Catholics vs. "Traditional" Protestants

  • Thread starter Thread starter tortdog
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tortdog

Guest
I have an open ended question. I’ve always viewed Catholics (meaning both Greek and Roman, and referencing the two as sects) as having a more “open” canon than Protestants. This is not to say that we will see the RC Church add a book to the Bible tomorrow, but that changes to tradition are more likely to occur in the Catholic sects of Christianity because of the role of the Pope/priesthood while Protestants rely on the “closed” Bible that speaks to everything and is perfect.

It seems that with Greek/Roman Catholics there is a heavy emphasis on tradition, as well as the canon, but recognition of the living priesethood as well. Thus we see “changes” (debatable whether a real change) over the centuries driven by the Pope/priesthood following the various councils. Probably more accurate to say a clarification via the council, though some might see it as a change.

In the end, I would opine that the Catholic sects would be the most likely to “accept a change” made on the basis that “God directed it,” as informed by the Pope/presthiood, while the Protestants would refuse the change because the Bible has spoken and no man can change the written word.

Further, to my knowledge, neither of the Catholic sects has come forward and opined that the Bible is absolutely closed. They each have a leader who speaks for God, claiming direct authority from God in that role.

Is my view of the Catholic sects completely off? I’ve been chastised by a evangelical protestant (non-denominational) who claims I am completely mischaracterizing the Catholic sects.
 
I don’t want to keep this to just the “canon,” but am also addressing the living Pope and the various councils over the centures, including Vatican II.

I would see Vatican II as something that only the Catholic sects would require, while the Protestant chruches would just “make the change,” not reqlly focusing on priesthood authority to “refine” or “speak” on the issue.

Does that make sense?

For example, this statement at that link:
The Bible is the book of the Church; she is not the Church of the Bible.
Click to expand...
That sounds like a Catholic view. But I would not expect that from a Protestant. BTW, I agree with that statement 100%.
 
You are off. 🙂 The Catholic Church doesn’t add new doctrines and we do consider the Bible a “closed book” in that no new books/writings will be added to it. The final canon of the Bible was decided at the Council of Trent, but no books had been added between that council and the one much earlier that established the canon of the NT.

Dogmas are doctrines that have been declared matters of absolute faith–they must be believed. There have been no “changes” to doctrine since Christ established the Church and sent the Apostles out on the great commission to evangelize and baptize the whole world.

Sacred Tradition is not something apart from the Bible, rather the Bible is a part of Sacred Tradition, which includes the living Magisterium of the Church. But, because the Magisterium is composed of living men, it does not in any way mean that they are free to change doctrine or create new doctrines. I hope that helps. 🙂

For a much better way to understand what the Church does/teaches, please read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
 
tortdog said:
I don’t want to keep this to just the “canon,” but am also addressing the living Pope and the various councils over the centures, including Vatican II.

I would see Vatican II as something that only the Catholic sects would require, while the Protestant chruches would just “make the change,” not reqlly focusing on priesthood authority to “refine” or “speak” on the issue.

Does that make sense?
Click to expand...
The Councils clarify doctrine and decide matters of discipline–they don’t create doctrine. The Church does this because we are part of an ever changing world in which men are always trying to find new ways to circumvent the Ten Commandments. It is the Church’s duty to make clear what Christ, the Word of God, teaches whenever new challenges to the truth arise.
 
I understand the “canon” issue. I probably used the wrong word to convey the meaning. And thanks for clarifying on the councils.

Let me go to an example. Currently, the debate on homosexual acts, and gay marriage, is hotly contested. Both the LDS Church and the RC Church are clear that homosexual acts are immoral, and do not countenance gay marriage.

Many Christians believe that the law regarding homosexual activities is an understanding of an ancient age, and that the Old Testament’s clear prohibition on such acts is archaic. Various Christian sects have gone on to sanction gay marriage, and do not view homosexual acts as immoral. They have done this though the “canon” has not changed.

For the LDS Church to make a change, it would require the LDS Church to accept as a “revelation” the pronouncement of the LDS prophet. He would need to claim to have received a revelation that changes the LDS Church’s understanding on the doctrine. It would not be simply “interpreted” into the doctrine. The LDS Church would need to be convinced that God has actually spoken on this issue in these latter days for such a change.

I assume that would be similar to the RC Church, that unlike some Protestant churches, the Pope would need to speak on the issue and accept this change. That this would have to come from the Pope. But it would also seem that this could not happen, based on your comments, as it would be considered “dogma,” clearly laid out in the canon. But I guess my error is assuming that the RC Church COULD make that change if the Pope received the inspiration to do so, i.e., clarifying what the canon actually says?
 
Jimmy Akin discusses the possibility of a tritocanon and the question of the closing of the canon. It is an interesting question but the Magesterium has not explicitly declared the canon of Scripture to be closed. A hypothetical scenario would be the reunion of an Eastern Orthodox Church with the Catholic Church. The EOC canon has a couple of extra books in it, i.e. 3 Maccabees, and it is possible that one day they could be declared canonical by the Catholic Church. I know that is controversial and that not everyone agrees with the idea that the canon is not definitely closed for all time but I’ve seen nothing that explicitly confirms otherwise
 
I know that is controversial and that not everyone agrees with the idea that the canon is not definitely closed for all time but I’ve seen nothing that explicitly confirms otherwise
Click to expand...
I had that conversation with a member of the RC Church who was very educated as to his beliefs. One of the things that stuck in my mind was his opinion that certainly the RC Church would accept a “lost book” if one were discovered and written by the very hand of the original twelve apostles, but that it would never happen.

Thus he conveyd that even the “canon” of the RC Church was theoretically open, just not realistically.

But as to the gay issue, I do not see how the RC Church could ever accept that change as that seems certain to be “dogma,” being a very clear statement on morality in the Old Testament that was enforced by the RC Church over the ages. In fact, I found examples in researching at Google Books of the RC Church prescribing the death penalty for such acts in centuries long ago. So I just do not see the RC Church changing the view on morality too easily.
 
tortdog said:
I understand the “canon” issue. I probably used the wrong word to convey the meaning. And thanks for clarifying on the councils.

Let me go to an example. Currently, the debate on homosexual acts, and gay marriage, is hotly contested. Both the LDS Church and the RC Church are clear that homosexual acts are immoral, and do not countenance gay marriage.

Many Christians believe that the law regarding homosexual activities is an understanding of an ancient age, and that the Old Testament’s clear prohibition on such acts is archaic. Various Christian sects have gone on to sanction gay marriage, and do not view homosexual acts as immoral. They have done this though the “canon” has not changed.

For the LDS Church to make a change, it would require the LDS Church to accept as a “revelation” the pronouncement of the LDS prophet. He would need to claim to have received a revelation that changes the LDS Church’s understanding on the doctrine. It would not be simply “interpreted” into the doctrine. The LDS Church would need to be convinced that God has actually spoken on this issue in these latter days for such a change.

I assume that would be similar to the RC Church, that unlike some Protestant churches, the Pope would need to speak on the issue and accept this change. That this would have to come from the Pope. But it would also seem that this could not happen, based on your comments, as it would be considered “dogma,” clearly laid out in the canon. But I guess my error is assuming that the RC Church COULD make that change if the Pope received the inspiration to do so, i.e., clarifying what the canon actually says?
Click to expand...
That would not be possible in the Catholic Church. Dogma never changes just as God’s view of a specific act as sinful will not later change and be viewed by Him as being moral.
 
Tietjen said:
That would not be possible in the Catholic Church. Dogma never changes just as God’s view of a specific act as sinful will not later change and be viewed by Him as being moral.
Click to expand...
That’s what I thought. Homosexual acts must be “dogma,” being so clear in scripture.

The best illustration that I could see of such a sea change (in the eyes of those who lived through it) was the fulfillment of the laws of cleanliness, in which God commanded Peter to eat of unclean things. I’m assuming that Peter (and his fellow Jews) believed that eating pork was an immoral act. Yet God commanded it and the rest is history.

But I do not think that the laws of cleanliness were inherently “moral” in nature, as is the law of chastity with homosexual acts being a grevious violation of that law. Thus I would assume with fair certainty that we will never see God “change” the law of chastity to include the acceptance of homosexual acts.

Then I guess getting back to my original question, we would never see the RC Church accept such a sea change in “dogma” because it does not, and cannot, change. The Pope would not be able to recognize the change, because it will not happen. That’s almost ciruclar reasoning, though. In the case of Peter and the unclean things, it’s almost as though the Church needed that direct revelation and for Peter to recognize it and inform the Church for the “change” to occur. That’s the closest thing I can find in scripture in which something “appears” to have changed via revelation by God, but I’d agree that wasn’t really a change, only fulfillment.
 
tortdog said:
Thus he conveyd that even the “canon” of the RC Church was theoretically open, just not realistically.
Click to expand...
I would agree with that assessment. Outside of the extra books in the Eastern Orthodox canon, I don’t see it ever happening.
tortdog said:
But as to the gay issue, I do not see how the RC Church could ever accept that change as that seems certain to be “dogma,” being a very clear statement on morality in the Old Testament that was enforced by the RC Church over the ages. In fact, I found examples in researching at Google Books of the RC Church prescribing the death penalty for such acts in centuries long ago. So I just do not see the RC Church changing the view on morality too easily.
Click to expand...
It is clear, in Scripture and Tradition, that homosexual acts are inherently sinful. There is no chance of that ever changing. Consider artificial birth control and divorce. While virtually every other denomination has accepted ABC and divorce, despite centuries of clear condemnation, the Catholic Church has steadfastly opposed these practices. The same will be the case with homosexual acts.
 
Della said:
There have been no “changes” to doctrine since Christ established the Church and sent the Apostles out on the great commission to evangelize and baptize the whole world.
Click to expand...
I think that the Eastern Orthodox say that the Catholic Church changed the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone.
 
Whether Catholic or not (To nail a point) the man next to Jesu on the cross, was promised that he too would join our lord in paradise. (not baptised).

Not to even mention John the baptist!!!

Lets not pretend we by any means have any advantage,such is life…
 
mark_avery said:
Whether Catholic or not (To nail a point) the man next to Jesu on the cross, was promised that he too would join our lord in paradise. (not baptised).

Not to even mention John the baptist!!!

Lets not pretend we by any means have any advantage,such is life…
Click to expand...
I think maybe this went in the baptism thread. But quickly, we do not know that the man on the cross was not baptized, do we? Also, what is paradise? Is it the same as eternal rest with the Father?
 
In my view, “paradise” means a relief from our burdens. It is a temporary location where one waits for the resurrection. It does not mean the ultimate destination for a person following the resurrection. It is not the location where God is.
 
tortdog said:
I think maybe this went in the baptism thread. But quickly, we do not know that the man on the cross was not baptized, do we? Also, what is paradise? Is it the same as eternal rest with the Father?
Click to expand...
Well i would suggest, before would be of course purgatory, for Jesus would enter first, and obviously there are no days once deceased.

Paradise hopefully a sign to our brother Muslims, that there is hope for them also.
 
tortdog said:
In my view, “paradise” means a relief from our burdens. It is a temporary location where one waits for the resurrection. It does not mean the ultimate destination for a person following the resurrection. It is not the location where God is.
Click to expand...
I understand what your saying and don’t totally disagree. Just in part.

How would you arrive at your definition from reading 2 Corinthians 12-4? Obviously you have to place that scripture verse in context with the chapter.

God Bless, Gary

Also consideration to Revelations 2;7 must be looked at?

“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.”
 
GaryTaylor said:
How would you arrive at your definition from reading 2 Corinthians 12-4? Obviously you have to place that scripture verse in context with the chapter.
Click to expand...
First, just because a person uses a word in one context does not mean he intends that word to be used in the same manner in other contexts. So when Christ said that all must have water baptism to be saved, one could also read into the “baptism of desire” while not contradicting Christ’s words.

Second, Corinthians talks of a man caught up to the third heaven (is there a first and second heaven as well?). It then says he is caught up to Paradise.

Does that mean that this man was caught up to two different places, the third heaven and Paradise? Or does this mean that the third heaven is Paradise, but not the first and second?

There’s a lot of IFs in the language. They do not preclude what I described as my view of a place between death and the resurrection in which the spirits of men reside. I do think that spirits of men continue after death, and since all have not been resurrected there must be a place where these spirits reside.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top