Development of Doctrine

[WIP]

I'm not convinced that the Catholic church of today is true Christianity and that there are some heresies that have invaded over the centuries. I believe that was part of what Martin Luther was trying to point out but the church would have nothing to do with it. Rather than address it, the church excommunicated him.

I'd like to make a clarification here. I'm not saying that the Catholic church or its members are not Christian any more than I would say that any protestant denomination is not Christian.

 

[Mungo]

Let me ask a simple question Mungo.

Who do you trust more?
The writers of the CCC or the Early Fathers?

I'll say right now that I'm in tune with the Early Fathers.
Some doctrine had to be defined....
but the church also went out of its way.

I'm not too sure doctrine should develop.
Maybe John Calvin developed some doctrine??

For me it goes back to the ECFs.

Why would I trust the ECF's over the writers of Catechism?
The Catechism represents 2,000 years of Catholic theology, including the thoughts of the ECFs. But also the Ecumenical Counciles and later theologians.

It was promulgated by Pope John Paul II who wrote:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the result of very extensive collaboration: it was prepared over six years of intense work done in a spirit of complete openness and fervent zeal.

In 1986 I entrusted a commission of 12 Cardinals and Bishops, chaired by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, with the task of preparing a draft of the catechism requested by the Synod Fathers. An editorial committee of seven diocesan Bishops, experts in theology and catechesis, assisted the commission in its work.

The commission, charged with giving directives and with overseeing the course of the work attentively followed all the stages in editing the nine subsequent drafts. The editorial committee, for its part, assumed responsibility for writing the text, making the emendations requested by the commission and examining the observations of numerous theologians, exegetes and catechists, and above all, of the Bishops of the whole world, in order to improve the text. The committee was a place of fruitful and enriching exchanges of opinion to ensure the unity and homogeneity of the text.

The project was the object of extensive consultation among all Catholic Bishops, their Episcopal Conferences or Synods, and of theological and catechetical institutes. As a whole, it received a broadly favourable acceptance on the part of the Episcopate. It can be said that this catechism is the result of the collaboration of the whole Episcopate of the Catholic Church, who generously accepted my invitation to share responsibility for an enterprise which directly concerns the life of the Church.
Of course it is not an infallible documents (although it will contain infallible statements from Ecumenical Councils) but then the ECFs were not infallible either.

 

[WIP]

Why would I trust the ECF's over the writers of Catechism?
The Catechism represents 2,000 years of Catholic theology, including the thoughts of the ECFs. But also the Ecumenical Counciles and later theologians.

This is an example of why I question the validity of Catholic doctrine right along with Protestant doctrine.

Case in point. If there is anyone that believes the United States today is anything remotely close to the vision held by the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the drafters of the US Constitution they are sadly mistaken. And this is only after about 250 years of existence.

Another case in point. How much correction did Jesus need to make, after about 4,000 years of human influence, to what God ordained through Moses?

 

[GodsGrace]

Do you think all Catholic doctrine and everything the Catholic church teaches today is exactly as it was at the beginning? I do not believe that even what we consider to be orthodox today is the same.

What I believe makes a church Christian is to follow Christ. I don't even know if any of us can truly judge whether or not a church is Christian for we all have our own ideas about what it means to follow Christ.

No. I know it's not like at the beginning.
But I do see that the basic beliefs are like at the beginning.
In fact, it seems to me that it's becoming more like at the beginning as time goes by.
What makes a church be Christian is that short list I had put in my last post to you.
We need to believe in the Trinity.
We need to believe that Jesus is God or we're worshipping a man.
We need to believe that we need to be baptized.
Of course, I don't feel it should be necessary to say that we have to be disciples and learn what Jesus said would please God.

Other than this, it's all extra as far as I'm concerned.
We could debate the rest, but we cannot debate the above and still call ourselves Christian.

 

[jaybo]

No. I know it's not like at the beginning.
But I do see that the basic beliefs are like at the beginning.
In fact, it seems to me that it's becoming more like at the beginning as time goes by.
What makes a church be Christian is that short list I had put in my last post to you.
We need to believe in the Trinity.
We need to believe that Jesus is God or we're worshipping a man.
We need to believe that we need to be baptized.
Of course, I don't feel it should be necessary to say that we have to be disciples and learn what Jesus said would please God.

Other than this, it's all extra as far as I'm concerned.
We could debate the rest, but we cannot debate the above and still call ourselves Christian.

We need to believe in the Trinity.
We need to believe that Jesus is God or we're worshipping a man.
We do not need to believe that we need to be baptized.

 

[GodsGrace]

Why would I trust the ECF's over the writers of Catechism?
The Catechism represents 2,000 years of Catholic theology, including the thoughts of the ECFs. But also the Ecumenical Counciles and later theologians.

It was promulgated by Pope John Paul II who wrote:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the result of very extensive collaboration: it was prepared over six years of intense work done in a spirit of complete openness and fervent zeal.

In 1986 I entrusted a commission of 12 Cardinals and Bishops, chaired by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, with the task of preparing a draft of the catechism requested by the Synod Fathers. An editorial committee of seven diocesan Bishops, experts in theology and catechesis, assisted the commission in its work.

The commission, charged with giving directives and with overseeing the course of the work attentively followed all the stages in editing the nine subsequent drafts. The editorial committee, for its part, assumed responsibility for writing the text, making the emendations requested by the commission and examining the observations of numerous theologians, exegetes and catechists, and above all, of the Bishops of the whole world, in order to improve the text. The committee was a place of fruitful and enriching exchanges of opinion to ensure the unity and homogeneity of the text.

The project was the object of extensive consultation among all Catholic Bishops, their Episcopal Conferences or Synods, and of theological and catechetical institutes. As a whole, it received a broadly favourable acceptance on the part of the Episcopate. It can be said that this catechism is the result of the collaboration of the whole Episcopate of the Catholic Church, who generously accepted my invitation to share responsibility for an enterprise which directly concerns the life of the Church.
Of course it is not an infallible documents (although it will contain infallible statements from Ecumenical Councils) but then the ECFs were not infallible either.

You should trust the Early Fathers more because they learned from the source.
The Apostles learned from Jesus.
The Apostolic Fathers learned from the Apostles.
And the Early Church Fathers learned from them...
etc.

We've changed a lot since the beginning.

In the beginning divorce was not allowed for all reasons.
Those divorced were not even allowed to attend liturgies until 1920 or so. (I think 1919)
Then they were allowed to Mass, but couldn't receive communion - which is a rather interesting concept which I won't get into right now.
Now we have remarried persons receiving communion because Pope Francis said it's OK and very pastoral.

Other such changes.

The CCC itself is no longer 100% in effect.

See Mungo, the churches change, but God never changes.
So I'm believing what God said in the NT in the Word become flesh.
And as for the rest, I cannot comply 100%.

It doesn't seem like enlightenment to me...it seems more like new revelation and I don't think there should be any new revelation.

That's how the mormons and the JWs came into existence.

 

[GodsGrace]

We need to believe in the Trinity.
We need to believe that Jesus is God or we're worshipping a man.
We do not need to believe that we need to be baptized.

I can't say that I understand baptism perfectly exactly as to why...

But Jesus said to get baptized.
Don't you think we should do what He said? (and what the Apostles confirmed).

Acts 2:38 Peter
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 22:16 Paul
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

Acts 8:36-38 Phillip
And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

 

[jaybo]

I can't say that I understand baptism perfectly exactly as to why...

But Jesus said to get baptized.
Don't you think we should do what He said? (and what the Apostles confirmed).

Acts 2:38 Peter
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 22:16 Paul
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

Acts 8:36-38 Phillip
And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

If it's possible to be baptized, fine. I was baptized after I was saved. But I don't think it's a requirement; it certainly doesn't save you.

 

[GodsGrace]

If it's possible to be baptized, fine. I was baptized after I was saved. But I don't think it's a requirement; it certainly doesn't save you.

I can agree with this.

 

[Mungo]

You should trust the Early Fathers more because they learned from the source.
The Apostles learned from Jesus.
The Apostolic Fathers learned from the Apostles.
And the Early Church Fathers learned from them...
etc.

I understand that two of them at least, went astray - Origen & Tertullian.

We've changed a lot since the beginning.

In the beginning divorce was not allowed for all reasons.
Those divorced were not even allowed to attend liturgies until 1920 or so. (I think 1919)
Then they were allowed to Mass, but couldn't receive communion - which is a rather interesting concept which I won't get into right now.
Now we have remarried persons receiving communion because Pope Francis said it's OK and very pastoral.

I'd like to see the source for your claim against Pope Francis.

Moreover Paul did allow divorce - ee 1Cor 7:12-24)

Other such changes.

The CCC itself is no longer 100% in effect.

See Mungo, the churches change, but God never changes.
So I'm believing what God said in the NT in the Word become flesh.
And as for the rest, I cannot comply 100%.

It doesn't seem like enlightenment to me...it seems more like new revelation and I don't think there should be any new revelation.

That's how the mormons and the JWs came into existence.

I don't see that the Catholic Church has changed anything doctrinally.

 

[Mungo]

jaybo
wondering
Please. This is not another baptism thread!

 

[Mungo]

This is an example of why I question the validity of Catholic doctrine right along with Protestant doctrine.

Case in point. If there is anyone that believes the United States today is anything remotely close to the vision held by the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the drafters of the US Constitution they are sadly mistaken. And this is only after about 250 years of existence.

Another case in point. How much correction did Jesus need to make, after about 4,000 years of human influence, to what God ordained through Moses?

God didn't promise that the Jews would not fall into error.
God didn't promise that the SCOTUS would not fall into error.
But God did promise that His Church would not fall into error - Mt 16:18, John 16:13.

 

[jaybo]

God didn't promise that the Jews would not fall into error.
God didn't promise that the SCOTUS would not fall into error.
But God did promise that His Church would not fall into error - Mt 16:18, John 16:13.

I won't repeat what I've previously written about Peter, as you'll probably ban me again, regardless of what the Bible clearly says about him in several places.

The comment about the SCOTUS is irrelevant, especially from a Brit.

The church did fall into error and will undoubtedly fall into error again. All one has to do is read the epistles and especially the criticisms of the various churches in Revelation to know that your statement is completely wrong.

 

[Benadam]

I agree 100%.

But I also have to say that I think the reformation was necessary.
Perhaps Luther believed he could change the church from the inside out - I don't know enough of this history.
But I do believe the CC had wandered far from its beginnings.

This saddens me, I will say.

Jesus taught His disciples obedience to the seat of Moses even though evil men sit there.

Luther was right about the need. He didn't do what Jesus would do. That's a high bar but a man entrusted to Shepard souls is held to account for just that.

That's Luther's failure. Jesus would never nail an ultimatum on the door of the Temple.

 

[Benadam]

How would you characterize confession?
It changed over time.
There was no true confession at the beginning...

The Didache states to confess our sins in the congregation and to not come to prayer with an evil conscience.
90AD approx

Clement of Rome said that Jesus desires nothing more than that sins be confessed to Him (Jesus).
96AD

"I bent my knees and once again confessesd my sins to God, as I had done before".
Hermas 150AD

Sins were confessed publically.
Tertullian 198AD
Irenaeus 180AD

In smaller sins, sinners may come to public confession according to the rules of discipline.
Cyprian 250AD

Which method would be correct??

It doesn't require me to believe that what was done in the past was invalid or not worthy of belief.

Confession privately is a mercy that doesn't invalidate public confession. Private sins don't concern the entire community anymore. Another matter if they are visible to the entire community..

 

[WIP]

God didn't promise that the Jews would not fall into error.
God didn't promise that the SCOTUS would not fall into error.
But God did promise that His Church would not fall into error - Mt 16:18, John 16:13.

This begs the question. Is the Catholic church or any existing church really His Church?

 

[Mungo]

This begs the question. Is the Catholic church or any existing church really His Church?

To the first part of the question the answer is YES.
If you believe the second part of the question to be true then you seem to be suggesting that Jesus failed to keep his promises.

Jesus founded a Church (Mt 16:18); he founded it on the Apostles (Eph 2:20) and it is described as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15)

He gave that Church one set of doctrines (Jud 3); a unity of belief (Phil. 1:27, 2:2)

Jesus made promises to this Church, covenant promises, which he guarantees (Heb 7:22)

Jesus promised his Church would be indefectible. – the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mt 16:18)

He promised the Church would be preserved from error by the Holy Spirit by reminding the apostles of all that Jesus had taught them (Jn 14:26) and guide them into the truth in the future (Jn 16:13)

He appointed the Apostles with Peter as the leader (Mt 16:18-19) and gave them the mission to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. (Mt 28:16-20)

He promised he would not leave them on their own (Jn 14:18) but that he would be with them until the end of the age (Mt 28:20)

He prayed that it would be one Church (Jn 17:20-23)

He prayed that the Father would consecrate the Apostles in the truth (Jn 17:17), and the Father always hears Jesus (Jn 11:41-42). We are therefore guaranteed by Jesus that what his Church teaches is the truth.

 

[jaybo]

Jesus taught His disciples obedience to the seat of Moses even though evil men sit there.

Luther was right about the need. He didn't do what Jesus would do. That's a high bar but a man entrusted to Shepard souls is held to account for just that.

That's Luther's failure. Jesus would never nail an ultimatum on the door of the Temple.

Luther nailed multiple theses to the church door, thereby saving Christianity. He is akin to Moses, who liberated the Hebrews from the despotic Pharaoh. In other words, Luther saved Christianity (at least for some of us).

There were some wanted to return to Egypt and some who rebelled against Moses and died in the desert. Don't be one of them!

 

[WIP]

To the first part of the question the answer is YES.
If you believe the second part of the question to be true then you seem to be suggesting that Jesus failed to keep his promises.

Jesus founded a Church (Mt 16:18); he founded it on the Apostles (Eph 2:20) and it is described as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15)

He gave that Church one set of doctrines (Jud 3); a unity of belief (Phil. 1:27, 2:2)

Jesus made promises to this Church, covenant promises, which he guarantees (Heb 7:22)

Jesus promised his Church would be indefectible. – the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mt 16:18)

He promised the Church would be preserved from error by the Holy Spirit by reminding the apostles of all that Jesus had taught them (Jn 14:26) and guide them into the truth in the future (Jn 16:13)

He appointed the Apostles with Peter as the leader (Mt 16:18-19) and gave them the mission to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. (Mt 28:16-20)

He promised he would not leave them on their own (Jn 14:18) but that he would be with them until the end of the age (Mt 28:20)

He prayed that it would be one Church (Jn 17:20-23)

He prayed that the Father would consecrate the Apostles in the truth (Jn 17:17), and the Father always hears Jesus (Jn 11:41-42). We are therefore guaranteed by Jesus that what his Church teaches is the truth.

I think this is where you and I differ. I do not hold to the belief that the Catholic church as it is today is without error. I believe the Catholic church has strayed. That is not to say that I believe the church I associate with is any better.

 

[WIP]

I believe the Church can be found but so long as we pridefully idolize our denominations, we will remain blind.