Why would the Catholic Church put together a Book that disproves thier own doctrine?

[Radical]

Asked this question today to a fundamentalist up in the apologetics playground. He is trying to disprove a Catholic teaching by using the “neutral source” of the Bible.
I thought I would ask both Catholics and non-Catholics this simple quesion.
It begins with the premise of course that the Catholic Church put together the Bible we have.
Why would the Catholic Church put together a Book that disproves thier own doctrine?

I’ve often thought there is a paralel between how the Bible is interpreted and how our Constitution is interpreted….

there are indeed parallels between the two, but I can’t help noting that you are a protestant with respect to the Constitution. Someone inclined to defend the current bench of the Supreme Court (the top of the judicial branch of the US government) in the same manner that you would defend the Papacy (the top of the magisterial branch of the CC) might well ask:
Why would the US government put together a Constitution that invalidates the decisions of its judicial branch?

It begins with the premise, of course, that the US government put together the Constitution we have.

We have clergy in the Catholic Church who do not stay within Catholic teaching and tradition.

we have judges on the bench that dissent

Just as liberal Justices of the Supreme Court do not stay within the boundries of the Constitution.

excuse me but the recent decisions of the bench of the SC are proper and inspired “developments” of the freedoms and rights set out in the original deposit that is the Constitution….they represent a fuller understanding of what was originally put forward….can anyone seriously deny that the application of those rights and freedoms to women and people of color represent a deeper and fuller understanding of the doctrine of equality that is at the foundation of the Constitution?

Human nature does not want to be limited by authority, it wants to be its own authority

this would apply to those who do not want to be bound by recent decisions of the Court…they want to be their own judges and prefer their personal interpretations of the Constitution

Ginsberg would do well to stay wtihin the bounds of the Constitution, and within what has been historically been decided. But that would interfere with her progressive ideas…

returning to the other parallel track, some would say that the magisterium would do well to stay within the bounds of the NT and not add doctrines….and they would note that doing so (staying w/i the bounds of the NT) would interfere with efforts to elevate Mary (for example).

One of the things God had to show me, and one of the reasons I reverted, was to get my eyes off of the earthly Church, and focus on the Church of All Ages. The Catholic Church put together the Bible as we know it (the undivided Church as you call it, a good term BTW). Why would they (the Church of All Ages) include books that contridict the teaching?

well you are asking these questions, here are some others to consider:

1. Would the writers of the Constitution approve of how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution over the last 200 years?
2. Would the writers of the New Testament approve of how the Magisterium has interpreted the NT over the last 1900 years?
3. Are the decisions made by the Supreme Court 200 years after the drafting of the Constitution properly classified as mere developments of the rules contained within the Constitution or are they better classified as innovations that change the law in a way that would be unacceptable to the original drafters?
4. Are the doctrines made by the hierarchy 200-1900 years after the writing of the books of the NT properly classified as mere developments of the teachings contained within the NT or are they better classified as innovations that change the faith in a way that would be unacceptable to the original writers?

The answer is of course, they didn’t.

the answer is more complex than you would like to believe

Why do fundamentalists rely on the Bible thier enemies put together?

why would those who object to recent decisions of the judicial branch of the US government rely on the Constitution that the US government put together?

Why would the CC be so stupid as to randomly choose books that contridicted what they teach?

why would the US government be so stupid as to randomly choose Constitutional clauses that invalidate what it now puts forward?

 

[ForeverGrace]

I’m a reformed believer. I see no reason to engage in a conversation that, at its heart, simply makes no sense.

The differences between so-called protestant Bibles and so-called Catholic Bibles are close to nil.

It’s not the scriptures that we differ over, it’s the interpretation of them. Where most differences appear such as purgatory, scripture. Catholics do have the apocrypha which affirms some of their doctrines, but essentially, there is no real differences.

We differ on the Interpretation. We will probably continue to do so until Jesus comes. Let’s treat each other right.

 

[maltmom]

We differ on the Interpretation. We will probably continue to do so until Jesus comes. Let’s treat each other right.

Amen!!!

Yep, I’m an ex-Baptist and I break out in Amen every once in awhile.

 

[zz912]

I’m a reformed believer. I see no reason to engage in a conversation that, at its heart, simply makes no sense.

The differences between so-called protestant Bibles and so-called Catholic Bibles are close to nil.

It’s not the scriptures that we differ over, it’s the interpretation of them. Where most differences appear such as purgatory, scripture. Catholics do have the apocrypha which affirms some of their doctrines, but essentially, there is no real differences.

We differ on the Interpretation. We will probably continue to do so until Jesus comes. Let’s treat each other right.

Well let’s do what the Bible tells us, and take our disagreement to the Church.

 

[zz912]

The belief in the imminent (before the death of Paul) second coming.

Some had that opinion, but it wasn’t a teaching of the Church.

 

[zz912]

zz,

No point getting into that. Any protestant can make that argument and its off the subject.

Rob

Nope, it is directly on point. You said the Reformation was to correct the ways in which the Church had diverged from the teachings of the first Christians. I would like to know in what ways and in which doctrines there was change. Specifically show which ones.

 

[JonNC]

Well let’s do what the Bible tells us, and take our disagreement to the Church.

Bingo! Pope Benedict calls for a council, inviting leadership from all communions that seek unity, and begin from square one - the early seven councils!

Jon

 

[gigi4747]

Further, the Bible was compiled by the **undivided **Church. So, which part of the now divided Church has the right interpreation?

Jon

This is a great discussion with lots of interesting points being made! And maltmom, I like that you break out in Amens!

vis-a-vis the “undivided” church and which one is now the one true Church…it seems like one of the pre-eminent issues that divides us is the Real Presence. Was the doctrine of the Real Presence taught while the Church was still undivided? And if so, doesn’t that make it improbable that any church that rejects the idea of the Real Presence is the church that Christ founded? (That said, it also seems to me that John 6 would exclude such a church [ie, one that denies the Real Presence] from being the one that Christ founded, regardless of what the early church did.) I’d be interested especially to hear non-Catholic views on this.

 

[JonNC]

This is a great discussion with lots of interesting points being made! And maltmom, I like that you break out in Amens!

vis-a-vis the “undivided” church and which one is now the one true Church…it seems like one of the pre-eminent issues that divides us is the Real Presence. Was the doctrine of the Real Presence taught while the Church was still undivided? And if so, doesn’t that make it improbable that any church that rejects the idea of the Real Presence is the church that Christ founded? (That said, it also seems to me that John 6 would exclude such a church [ie, one that denies the Real Presence] from being the one that Christ founded, regardless of what the early church did.) I’d be interested especially to hear non-Catholic views on this.

Absolutely! In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Melanchthon references not only scripture, but also the Church both east and west and the ECF’s in his defense of the real presence.

we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

The issue between Catholics and Lutherans since the Reformation is not the real presence, but the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which was not taught in the early Church, and not taught in the East, at least not the philosophical/metaphysical constructs of it.

Jon

 

[JaKael02]

The belief in the imminent (before the death of Paul) second coming.

Good point. It was a general perception and understanding of Jesus words “coming soon” but not a fundamental doctrine or dogma.

 

[submariner2]

Nope, it is directly on point. You said the Reformation was to correct the ways in which the Church had diverged from the teachings of the first Christians. I would like to know in what ways and in which doctrines there was change. Specifically show which ones.

zz,

You have heard it all from other protestants. No Pope, No Magesterium, No priests, No seven sacraments, No sacrifice of Christ ini the eucharist. No praying to Saints and on and on. Protestants see none of this in scripture or the ECFs although some began in the 3rd century.
They see the purpose of the Reformation was to return the church to the NT and the ECFs.

I dont intend to make an argument on this, Just pointing out the differences that Protestants see as happening centuries after the bible was written and in use among christians.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Oh wow poor St. Iranaeus , that is one of the most quoted quotes of his book taken completely out of context!.

Let me help St. Iraenaeus

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
Irenænus, Against Heresies 3.2.2

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
Irenænus, Against Heresies 3.3.2

Pat,

You asked for an example and I gave it. Irenaeus obviously depended on Scripture for his theology. However good he was as a theologian does not make him a good historian. He was refering to stories he had heard on the history issue. He had no way to know if they were true or not. Most historians today say he was wrong from a history standpoint even though he contributed much to christian theology. Even Catholic historians say that the Roman Church was not founded by Peter and Paul.

Of course there are many other examples of ECFs expressing the sola scriptura belief.

Rob

 

[JonNC]

zz,

You have heard it all from other protestants. No Pope, No Magesterium, No priests, No seven sacraments, No sacrifice of Christ ini the eucharist. No praying to Saints and on and on. Protestants see none of this in scripture or the ECFs although some began in the 3rd century.
They see the purpose of the Reformation was to return the church to the NT and the ECFs.

I dont intend to make an argument on this, Just pointing out the differences that Protestants see as happening centuries after the bible was written and in use among christians.

Rob

Qualifications;

No pope - well, not in the sense of universal jurisidiction.
No Magisterium - depends on what is meant by their role.
No priests - depends on what is meant by their role
No praying to saints - the issue the Lutheran reformers had, primarily, was the requirement to ask intercession of the saints
No seven sacraments - the Lutheran reformers’ main issue was in the finite numbering, and the lack of distinction between those established by Christ in the NT (Baptism, Eucharist, Confession/Absolution, and OT sacraments (annointing of the sick, marriage)

Jon

 

[submariner2]

He does not say the source of doctrines…besides…gospel means the good news…and who is the Gospel? It is Christ…so the Gospel is Christ…who is indeed the ground and pillar of the faith…not the Bible…and which John says…the Word is Christ.

Besides…there is no bible yet…so so he could not be teaching sola scriptura.

And while you are as it…could you provide the teaching/writing of jerome where he agrees with or teaches sola scriptura? Where does Jerome say that the bible is to be the source of extraction of doctrines?

pabolope,

Of course there was the bible. It had not been collated into the 27 book collection we now call the NT. In fact the Canon was not approved by the Catholic church until Trent.

Irenaues depended on scriptures as his guide to his theology. He quotes most of the books of the NT except James and 2 Peter. He was definitely sola scriptura. His quote proves that. We should not include his history discussion along with his theology discussions. His history was what he had heard and was in error (He had no way to know)but his theology came from scripture. That is the point of the sola scriptura point of view.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Tantum ergo;9386380]Then which of the many, many, many, many Protestant Churches is the ‘one’ true Church?

tantum,

Why cant we all be the “true church”?

And exactly WHEN did the Catholics–and Orthodox–go off track? And when the first reformers came, why didn’t they address ALL the ‘wrong’ practices? And why did some condemn some practices while others upheld them as truth?

Protestants would argue a church goes off track when it deviates from scripture or when it adds doctrines or practices not approved in scripture.

IF the Reformation had a purpose to correct the errors of Christianity and make it 'One" again, why is it that the fruits of Protestantism lead to more and more disagreement?

That is the way people are when they can make up their own mind about things. It was central to the Reformation that the individual decides what he believes and no one has the right to insist he believe something he does not.

And why is it that instead of the Catholic (and Orthodox) Churches being the ones to ‘splinter into nothingness’ and the One Holy Protestant Church triumphantly ‘reclaiming truth’, the Catholics are still there? When the “True Church” had been threatened before by Arians and Nestorians and all that, within a generation or two, all those people were GONE WITH THE WIND

.

Again, why cant we all be the “true church”?

So if the Catholic (or Orthodox) Church had truly gone into heresy, wouldn’t their adherents have petered out like the other heretics? Wouldn’t the Church have ‘gone under’, only to have in successive generations people who ‘claimed’ to be offshoots of the ‘old Catholic–or Orthodox- church’ (the way we have some Christians claiming they were the ‘underground Church’ that the Catholics tried to stamp out.

.

I dont believe it is right to accuse other christians of heresy. Why cant we get along? .

And why is it that the non-doctrinal errors (for the Church does not err in dogma or doctrine, but can change discipline and also can have individual members act against Christ’s teaching) such as certain clerics wrongly trying to sell indulgences, a grave evil which the Church nerve taught, were corrected BY THE CHURCH ITSELF, and not carried on, whereas when other heretical groups had come, and been corrected, and gone, when people emerged in another generation, they would start up the 'old evils?"

If the One Holy Protestant Church had taken on the mantle of Christ’s church, wouldn’t we have seen the disappearance of the Catholic (and Orthodox) churches, followed in a couple of hundred years by people who breathlessly, in claiming a kinship with the ‘old group’, came out and started right away selling indulgences?? How come we never saw that?

I dont agree with your premises. Why cant we get along?

Rob

 

[maltmom]

This is a great discussion with lots of interesting points being made! And maltmom, I like that you break out in Amens!

vis-a-vis the “undivided” church and which one is now the one true Church…it seems like one of the pre-eminent issues that divides us is the Real Presence. Was the doctrine of the Real Presence taught while the Church was still undivided? And if so, doesn’t that make it improbable that any church that rejects the idea of the Real Presence is the church that Christ founded? (That said, it also seems to me that John 6 would exclude such a church [ie, one that denies the Real Presence] from being the one that Christ founded, regardless of what the early church did.) I’d be interested especially to hear non-Catholic views on this.

Thanks!

I remember as a Protestant child believing in the Real Presence. I asked once why we said it was just symbolic when Jesus said it is His Body and Blood. You can imagine that didn’t go over well with my pastor. I guess I was Catholic then, I just didn’t know it.

 

[submariner2]

Qualifications;

No pope - well, not in the sense of universal jurisidiction.
No Magisterium - depends on what is meant by their role.
No priests - depends on what is meant by their role
No praying to saints - the issue the Lutheran reformers had, primarily, was the requirement to ask intercession of the saints
No seven sacraments - the Lutheran reformers’ main issue was in the finite numbering, and the lack of distinction between those established by Christ in the NT (Baptism, Eucharist, Confession/Absolution, and OT sacraments (annointing of the sick, marriage)

Jon

Jon,

Obviously the Reformers did not see support for those in scripture. (Neither do I) They also defined a sacrament as a distinctly Christian Rite insituted by Christ. Obviously a OT tradition would not fit that definition.

I am just trying to answer your question and not start an argument that has been going on on for centuries.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

dzheremi;9386645]I am confused as to what this could possibly mean. I do not mean this to be polemical (meaning, I am not challenging the right of the Roman Church to define its canon as it wishes, when it wishes), but it seems to me that St. Athanasius proposed the canon (obviously accepted by his own Church), which was accepted within a matter of about two decades by his Roman counterpart, and the Latin churches of North Africa, and eventually by the Eastern/Byzantine churches…yet for some reason, this canon is not considered to be accepted by the entire Catholic Church, but the one put forth ~1300 years later and accepted only by and within one church is? I realize that we have very different ideas of Catholicity, but the definition that would exclude the more widely accepted and ancient canon in favor of a later, more restricted canon seems…well, odd, to say the least.

dz,

You are presuming a formal acceptance by Athanasius’ church. No evidence. Some individual churches accepted the 27 book NT canon but no evidence of the rest at least formally. Hence the need according to the Catholic church for the Trent canon. In addition the Jerome formula for the Vulgate (Deuterocanicals as apochrypha) was still acceted by many, which made some of the Catholic arguments with the Reformers difficult. Hence the need for the Trent canon as they saw it.

“He had no way to make it official church wide”…I would think that the history of the canon would make this point largely irrelevant. What “way” did he need, when the canon was in fact accepted by the churches mentioned earlier, spanning East to West? It seems like saying that it can’t be considered “official” because it wasn’t accepted according to some predetermined way (when, by the way, it was…the Eastern Churches, being conciliar, accepted it in council at Trullo…as did in fact the Western churches of North Africa at their own local councils) is missing the larger point - namely, that it was accepted (so proper procedure must’ve been satisfied by that acceptance, no? Or else Rome and the Berbers would have said no), including by those churches (Rome) that would later redefine the Canon in keeping with their subsequent histories.

Official means official. As I explained above it is difficult to argue precise doctrine without an official canon.

As far as I know as a Coptic Orthodox Christian, we follow his canon – and we are his own church.

Thats fine. We are too. I pray for your church often regarding troubles they are facing in the present day. We christians should be accepting of each other and not rejecting.

Rob

 

[gigi4747]

Thanks!

I remember as a Protestant child believing in the Real Presence. I asked once why we said it was just symbolic when Jesus said it is His Body and Blood. You can imagine that didn’t go over well with my pastor. I guess I was Catholic then, I just didn’t know it.

This is getting me teary-eyed! Welcome home.

 

[Contarini]

Asked this question today to a fundamentalist up in the apologetics playground. He is trying to disprove a Catholic teaching by using the “neutral source” of the Bible.
I thought I would ask both Catholics and non-Catholics this simple quesion.
It begins with the premise of course that the Catholic Church put together the Bible we have.
Why would the Catholic Church put together a Book that disproves thier own doctrine?

Fundamentalists will question the premise.

Best to focus on the preservation. Point to the immense number of Biblical manuscripts preserved in monasteries.

You might also point to the vast proportion of medieval theology dedicated to Biblical commentary (Aquinas is best known today for his philosophical work, but his primary task as a teacher was actually to comment on Scripture–philosophy was seen as a kind of preliminary to that task, just as modern Protestants might view the study of Biblical languages).

Edwin