Calling Oneself Catholic While Rejecting Church Teaching

[Dr_Asik]

I am more annoyed at Dr_Asik. The Assumption, whether you are East or West, is Dogma. Whether she died or not differs...Maronites believe in the Dormition, as do Melkites and perhaps other Eastern Catholics, but you must believe that three days later, the Mother of God was assumed into heaven, her tomb empty. 

 

It's not pick and choose.

I know it's dogma and dogma means "this is core Church teaching and if you don't agree you're out". I find unfortunate that this category was used on an idea that in itself is speculative and neither rooted in Scripture nor early Church Tradition. It seems to diminish the value of that category.

 

[Credo in Deum]

Yeah, the idea is that doctrine developed later was implicitely contained in Scripture and Tradition. This is in essence what the passage you quote of MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS argues. I just don't see how. Let me quote this later paragraph of the same document (emphasis mine):


Well, "based on the Sacred Writings" is an... interesting statement to make, since the document doesn't mention anything relevant in Scripture. My copy of "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Ludwig Ott states: "No direct and formal scriptural testimony exists".

And "the most remote times" should be taken with a grain of salt since all the "early tradition" Fathers it mentions are from the 7th and 8th centuries - hardly apostolic times.

I also take issue with the fact that most of the reasoning going on here is based another late dogma - the Immaculate Conception - which itself has only highly metaphorical scriptural basis. So we're getting pretty far in interpretation land and I'm just troubled that the ultimate category "dogma" was used to enshrine an idea so remote from Scripture and without even clear basis in early Church Tradition.

Note that I'm not denying the validity of the logic used to prove the idea, it's just that it seems inappropriate to put such theological speculation, be it as sound and universally believed as you want, under the label of infallible, core teaching. Many common Catholic beliefs are not dogmas ( - de fide); for example, that in case of necessity, baptism by water may be replaced by baptism of desire and baptism of blood. There's very good reason to hold that to be true, but it's not dogma because there wouldn't be solid enough basis to affirm that as absolutely certain and core to Christian faith, and there's no need to anyway. And I don't see why the same doesn't apply to the Assumption of Mary.

You do know that all Scripture was at one point in time, oral Tradition don't you?

[Dr_Asik]

Unfortunately for you, it is dogma, therefore all Catholics must believe it. And the Church saw fit to proclaim it dogma specifically because we came to a very certain definitive realization, albeit at a somewhat later date, that this universal belief of the Church had been held and taught since time immemorial.

Well, there's the problem: a dogma is supposed to be based on evidence that the teaching in question has always been part of Tradition, not the other way around. Note that that Vatican document goes to great lengths to try to prove that, it just doesn't go remotely as far back as its "most remote times" claim would require.

 

So we're supposed to believe that on authority alone. Why shouldn't the Church pronounce everything as dogma and create mysterious unknown time immemorial tradition in the same way? Don't you see a problem with that?

 

Edited June 24, 2014 by Dr_Asik

[Dr_Asik]

You do know that all Scripture was at one point in time, oral Tradition don't you?

Well, not exactly (Paul's letters are hardly just transcriptions of oral tradition, for instance), but what's your point?

[John Ryan]

The Roman Curia is an administrative body, does not make doctrinal points, and is not infallible.  We were discussing the Magisterium.

 

Cardinals aren't considered to be a part of the Curia? And while we are on the subject, the Magisterium is more of an idea than a specific organization within the Church, though right? I just want to make sure I have my terminology. 

 

A person can't reject dogma and still be Catholic, and any person that continues to do so is a pathetic fool. It tells me that this person doesn't have the gall to admit to themselves and to others what they really are. Now I'm not sure JohnRyan has actually rejected dogma, he may be referring to some non trivial matters on the periphery. 

 

Against all the other Churches, I chose to come back to the One True Church. That has got to count for something.

 

People are lame and weak, its easier to just call yourself Catholic, most are lapsed non-believing lechers anyway. 

 

What about someone who regularly attends the Holy Mass, prays the Liturgy of the Hours, goes to confession, says the Rosary, prays to saints, and goes to sleep with the Green Scapular of the Immaculate Heart of Mary? 

[Credo in Deum]

Well, not exactly (Paul's letters are hardly just transcriptions of oral tradition, for instance), but what's your point?

Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?

[Dr_Asik]

Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?

Yes, in the Christian sense of inspiration, not dictation.

 

[Credo in Deum]

Yes, in the Christian sense of inspiration, not dictation.

Who wrote the Bible?

Who made the first decree on what would be the Canon? Were the Apostles alive then?

When was the infallible definition of the Canon proclaimed? Were the Apostles alive then?

Where in Scripture is the Canon listed? Edited June 24, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[fides' Jack]

Minus those on here and on C.A.F that are the authority on who qualifies as truly being Catholic.

 

Give me a break.  Nobody is saying, "You aren't truly Catholic."

 

Let's stop the melodrama.

[fides' Jack]

Minus those on here and on C.A.F that are the authority on who qualifies as truly being Catholic.

 

What is CAF?

[Credo in Deum]

What is CAF?

Catholic Answers Forum

[Dr_Asik]

Who wrote the Bible?

Who made the first decree on what would be the Canon? Were the Apostles alive then?

When was the infallible definition of the Canon proclaimed? Were the Apostles alive then?

Where in Scripture is the Canon listed?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The letters of Paul started circulating as soon as he wrote them, which is around 40-60AD, then the four gospels one after the other, so these scriptures were part of Christian Tradition since the time they were written, i.e. Apostolic Age. The Old Testament was read as inspired scripture at the very least by Christian communities of Jewish origin. By the middle of the 3rd century, the current Canon was almost universally accepted. It's only in the 16th century that the Canon was made definitive.

 

[Credo in Deum]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The letters of Paul started circulating as soon as he wrote them, which is around 40-60AD, then the four gospels one after the other, so these scriptures were part of Christian Tradition since the time they were written, i.e. Apostolic Age. The Old Testament was read as inspired scripture at the very least by Christian communities of Jewish origin. By the middle of the 3rd century, the current Canon was almost universally accepted. It's only in the 16th century that the Canon was made definitive.

So the Books of the Bible were written by members of the Church (Old Testament Church and New Testament Church), the first Canon was decreed by the Church long after the Apostles died, and the infallible definition was proclaimed by The Church long after the Apostles died. Plus there are no early writings from the times of the Apostles which list the Canon or possible Canon, and there is no mention of the Canon anywhere in Scripture. Hmmm.

"Wherever this tradition comes from, we must believe that the Church has not believed in vain, even though the express authority of the canonical scriptures is not brought forward for it." Augustine, Letter 164 to Evodius of Uzalis (A.D. 414).

[Dr_Asik]

So the Books of the Bible were written by members of the Church (Old Testament Church and New Testament Church), the first Canon was decreed by the Church long after the Apostles died, and the infallible definition was proclaimed by The Church long after the Apostles died. Plus there are no early writings from the times of the Apostles which list the Canon or possible Canon, and there is no mention of the Canon anywhere in Scripture. Hmmm.

"Wherever this tradition comes from, we must believe that the Church has not believed in vain, even though the express authority of the canonical scriptures is not brought forward for it." Augustine, Letter 164 to Evodius of Uzalis (A.D. 414).

The definition of the Canon is the recognition that these books have always been considered authoritative, reference documents since the time they were written which basically coincides with the Apostolic Age, and there is good evidence from very early writings that this was indeed the case. So the list itself need not have been written, the fact that the books were accepted as authentic Christian doctrine makes it implicit.

 

Of course if there's one thing you can't expect to get Scriptural basis for, it's the Canon; that doesn't exonerate other doctrines from this requirement. Note that again, Munificentissicimus Deus does claim that the Assumption of Mary is founded on Scripture; it just doesn't substantiate that claim.
 

[mortify ii]

 

What about someone who regularly attends the Holy Mass, prays the Liturgy of the Hours, goes to confession, says the Rosary, prays to saints, and goes to sleep with the Green Scapular of the Immaculate Heart of Mary? 

 

If they reject even one dogma they are outside of the fold. We have to take unity very seriously, even the Apostle of love, John the Evangelist, warned to not associate with those who corrupt the doctrine of Christ. 

 

Now I have to take an aside here and admit my own failings. I have been too harsh on this forum, although I try to be facetious about things. I understand certain things may be difficult to understand, and I apologize to anyone if I have treated them harshly over it. I think the concern is that there is a difference between struggling but trying to understanding and simply rejecting. For years I struggled to understand how the Pope can be infallible and we are still in this mess. How the Catholic Church could be the true Church and yet it is literally decaying before our very eyes. We all struggle to understand sometimes, yet the solution is not to reject. If we reject them to willing step outside the fold. You could literally mimic Catholic behavior and believe every single doctrine, yet if you reject one dogma knowingly and willingly, then you are outside of the fold. What's worse, if such a person promotes their rejection, and makes other doubt, then it is like of that one person our Lord spoke about when he said it were better he had never been born.