P
Pai_Nosso
Guest
The church has the authority to declare whatever dogma they wish. It doesn’t need any biblical evidence and can declare dogma with or without divine revelation. This is what I have a hard time believing.
- Status
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
That is outright false. Church is guarded by Holy Spirit to reveal Truth- not just Truth in Scriptures but also outside it. Scriptures were written by the Church and are as authoritative as Ecumenical Councils and other dogmatical and infallible things. Scriptures are part of Holy Tradition of the Church. Church can never declare anything contrary to truth (so neither contrary to Scriptures) neither anything that is not true. Holy Spirit was promised to Church, to guide her from error. This is in the Scriptures btw.
Also, do you know about apocryphal books? They are false books which some considered to be part of Scripture… Church, by help of Holy Spirit, identified them and also identified what is Scripture. Without Church you don’t even know what Scripture consists of. Also Scriptures can be misinterpreted like Apostle Peter warns us and as such you can never be sure if your private interpretation is right or wrong. Church can not err and is infallible as promised to Peter, and as such you can always be sure Church and Her interpretation are correct.
Also, if you read Papal Infallibility dogma, in full version it states " For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles. "
Hope that is helpful.
Last edited:
W
whatistrue
Guest
The issue isn’t that they don’t have biblical evidence or revelation, it is that you don’t accept what they claim to have. In other words, you are placing your interpretation over that of the Church.
A
adf417
Guest
You dont have a problem with the church declaring the canon of the NT without biblical evidence do you?
Peace!!!
P
Pai_Nosso
Guest
That’s what I read anyway.
But even if we take your definition the church can “reveal truth” outside of scripture. It’s the same as not needing biblical evidence
P
Pai_Nosso
Guest
The reason I have trouble believing some dogmas is exactly what i have said, lack of biblical evidence or dogmas that are “outside of scripture”
This is starting to look like a heated debate which is not what I wanted. My original question has been answered and I thank those who confirmed it.
God bless
W
whatistrue
Guest
Not trying to be heated here, just pointing out that both the dogmas you have trouble with and the Bible you want to reference came from the same organization.
Do you not think it is possible that nearly 2000 years of debate and thought by some of the smartest people who ever lived could have come to a correct conclusion notwithstanding your individual opinion?
God bless you as well.
Do you not think it is possible that nearly 2000 years of debate and thought by some of the smartest people who ever lived could have come to a correct conclusion notwithstanding your individual opinion?
God bless you as well.
Z
Zach
Guest
Thanks for the 255 dogma link. I found a PDF I downloaded and will print out. I can’t stand reading anything long online. The PDF so contains 102 certain truths not yet defined by the magisterium.
C
Chistian-ity
Guest
I’d just like to say that The Bible does not have a basis in The Bible
R
Rau
Guest
Best not to introduce issues that you don’t want to discuss…
R
Rau
Guest
The Catholic Church does not limit itself solely to beliefs and practices having explicit Scriptural foundation. It also takes account of Tradition.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Why would Church need Biblical evidence if Bible needed Church approval? You would not know what is Bible if Church did not decide it, if Church did not write it… After all, Bible never says it is the only source of truth- Paul tells us to hold fast to everything they have taught us, by letter or otherwise. Apostles taught early Christians, they had their own disciples and those disciples had theirs… and that is Church. Pope can never declare anything contrary to Bible anyway.
At the same time, i said Truth. It can not reveal lies nor anything new. I’ll quote myself.
Apply this principle to anything Church declares infallible. Nothing is ever contrary to Apostolic faith anyway.
Last edited:
A
adf417
Guest
Pia_Nosso would you mind answering the question i asked above so we can get a true sense of your position please?Pai_Nosso:
You dont have a problem with the church declaring the canon of the NT without biblical evidence do you?
Peace!!!
Peace!!!
R
Rau
Guest
The authors of the books of Scripture got to write “whatever they wish”. How can you trust them? As another poster asked - how can you trust those who decided the Canon of the NT? There is a certain inconsistency in being Catholic but adopting Sola Scriptura.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
I get that but where in Scripture does it say you can’t consider anything “outside of Scripture”?
So isn’t that a contradiction? People go outside Scripture for the rule “don’t go outside Scripture”?
Last edited:
P
Pai_Nosso
Guest
Guys save it for the protestants cos i’ve been through all that and know all your arguments.
T
thistle
Guest
You appear to be Sola Scriptura. That is Protestant.
P
Pai_Nosso
Guest
When I came back to the faith the only thing I knew was about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit and that’s the only thing I believed.
Now I’m meant to concern myself about weather Mary is this or that. Why? I don’t really care about that, its irrelevant to me. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Its a trinity not a quadrinity.
These are new dogmas, so if their not from the bible and their not divine revelation where are they from. “Oh u have to believe in the church…” is the answer. Im told to believe something i don’t even know where it came from or don’t even care about.
And if it was so important why not put it in scripture back when it was the word of God. Now, 1800 years later, it’s just the word of man.
And before u start with the Holy Spirit and church tradition.
In case you haven’t noticed the Catholic clergy has been caught out being extremely dishonest with sexual convictions to priests across the globe in the past few decades. Doesn’t fill me with confidence and trust. Because they are only humans after all.
Pope Francis doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence either for the obvious reasons. So to the Vatican 2 saga.
You know the 3rd secret of Fatima right? If u know Mary than u know the revelation about the church collapsing.
So do u continue to follow the same church that Fatima said is being corrupted?
Now I’m meant to concern myself about weather Mary is this or that. Why? I don’t really care about that, its irrelevant to me. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Its a trinity not a quadrinity.
These are new dogmas, so if their not from the bible and their not divine revelation where are they from. “Oh u have to believe in the church…” is the answer. Im told to believe something i don’t even know where it came from or don’t even care about.
And if it was so important why not put it in scripture back when it was the word of God. Now, 1800 years later, it’s just the word of man.
And before u start with the Holy Spirit and church tradition.
In case you haven’t noticed the Catholic clergy has been caught out being extremely dishonest with sexual convictions to priests across the globe in the past few decades. Doesn’t fill me with confidence and trust. Because they are only humans after all.
Pope Francis doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence either for the obvious reasons. So to the Vatican 2 saga.
You know the 3rd secret of Fatima right? If u know Mary than u know the revelation about the church collapsing.
So do u continue to follow the same church that Fatima said is being corrupted?
Last edited:
T
thistle
Guest
Frankly, at the risk of being flagged you appear to be a Catholic who knows absolutely nothing about the faith!
- Status