Infallibly declared dogmas of the Catholic church

[Usagi]

Yes, sorry, I meant I’m not sure what form prayer and devotion to the saints takes in Orthodoxy. I used “God-bearer” instead of “Theotokos” in case the OP wasn’t familiar with the Greek term (though it seems likely that they are).

 

[Pai_Nosso]

What is the difference?
If you can believe the canon of scripture the church set is the true word of God how can you take that word on your own interpretation and use it against the same church that gave it to us? If it didn’t need biblical evidence to give us the NT why do you think it needs biblical evidence for other beliefs? If the church is wrong now how do you know it wasn’t wrong then?

The difference is that the NT was released when? 200AD? And is based on Jesus’ teachings.
These dogmas are released in the 1800s and I don’t know what it’s based on, where it comes from, why it’s relevant, why it was released or anything.

Those two dogmas also call for explanations of scripture that seem to contradict them. Their not convincing explanations. Eg there are two explanations as to why it says Jesus has siblings. One says that Joseph had kids already, the other claims that the passage means cousins. Which one is it? We obviously don’t know. So too make it dogma so long after the events is odd.

Someone made the point that the trinity isn’t clearly stated in the bible but again it’s early dogma, one of the first and has a fair amount of biblical reference. I admitted my ignorance as I only knew the core beliefs of Catholicism when I returned so Im not blaming or opposing any of it.

 

[Usagi]

The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are newish as dogmas (though not as beliefs).

Mary’s perpetual virginity is the oldest of the four Marian dogmas. It’s at least second century, not 19th. The Protevangelium of James, a fictional work about Mary and Joseph’s life before Jesus, is that old and has Mary as a dedicated virgin and Joseph as her much older, previously widowed spouse. Obviously that’s not Scripture, but it does mean there were people who believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity and included it in their stories of her background even back then. You won’t find a date for its being declared a dogma of the Church, because it’s just been understood as part of our background knowledge for that long.

 

[adf417]

Greetings Pai_Nosso, thanks again for the reply.

The difference is that the NT was released when? 200AD?

More like 400AD - after Nicaea

These dogmas are released in the 1800s and I don’t know what it’s based on, where it comes from, why it’s relevant, why it was released or anything.

It is based on the same thing (the Holy Spirit) as the declaration of the NT. Its relevance is, among other things, belief in the church that tells us this. Why wouldn’t you want to believe in these dogmas. Dont you want to believe in these aspects of the faith? Dont you want positive affirmation that your hope is being fulfilled?

Those two dogmas also call for explanations of scripture that seem to contradict them. Their not convincing explanations.

I understand. Im sure these are the same exact reasons the church fathers argued over which books would be in the canon and which books would not. Its probably the same exact arguments used by Arius when he was arguing at the council of Nicaea and the beginnings of Trinitarian doctrine.

Eg there are two explanations as to why it says Jesus has siblings. One says that Joseph had kids already, the other claims that the passage means cousins. Which one is it? We obviously don’t know. So too make it dogma so long after the events is odd.

There could be more :man_shrugging:t3: it doesnt bother me. What does the length of time have to do with anything? If this a relevant argument then wouldn’t defending the Trinity be problematic to a non-Trinitarian when they use the same argument? Why is 400 years after Christ ok but 1800 too late? What is the deadline?

I admitted my ignorance as I only knew the core beliefs of Catholicism when I returned so Im not blaming or opposing any of it.

Point taken. :+1:t3:
Peace!!!

 

[thistle]

No I thought dogmas were things like the assumption and the fact that we all have individual souls

Modern Catholic Dictionary:

DOGMA. Doctrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation. All dogmas, therefore, are formally revealed truths and promulgated as such by the Church. They are revealed either in Scripture or tradition, either explicitly (as the Incarnation) or implicitly (as the Assumption). Moreover, their acceptance by the faithful must be proposed as necessary for salvation. They may be taught by the Church in a solemn manner, as with the definition of the Immaculate Conception, or in an ordinary way, as with the constant teaching on the malice of taking innocent human life. (Etym. Latin dogma ; from Greek dogma , declaration, decree.)

Here is a guide to the dogmas of the Church:

http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Dogmas_of_the_Church.html

 

[Searching1]

Yes and the Assumption is a dogma and the belief we each have an individual soul are dogmas

 

[Rau]

The difference is that the NT was released when? 200AD? And is based on Jesus’ teachings.
These dogmas are released in the 1800s and I don’t know what it’s based on, where it comes from, why it’s relevant, why it was released or anything.

Why would you think that documents that were excluded from the Canon were correctly excluded? Those were just men making those decisions.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

Why would you think that documents that were excluded from the Canon were correctly excluded? Those were just men making those decisions.

This is an old thread now which might be why your comment makes no sense.
The thread was about inclusions not exclusions specifically inclusions that have no biblical foundation.

 

[Rau]

This is an old thread now which might be why your comment makes no sense.
The thread was about inclusions not exclusions specifically inclusions that have no biblical foundation.

yes, very old thread, started 15 days ago!

Your position boils down to a lack of faith in the church BUT strong faith in Scripture, but you have yet to confront the reality that the Church brought you the scriptures - decided what belonged and what did not. Whether it’s a decision to “include” (what might be false) or “exclude” (what might be true) - you trust that they have got it right. Exclude/ Include makes no difference. Do you not see how illogical it is to have such faith in the makeup of the Bible, and a lack of faith in the Church teaching authority? It would be more consistent to be skeptical of both - though I don’t advocate that!

 

[Pai_Nosso]

I know that but your argument didn’t address my concern.
That’s fine but. I got some great responses and am at peace with it now anyway.

 

[dochawk]

To be honest its the practice of Marian devotion which I find unbelievable.

Err, do you understand that Marian devotion is at least as prevalent/strong as in the West? The form is different, and the presence in the Divine Liturgy is greater than in the Mass: the Hymn to the Theotokos is an integral part of the liturgy, and the Akathist is multiple times a year as part of the liturgy (as opposed to the Rosary, which is not used during the Mass).

 

[Pai_Nosso]

Err, do you understand that Marian devotion is at least as prevalent/strong as in the West? The form is different, and the presence in the Divine Liturgy is greater than in the Mass: the Hymn to the Theotokos is an integral part of the liturgy, and the Akathist is multiple times a year as part of the liturgy (as opposed to the Rosary, which is not used during the Mass).

I’m assuming your talking about the Orthodox church. Yes I learnt that some of them have strong Marian devotions. The church doesn’t require Catholics or Orthodox to take up Marian devotion, it’s optional.

To be more specific it’s two of the Marian dogmas that makes me scratch my head. Immaculate conception and perpetual virginity. It’s a Catholic belief, it’s theology, it’s doctrine but above all it’s dogma, infallibility declared as incontrovertibly true. From what I understand there is no higher truth than a dogma and all Catholics are obligated to believe it.

Im not telling Catholics not to believe in the dogmas. Im not criticizing Catholics or the church. Im not trying to convince anyone.
The only thing I’m trying to convey is that I don’t believe those 2 dogmas and to be honest I fail to see the relevance in

 

[Rau]

The only thing I’m trying to convey is that I don’t believe those 2 dogmas

While I can imagine a person saying “how did the church ever arrive at those conclusions”, I don’t follow why a person - absent a deep study of the subject - would simply declare dis-belief.

I’m assuming you’ve not made a deep study? You can read a little of the reasoning and the history of the issue (which extends over centuries) on the main Catholic Answers site.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

While I can imagine a person saying “how did the church ever arrive at those conclusions”

I’ve been asking that from the beginning with mixed explanations.

I’m assuming you’ve not made a deep study? You can read a little of the reasoning and the history of the issue (which extends over centuries) on the main Catholic Answers site.

Mate it would of been nice if u read my posts on this thread at least. U would of known my views instead of assuming them and presenting reasons that have already been discussed. And I wouldn’t have to repeat myself either.

U would have also known that I studied it, read the explanations on this site and I’m familiar with all of the arguments made for these 2 dogmas. I think some of the arguments have been used on Protestants for so long that Catholics seem oblivious to how weak they are.

I don’t follow why a person - absent a deep study of the subject - would simply dis-belief.

It would be much simpler to say “I believe”. But I would be lying to God’s face, He knows what I feel and think. So im just being honest and ask God for his grace if I am incorrect.

Your position boils down to a lack of faith in the church BUT strong faith in Scripture

True. U know my view but do u understand it?

but you have yet to confront the reality that the Church brought you the scriptures

I will try to explain, as simply as i can, where the issue is for me.

NT was released in the 4th century.
It’s books are written about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
They were written in the 1st century
It’s authors were eye witnesses of Christ. They were His disciples, His apostles.
The books were written from the direct inspiration of Christ

The 2 dogmas I mention were released in the 18th century from memory.
They are not about Christ or God.
These dogmas were not taught by Jesus or God.
It’s authors weren’t inspired by Jesus or God.

Can u understand how a person may have doubts about it?

 

[thistle]

Im not telling Catholics not to believe in the dogmas. Im not criticizing Catholics or the church. Im not trying to convince anyone.
The only thing I’m trying to convey is that I don’t believe those 2 dogmas and to be honest I fail to see the relevance in

I might have missed it earlier but are you Catholic?

 

[Vico]

… donum immortalitatis …

It was a conditional, that is, the possibility of not dying rather than the impossibility of dying.

“The Fathers regarded bodily immortality as being transmitted through the tree of life.” - Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, p. 104.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

These dogmas were not taught by Jesus or God.
It’s authors weren’t inspired by Jesus or God.

Completely false. Seems you don’t quite understand the nature of infallibility-taught dogma.

 

[Rau]

Mate it would of been nice if u read my posts on this thread at least. U would of known my views instead of assuming them

U would have also known that I studied it, read the explanations on this site and I’m familiar with all of the arguments made for these 2 dogmas.

I’ve read all of your posts. Could you really have done any substantive study if you can write things like the following?

Where exactly did immaculate conception and perpetual virginity come from? Why was it only added in the 19th century?

These dogmas are released in the 1800s and I don’t know what it’s based on, where it comes from, why it’s relevant, why it was released or anything

The several articles on the main CA site address questions of “where it comes from” and “what it’s based on” in detail. They detail theological development over centuries, and would not leave you thinking the whole topic is a product of the 1800s. They detail a substantial basis, including scriptural references. But of course like all matters concerning the faith, you won’t find the equivalent of a mathematical proof.

What I find surprising is that you have taken the opportunity on this thread to say many other things that are generally red-herrings or were irrelevant to the discussion. For example, the constant suggestions that (we) Catholics harangue protestants:

The arguments used by Catholics are made to use against protestants…

save it for the protestants cos i’ve been through all that and know all your arguments.

Spewing out the arguments used against protestants is just frustrating. Try treating Catholics with these issues differently to the way u guys treat protestants.

The approach is to belittle protestants who are challenging you.

And then this:

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.

Pope Francis doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence either for the obvious reasons. So to the Vatican 2 saga.

How do u expect one to have faith in the church given the crimes committed by clergy?

How does one follow a pope like Francis who has been even more of a heretic than myself?

I point these statements out because they have no connection to the Marian Dogmas; Yet you must have a reason for injecting them.

 

[adf417]

The 2 dogmas I mention were released in the 18th century from memory.
They are not about Christ or God.
These dogmas were not taught by Jesus or God.
It’s authors weren’t inspired by Jesus or God.

I renew my questions -

…What does the length of time have to do with anything? If this a relevant argument then wouldn’t defending the Trinity be problematic to a non-Trinitarian when they use the same argument? Why is 400 years after Christ ok but 1800 too late? What is the deadline?

Peace!!!

 

[Pai_Nosso]

I asked if u understood how a person may have doubts. U gave no response reveling your lack of sincerity and your argumentative motive.
Goodbye and God Bless