All these on your list are derived from Scripture, either directly, indirectly, or from deduction. The evidence is there, but only if you are disposed to receive it.
Hi Kepha
I'm sure that the CC basis it's teachings and dogma on scripture.
I just don't know how refined my search has to be to find some verses for what I quoted above.
C. S. Lewis, the famous Anglican writer, once wrote:
The very possibility of progress demands that there should be an unchanging element . . . the positive historical statements made by Christianity have the power . . . of receiving, without intrinsic change, the increasing complexity of meaning which increasing knowledge puts into them.
The Catholic Church, in agreement with Lewis, defines doctrinal development as a growth of depth and clarity in the understanding of the truths of divine revelation. It is important to understand that the substantial or essential truths at the core of each doctrine remain unchanged. Only the subjective grasp of men increases. This increase is the result of the prayerful reflection of the Church, theological study and research (often occasioned by heretical challenges), practical experience, and the collective wisdom of the Church’s bishops and popes, especially when joined in Ecumenical Councils...
I understand this very well.
It seems to happen in Protestantism too, thus all the schisms.
I agree that in Catholicism it's a much more serious matter.
I feel that the CC has kept hold of all the early and important theology.
Without the CC there would be no Christianity today, as we know it.
It kept heresies out of the church and defined what Christianity is.
The church became somewhat lost when it got involved in governing states. This was a big mistake since men seek power and are sinful and this is a dangerous mix which caused the church to lose its way.
I am concerned with Amoris Laetitia and I DO believe it's a change in doctrine - an important one. If this could be changed, anything could be changed.
The Marian dogma has been added and I really fail to see where it comes from. It's all theological. Mary had to be sinless because Jesus needed a sinless human mother, then she had to remain a PV because somehow the church has always taught that there is sin involved. Then due to her sinlessness she could not have a corruptible body... and so it goes. One idea leads to the next. I think it's a bit dangerous to stray from scripture. It was put together for a reason. To keep things simple and steady so that nothing could be added to it. John says in Revelation that nothing is to be added to the book. That could be meant for the entire bible. Joseph Smith added to it. And created with that wrong doctrine. JESUS has to be the final revelation.
We should be careful about development of doctrine. We know more today, but it still has to be understood as the ECF understood the question. IMHO.
BTW, C.S. Lewis believed in purgatory.
...The Church is called the “Body” of Christ often (e.g., Eph. 1:22-3), and is compared to a seed which grows into a tree (Mt. 13:31-2). Seeds and bodies grow and expand...
Doctrines
agreed upon by all develop, too.
- The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325,
- and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381.
- The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451.
These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies.
Why should Protestants accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject similar proclamations on the items on your list?
THE DIVINITY OF Jesus was understood immediately.
The hypostatic union took more to be confirmed but it was always accepted. Ditto for the Trinity, although I do agree that it took 3 councils to come to an agreement on that.
Nicea
Constantinople
Ephesus (the three you mentioned)
Protestants can accept these (I speak of Protestant theologians) because they are easily found in scripture. The ones I mentioned are not.
Protestants falsely argue that Purgatory is a later corruption, but it was present early on and merely developed. Original Sin, however, was equally if not more so, subject to development. One cannot have it both ways. If Purgatory is unacceptable on grounds of its having undergone development, then Original Sin must be rejected with it. Contrariwise, if Original Sin is accepted notwithstanding its own development, then so must Purgatory be accepted....
Where was purgatory spoken of early on? I can't remember to be honest. It seems to me that it came about in the year 800 or so. I'm not sure. Do you know of any ECF that spoke of purgatory?
I DO believe original sin was accepted early on. Could this be the reason why purgatory is not accepted but original sin is?
Another reason could just be that Protestants don't like the idea of speaking to dead people. Why, I do not know.
Maybe just to be different from the Catholics? Macabees was removed for this reason, IMO. Personally, I don't understand how dead persons could hear us.
Are they omnipresent??
...By and large, Protestantism merely asserts “sola Scriptura” without much consideration of the seriously-flawed implications of the same, and judges all doctrines accordingly. Therefore, those which are deemed to be either outright unbiblical or insufficiently grounded in Scripture to be authoritative, are jettisoned: the Marian doctrines, Purgatory, Penance, the papacy, etc. Apart from the question of Tradition as a legitimate carrier (alongside and in harmony with Scripture) of Christian belief, much more biblical support can be found in Scripture for these “Catholic” doctrines than Protestants suppose.
There are many problems with sola scriptura as can be evidenced on these threads. So many different persons with so many different beliefs,,,each one believing themself to be right and everyone else is wrong. No final word...
I can say, however, without a doubt, that not all Catholic higher ups agree on everything. It's just that we don't know about it, generally speaking. But the differences are contained and much has to do with the Bishop in charge. Is this better than just discussing differences of opinion?
One simply needs to become familiar with Catholic biblical apologetic arguments. The idea of doctrinal development is a key, in any case,
for understanding why the Catholic Church often appears on the surface as fundamentally different than the early Church. Thoughtful Protestants owe it to themselves and intellectual honesty to ponder this indispensable notion before lashing out at the allegedly “unbiblical excesses” of Catholicism.
Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?
The rituals in the CC are different from the early church.
Other than that, I see it doing what the Early Church did.
They got together, they read the words of a letter they could get their hands on, or talked about the story of Jesus, they prayed, maybe sang, the broke bread together and shared communion.
They respect communion more and give importance to the priesthood which is very much looked down upon but do not protestants have elders??
Personally, I have a problem with grace being distributed through sacraments. God is always dispensing grace. A sacrament is only a sign but we know from the CCC that grace is being given to the recipient of the sacrament, making it much more than a sign.
There would be much to discuss. My number one complain with the CC is that there is not enough teaching and catholics are not "book smart".
Not that one needs to be to know God. I had never read a bible when I met Jesus, but it sure does help in today's world.
Nice speaking to you.
