How would the Catholic Church Change

[thessalonian]

An interesting question was asked the other day on a Protestant forum. The questioner asked how would the Catholic Church change if the dueterocanonicals were removed? The truth of the matter is except perhaps for some developement of doctrine is, it wouldn't. This got me to thinking, the Catholic Church, except as noted above would not likely change if any of the books of the Bible were removed. That after all is the nature of the word of God isn't it. It doesn't matter if it is written or not, it will be the same. If Paul's letters were not written, especially Romans and Ephesians there is no question that Protestantism would change drastically. Irenaus said "If we had not the scriptures we would still have the Church".

The dueterocannonicals are not in scripture because they give credence to some Catholic doctrine but simply because they are the word of God as deemed so by legitimate authority.

By the way, there is a guy out on this site that rejects Paul's writings. He really makes my case nicely.

Anyway, just putting in to words what this question caused me to think. I suppose what I have said didn't have to be written and it wouldn't change anything. Just food for thought.

Blessings

Edited July 24, 2006 by thessalonian

[phatcatholic]

i think that's a great answer. interesting to think about. it shows the importance of the Church.

[thessalonian]

Now a guy has started a debate on the subject. He tried to defend it by showing that certain fathers did not accept the apocrypha but in the same post says the Apocrypha are used to justify purgatory and prayers for the dead. Funny thing, three of the Fathers he names (origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Jerome) make rather explicit statements with regard to purgatory. Edited July 24, 2006 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

Hey Jerome agrees with me on this issue. .

He says the dueteros are read "for the edification of the people, not to give authority to the doctrines of the Church."

Funny how there is nothing new under the sun. My thoughts are historical.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Exactly.

Your OP was right on target... Catholics and Protestants view the Bible very differently, we don't have to look for our doctrines in the Bible--because we know they're already there, even if only implicitly implied. They are confirmed not simply by a single (or even several) Scriptural passages, but they are confimed in the history and Tradition of the Church herself who existed before and without the Scriptures (entirely) for at least a few decades.

[N/A Gone]

David Currie talks alil about this in "Born Fundamentalist, born again Catholic" Not this exact subject, but a related fact that 90% if not more of the evangelical theology is based on using Paul first and going to the gospels or other sources from there. It is sad, an open theist and a strict calvinist can use the same part of romans (9 ) to mean completely different things that have nothing to do with what Paul actually intended in romans(**I tried to explain the whole unity and gentiles and jews and no one bought it..oyoy)

[peach_cube]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1030800' date='Jul 25 2006, 10:17 PM']
David Currie talks alil about this in "Born Fundamentalist, born again Catholic" Not this exact subject, but a related fact that 90% if not more of the evangelical theology is based on using Paul first and going to the gospels or other sources from there. It is sad, an open theist and a strict calvinist can use the same part of romans (9 ) to mean completely different things that have nothing to do with what Paul actually intended in romans(**I tried to explain the whole unity and gentiles and jews and no one bought it..oyoy)
[/quote]

That is an excellent book. It it what started my return to full communion with the church.