Question about Popes changing doctrines

[Farsight001]

True, there was no list of canonized scriptures, but it was already clear which ones where considered inspired by the Jews.

No it wasn’t. They bickered over which ones were considered inspired for years. Even in the bible, it talks about disagreement as to what constituted scripture among Jewish leaders. It was, I think, the Sadducees (or some other “S” group) who believed that only the Torah was authentic. It was only in 70 A.D., in response to the rise of Christianity, that Jewish leaders got together and defined Jewish scriptures. Ironically, they decided that the 7 shouldn’t count because they were too Christian. But since Christians were already using those seven, so it didn’t really work.

What scares me is that we all have to put faith in these Council meetings in that they canonized the correct books. I myself dispute some of the books canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, and even more by the Orthodox Catholic Church.

It scares you that a large group of very well educated men got together and took years to discuss, debate, flesh out ideas, and finally decide on a canon? I would think that, logically, it would be scarier to think one person woke up one day and, without any extensive study, or debate or discussion with anyone else, decided what books belong on the bible for themself.

 

[CuriousDave]

To paraphrase your words from above: “What scares me is that we all have to put faith in some guy on the Internet in that he claims to have the authority (indeed, simply assumes it without further argument!) to canonize the correct books.”.

Was that a reference to me? No need to go hating on me for simply stating my opinion on the Roman Catholic canon. Is this cause I’m not Catholic? I was, in fact, going to post a thread questioning one of the Deuterocanonical books, and why they are all considered canonical by one Church but not another.

If you can’t trust that Christ’s church, guided by the Holy Spirit, would canonize the right documents to comprise the New Testament, how can you trust that any individual writing is authentic and guided by the same Holy Spirit?

I first have to figure out which is ‘Christ’s Church’. We have three major different canons in Christianity, and the supporters of each claim to have the true canon. How will I know which one is the inspired canon? The main message of Christ is thankfully present in all of the canons.

 

[neophyte]

Was that a reference to me? No need to go hating on me for simply stating my opinion on the Roman Catholic canon.

Hating on you? What in the world are you talking about? All he did was paraphrase what you said in order to show the fallacy of your thinking.

I was, in fact, going to post a thread questioning one of the Deuterocanonical books, and why they are all considered canonical by one Church but not another.

It’s because people have done what’s described in Trebor135’s paraphrase of your words: put faith in some schmo who claims to know the correct canon better than the Church.

I first have to figure out which is ‘Christ’s Church’…

Earlier you said “What scares me is that we all have to put faith in these Council meetings in that they canonized the correct books.” Are you now indicating that you wouldn’t be afraid to put faith in the decrees of Christ’s Church, if only you knew which Church is the legitimate seat of the teaching authority established by Christ?

 

[highrigger1]

=
I first have to figure out which is ‘Christ’s Church’. We have three major different canons in Christianity, and the supporters of each claim to have the true canon. How will I know which one is the inspired canon? The main message of Christ is thankfully present in all of the canons.

Why dont you read them and decide on that basis? Actually none of them differ on the NT. Only on the OT… I think when you start reading them you will see that those in question dont have much beariing on anything anyway although some might be interesting history. Peace, JohnR

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

I first have to figure out which is ‘Christ’s Church’. We have three major different canons in Christianity, and the supporters of each claim to have the true canon. How will I know which one is the inspired canon? The main message of Christ is thankfully present in all of the canons.

Hmm. I submit that trying to discern which canon is inspired leads you to a circular argument. Jesus established a church. The Bible is a part of that church, not its whole. If you are trying to figure out which canon is true, using only the words from within the canon, I don’t know how you could come to a satisfactory conclusion. At best, you would be likely to choose whatever canon appeals to you in some way.

Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would preserve the Church, but he didn’t make a similar promise that anyone picking up Scripture a few centuries down the line would come to a full understanding of it.

Anyway, that’s my two cents. I’d recommend focusing on the validity of the churches claiming the canons.

 

[zz912]

One minor correction to what others have said to make sure there is no confusion. We need to be clear on the difference between dogma and discipline.

Dogma is the teaching of the faith (i.e. Jesus is God, God is a Trinity, etc)

Discipline is specific rules, policies, or commands in living out the faith. (abstaining and fasting on Good Friday, celibacy of priests in the Latin Rite, etc).

Disciplines can be changed, dogmas cannot.

 

[Abu]

CuriousDave #1
Do I understand this correctly: the Popes can change the official doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, and do so under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

As stated already, no. Doctrine can develop – be explained more precisely without contradiction.

The three levels of teaching are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
**2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) **requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and require intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith. [See the Explanatory Note on **Ad Tuendam Fidem by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]
[ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM]](http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM])

#19
I first have to figure out which is ‘Christ’s Church’.

Then, listen to Christ Himself.
The doctrine of Papal infallibility is found in Scripture (Mt 16:17-19; Jn 21: 15-17; Mt 28:19-20).

Jesus specifically entrusts Peter with His authority and confers infallibility:
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority to Peter:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Firmly and irrevocably given to us by the Sacred Scripture written by His followers in His Church.

 

[Abu]

highrigger1 #15
The first time the RCC declared canical any bible book was at Trent. Before that any declarations were either by individuall opinion or individual churches which did not count churchwide.
Trent did not close the canon. It is theoretically possible to add a book though not likely.

Misrepresentation, as usual. This poster regularly misrepresents Catholic teaching.

In fact, the New Testament was written by Catholics; the Gospels before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
The books that actually are declared the inspired Word of God was decided by Pope Damasus at a Council of Rome in 382, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo, 393, Carthage III 397, Carthage IV in 419 and canonised at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) – 46 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament.

Vatican II, Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution On Divine Revelation), 11: “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach the truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

The seven books missing from Protestant Bibles are because of Luther who was prejudiced against some teaching of Christ’s Catholic Church. One example is the failure to pray for those who have died by denying the fact of Purgatory.

 

[CuriousDave]

Hating on you? What in the world are you talking about? All he did was paraphrase what you said in order to show the fallacy of your thinking.

It’s cause I simply stated an opinion. Opinions are relative, and can change; they are not facts. There was therefore no need to show any fallacy of thinking because there was nothing being set in stone. I was not even making the claim that I knew which books were inspired. It was aimed at me, and that is why I found it offending.

Earlier you said “What scares me is that we all have to put faith in these Council meetings in that they canonized the correct books.” Are you now indicating that you wouldn’t be afraid to put faith in the decrees of Christ’s Church, if only you knew which Church is the legitimate seat of the teaching authority established by Christ?

Of course? That’s fully logical. Because as you pointed out earlier in response to that statement, Christ promised that his church would not teach false doctrine. So if I was confident that the RCC is Christ’s Church, then there’s nothing to fear.

@zz912, thanks for clearing that up. I must remember the difference between the two.