If Roman Catholicism is correct

[TLM08]

Consider this warning from St. Paul to the Galatians about a “different” gospel:

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned.”
Galatians 1:8-9

If Roman Catholicism is correct, then why don’t Peter, Paul and John’s letters in the New Testament look more like the Baltimore catechism, where Catholic doctrine is actually made very clear? Honestly, there isn’t even a slight resemblance. When you compare the catechism and the New Testament, they look like two completely different religions.

 

[Rulkiewicz]

Consider this warning from St. Paul to the Galatians about a “different” gospel:

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned.”
Galatians 1:8-9

If Roman Catholicism is correct, then why don’t Peter, Paul and John’s letters in the New Testament look more like the Baltimore catechism, where Catholic doctrine is actually made very clear? Honestly, there isn’t even a slight resemblance. When you compare the catechism and the New Testament, they look like two completely different religions.

I believe this is a major concern that most Protestants have, is that Catholics seem to “evolve” the church which was originally established in the New Testament.

 

[fermat]

This statement is puzzling to me. If you pick up a Catechism and look at any of the non-summary pages, you will find a number of footnotes to either Scripture, a church council, papal letters, etc. If you then look at the non-Scripture source documents, then you will find the direct references to Scripture.

The Baltimore Catechism was probably written first in English (I am guessing, I really don’t know), whereas the New Testament was written primarily in Greek, using terms and sayings common back then.

Don’t be so presumptuous to think that just because you don’t understand something that it can’t be true. Faith is as much a journey as anything and it takes a long time to learn what you need to know.

 

[Lancer]

Consider this warning from St. Paul to the Galatians about a “different” gospel:

*“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned.” *

• Galatians 1:8-9*

If Roman Catholicism is correct, then why don’t Peter, Paul and John’s letters in the New Testament look more like the Baltimore catechism, where Catholic doctrine is actually made very clear? Honestly, there isn’t even a slight resemblance. When you compare the catechism and the New Testament, they** look like two completely different religions.**

Lets say that I agree with you…but, most importantly…The Catholic Church does not agree with me or with you…so who do we believe…our individual instincts and perceptions?..our individual judgments? Or do we in faith trust the Church that the New Testament and the Doctrines of the Church are one and the same
I offer these three Scriptures for our consideration:

Luke 10: 1, 16, & 19 (RSV-CE)

**Jesus sends The Seventy (Disciples)

1 After this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to come. **
16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who** rejects you rejects me**, and he who** rejects me rejects him who sent me**.”

19 Behold,** I have given you authority** to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt you.

AND

**John 16: 12-14 (RSV-CE)*12 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, **for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. **

AND

**1 Timothy 3: 15 (RSV-CE)
**

15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. 16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He * was manifested in the flesh, vindicated * in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

Hope these scriptures ar worthwhile for you in your question.

Pax Christi

 

[TLM08]

This statement is puzzling to me. If you pick up a Catechism and look at any of the non-summary pages, you will find a number of footnotes to either Scripture, a church council, papal letters, etc. If you then look at the non-Scripture source documents, then you will find the direct references to Scripture.

The Baltimore Catechism was probably written first in English (I am guessing, I really don’t know), whereas the New Testament was written primarily in Greek, using terms and sayings common back then.

Don’t be so presumptuous to think that just because you don’t understand something that it can’t be true. Faith is as much a journey as anything and it takes a long time to learn what you need to know.

In spite of the fact that I was raised in the post Vatical II catholic schools after those great catechisms were abandoned for a more warm and fuzzy manner of instruction, I understand catholic teaching perfectly well.


My point is that Galatians 1:6-9 leaves no room for doctrinal “development”. Nowhere in the New Testament will you find the idea the catholic system of salvation through works. In fact the passage goes so far as to condemn anyone who would add to the gospel as presented by the apostles.

 

[JRKH]

Consider this warning from St. Paul to the Galatians about a “different” gospel:

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned.”
Galatians 1:8-9

If Roman Catholicism is correct, then why don’t Peter, Paul and John’s letters in the New Testament look more like the Baltimore catechism, where Catholic doctrine is actually made very clear? Honestly, there isn’t even a slight resemblance. When you compare the catechism and the New Testament, they look like two completely different religions.

Let us try to get a couple of things straight first.

1. The NT writings are not and were never intended to be a complete exposition of the faith. They are, however, the inspired writings of the Apostolic times and a touchstone for our faith.
2. St Paul and the other Apostles were spreading the Gospel far and wide. Their main method of teaching was oral. St Paul mentions this to Timothy when he tells timothy to hold fast to the teachings he recieved either orally or written.
3. The Letters of Paul were genreally written to address some issue or other in a specific church, or to simply bolster the faithful on their journey.
4. The Universal Church (catholic) is bound to evolve from it’s small beginnings in Jeruselem to the World Wide intitution it is today.

Now with these things in mind it is important to recognize that many many questions had not been raised or defined in the 1st century. Issues that would later require much debate and dogmatic declarations had not been thought of. As the Church grew and these questions came up the Church, using the authority and protection that Christ Gave to Her, developed the proper answers to these questions. The Catachism that we have today is a result of this evolution.

Peace
James

 

[Texan77]

My point is that Galatians 1:6-9 leaves no room for doctrinal “development”. Nowhere in the New Testament will you find the idea the catholic system of salvation through works. In fact the passage goes so far as to condemn anyone who would add to the gospel as presented by the apostles.

The truth is that we must remember that St. Paul was writing a letter to the Galatians for a specific purpose - he is reminding them of what they were taught and let no outsider pull you away from the gospel truth in which they (the apostles) taught.

 

[TLM08]

Let us try to get a couple of things straight first.

1. The NT writings are not and were never intended to be a complete exposition of the faith. They are, however, the inspired writings of the Apostolic times and a touchstone for our faith.
2. St Paul and the other Apostles were spreading the Gospel far and wide. Their main method of teaching was oral. St Paul mentions this to Timothy when he tells timothy to hold fast to the teachings he recieved either orally or written.
3. The Letters of Paul were genreally written to address some issue or other in a specific church, or to simply bolster the faithful on their journey.
4. The Universal Church (catholic) is bound to evolve from it’s small beginnings in Jeruselem to the World Wide intitution it is today.

Now with these things in mind it is important to recognize that many many questions had not been raised or defined in the 1st century. Issues that would later require much debate and dogmatic declarations had not been thought of. As the Church grew and these questions came up the Church, using the authority and protection that Christ Gave to Her, developed the proper answers to these questions. The Catachism that we have today is a result of this evolution.

Peace
James

"As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted,(past tense) let him be eternally condemned."
Galatians 1:8-9

Of course the church can and even should evolve, but not the gospel message of salvation. Paul and the apostles preached the gospel and Christians accepted it. This leaves no room for such “evolution” of the gospel. Paul never said the gospel would evolve with the passing of time. This passage in Galatians was one of the sternest warnings in the New Testament.

 

[JRKH]

"As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted,(past tense) let him be eternally condemned."
Galatians 1:8-9

Of course the church can and even should evolve, but not the gospel message of salvation. Paul and the apostles preached the gospel and Christians accepted it. This leaves no room for such “evolution” of the gospel. Paul never said the gospel would evolve with the passing of time. This passage in Galatians was one of the sternest warnings in the New Testament.

Perhaps you should tell us what part of the Gospel (meaning good news) that Paul preached Orally you see as having been changed. What part of the Good News (Gospel) that has been transmitted through the Church from that time to this has been changed from the original Good News?
Since you mention the Baltimore Catachism perhaps you could supply (one at a time) your percieved differences.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

In spite of the fact that I was raised in the post Vatical II catholic schools after those great catechisms were abandoned for a more warm and fuzzy manner of instruction, I understand catholic teaching perfectly well.


My point is that Galatians 1:6-9 leaves no room for doctrinal “development”. Nowhere in the New Testament will you find the idea the catholic system of salvation through works. In fact the passage goes so far as to condemn anyone who would add to the gospel as presented by the apostles.

I just read this post (sorry, I siometimes get things out of order).

Here is a link to the english translation of the New Catachism.of the Catholic Church. It is searchable and I have found it highly useful. Perhaps this can answer some of your concerns.

As to the idea of “Salvation through Works” this is not an Catholic Teaching. Salvation is recieved as a free and unwarrented Gift offered to us by God. Works are necessary as a part of our sincere response to the offer of that salvic gift.

Peace
James

 

[fermat]

My point is that Galatians 1:6-9 leaves no room for doctrinal “development”. Nowhere in the New Testament will you find the idea the catholic system of salvation through works. In fact the passage goes so far as to condemn anyone who would add to the gospel as presented by the apostles.

I recommend reading paragraphs 161 to 167of the ‘warm and fuzzy’ catechism for a better understanding of the role of faith in salvation . Catholicism does not now, nor ever has, taught a doctrine of salvation by works. At the risk of sounding slightly discourteous, if salvation by works is what you learned reading the ‘old’ catechism, then I can’t see why you would want to keep using it.

 

[Verbum]

HI TLM,

Knowing that everything that Jesus said and did is not written down, how can you say that everything the apostles said and did is written down? How do you know that what is found in the catechism was not taught by Peter, Paul and the other apostles?

What has happened is theology. The apostles were not theologians; they were not even scripture scholars. They just repeated what they heard from Christ and what were natural conclusions from his teachings. The church has done no more more than this. But as time evolved, it systematized the teaching, which became a science called theology. Terms have been developped, which were not current in apostolic times, but most fo them come from Fathers like St. Augustine, St. Ambrose and the Greek Fathers. Theology delves deeper into the faith, analyzing its scriptural and traditional foundations, applying it to various circumstances, adapting it it to the times, illustrating it with the writings of learned people and saints.

Jesus promised to send us the Holy Spirit. He did send Him and keeps sending Him. He also said that he is with us until the end of time. Never fear. We are on the right path, from which we cannot stray.

 

[Texan77]

Of course the church can and even should evolve, but not the gospel message of salvation.

Is it your opinion that the gospel message of salvation has evolved or changed over time within the Catholic Church sense the days of the apostles?

If so can you please give me a few concrete examples?

 

[Rolltide]

I just read this post (sorry, I siometimes get things out of order).

Here is a link to the english translation of the New Catachism.of the Catholic Church. It is searchable and I have found it highly useful. Perhaps this can answer some of your concerns.

As to the idea of “Salvation through Works” this is not an Catholic Teaching. Salvation is recieved as a free and unwarrented Gift offered to us by God. Works are necessary as a part of our sincere response to the offer of that salvic gift.

Peace
James

Perhaps it would also be useful to refer to the church’s ORIGINAL Catechism, the Didache, which was actually written during the time of the Apostles, and is the oldest genuine non-Biblical work about Christianity:

earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html

 

[AmbroseSJ]

"As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted,(past tense) let him be eternally condemned."
Galatians 1:8-9

Of course the church can and even should evolve, but not the gospel message of salvation. Paul and the apostles preached the gospel and Christians accepted it. This leaves no room for such “evolution” of the gospel. Paul never said the gospel would evolve with the passing of time. This passage in Galatians was one of the sternest warnings in the New Testament.

You are absolutely correct. If the “evolution” of the gospel means a change to the gospel. However, true doctrinal development does not change the fundamental truth whatsoever, but merely elaborates it in more articulate language than had been done heretofore. For example, in Apostolic times the gospel of the Trinity existed, but in a very undefined way. The core truth has never changed, but how the core truth is described has changed vastly. There is very much now that is said about the Trinity, that clarifies many issues that were initially raised by heretics. See? For doctrinal development to be true, it must remain true to itself. Another example; an acorn is not an oak tree, neither is a little sprout popping out of the ground, a sapling is beginning to look more like an oak tree, and finally the mature tree is unquestionably an oak tree. So all along we were dealing with an oak tree. It was always going to grow into an oak tree. An oak tree that stays an acorn isn’t much of an oak tree.

Some want to freeze time and keep everything like an acorn, with no development. They see this normal growth as someone might look at a tumor. As John Henry Newman liked to say “To live is to change, to be perfect is to have changed often.” He considered growth to be a sign of life and vitality.

 

[JRKH]

"As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted,(past tense) let him be eternally condemned."
Galatians 1:8-9

Note in the above passage that Paul says,
“if anyone is preaching to you…”, (which indicates oral teaching - )
“…other than what you accepted…”, (which Paul tells us can be by “by word of mouth or by letter…” (2 th 2:15))
In both places we clearly see the importance of oral teaching and the importance of the person doing the teaching. Paul is also stating that if someone comes and preaches the SAME gospel that they had excepted that is OK. Of course that person would likely use different words and phrases and might expound on the Gospel in a different way than Paul had. Yet it remains the same Gospel.
In addition, since we only have Paul’s letters, which were generally written to address specific issues within the Church communities, how can we know that Paul did NOT preach a united church under the rule and authority of the Bishops and built around Peter.

Of course the church can and even should evolve, but not the gospel message of salvation. Paul and the apostles preached the gospel and Christians accepted it. This leaves no room for such “evolution” of the gospel. Paul never said the gospel would evolve with the passing of time. This passage in Galatians was one of the sternest warnings in the New Testament.

Paul is also stating that if someone comes and preaches the SAME gospel that they had excepted that is OK. Of course that person would likely use different words and phrases and might expound on the Gospel in a different way than Paul had. Yet it remains the same Gospel. This is one of the critical aspects of “Oral Tradition” It isn’t necessarily that there are things accepted that are not written down, but rather that we have the consistant understanding of the written text passed down.
When we read the Bible today we see Capital and small letters. We see periods and question marks. We see many devises used that were not part of the original texts because these things did not exist. It was through the oral teachings and explanations of the Apostles to the Bishops to the Priests to the People that everyone knew how things were understood, emphasized, and believed.

Peace
James

 

[thunderballs75]

You must understand, that God did not leave us after His son ascended into heaven! God continues to be with us today my friend, and even until the end of time.

The New Testaments is not the only thing that Christians used to set out the Faith. Look at the epistles, the creeds, the Didache, etc. In fact, in these things most of our doctrines were set out very clearly.

 

[rwoehmke]

I would recommend that the OP go on line and on the Catholic Answers web site click on Pillar of Fire Pillar of Truth( It is also available from CA in booklet form for one dollar. This booklet contains all the basic essentials of the Catholic Faith, is easily understood, and the vast majority of essential beliefs are backed up by a scriptural reference. Check it out.

 

[Mintaka]

Paul liked to call the Church the Body of Christ, and I don’t think any Christian argues that that’s not true. But Paul only got that idea from what Jesus said when He appeared to Paul.

Now, what if the Christians of Antioch had said, “Jesus never said that while He was teaching, or after the Resurrection when He was talking to the Apostles. Why should we believe Jesus said that to you? It’s a weird idea. It’s not our teaching.”

But really, you might possibly draw the Church as the Body of Christ out of what Jesus said at the Last Supper, or from a few other things. If you work at it. It would take a lot of time and poetry in your soul. Jesus gave Paul a shortcut to this idea, for our good.

Later on, Paul draws out the Church as Christ’s flesh, and Jesus’ saying about a man and his wife being one flesh, into the Church being Christ’s Bride. This shows up in Revelation, too, and there’s no doubt on anybody’s part that it’s divinely inspired. But clearly, Paul was inspired to this by thinking a lot about the implications of what he already knew.

Similarly, Jesus didn’t say anything about most of the weird church situations that Paul gets asked to solve. Paul had to develop what to say from what the old Scriptures said, what Jesus said, what was going on, and his own ideas. Again, what he said was divinely inspired, but he had to develop it in his brain to get inspired.

New stuff is always coming up, and Christians are always thinking up new solutions based on their old knowledge of divine revelation, the savvy and brains God gave them, and the stuff they’ve seen and heard from other people has worked before – tradition, with a small or large T. Stuff develops, and true developments and unfoldings of God’s Truth are directed by God’s Providence. He didn’t leave us orphans, after all, and He did give the power to bind and loose.

 

[Ignatius]

Consider this warning from St. Paul to the Galatians about a “different” gospel:

*“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned.” *
Galatians 1:8-9

If Roman Catholicism is correct, then why don’t Peter, Paul and John’s letters in the New Testament look more like the Baltimore catechism, where Catholic doctrine is actually made very clear? Honestly, there isn’t even a slight resemblance. When you compare the catechism and the New Testament, they look like two completely different religions.

It doesn’t look much like any of the hundreds of conflicting Protestant catechisms either. Did you know that the Catechism is a Protestant invention?