasine canon” was thought to have been the work of a different pope: Gelasius 1. Then, in like the 18th century (iirc) a French Jesuit thought the text didn’t sound like Gelasius’ other stuff and attributed it to Damasus, at a council we have no texts of. Oddly, this piece of work cites Augustine, so many regard it as a forgery. Even if it isn’t, you’re basing such a weighty conclusion on the speculative work of scholars.

I don’t believe ecumenical councils are infallible so I don’t think Trent settled it. As I stated, Cardinal Cajetan (who was present for some of Trent, even being commissioned to review Luther’s works) believed in the “protestant” canon. Further, the canon proposed by those provincial councils includes a book not included in Trent’s, so they’re not in harmony. There is literally so much to be said about the points you’ve brought up, so much scholarship and history I’m always so surprised when Catholics make these sweeping historical statements. It’s like…wait…wat?
The Council of Trent was infallible and issued the largest number of dogmatic and reformatory decrees of all Councils.
The Canon is CLOSED!
 
The Council of Trent was infallible and issued the largest number of dogmatic and reformatory decrees of all Councils.
The Canon is CLOSED!
These are what I call “nah ah propositions” because you’re simply describing positions you adhere to rather than providing reasons for others to also adhere to them. The only rebuttal possible is “nah ah.”

However, you are asserting a logical relationship between two propositions that I can engage:

(1) If Trent’s declaration on the canon was infallible, then the canon is closed. [Premise]
(2) Trent’s declaration on the canon was infallible. [Premise]
(3) Therefore, the canon is closed. (1), (2), M.P.]

I think both Catholics and Protestants should reject (1) since the antecedent can be true while the consequent is false (the very criteria for when a conditional is false), the conditional is false.
 
Perplexity, I believe you are wrong about Trent. Note the following decree on this matter.
DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES
The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,–keeping this [Page 18] always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.
The Fourth Session
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top