Where in the Canon Bible does RCC get their doctrines from?

[Yeshua1]

Just in the accepted 66 books, where can purgetory, papacy, Mass, Assumption of Mary, Indulgences et all be found?

 

[Gold Dragon]

I don't believe in Purgatory but here are passages they use (only one passage from the Deuterocanon).
25 Descriptive and Clear Bible Passages About Purgatory

I don't support the Papacy but here are the passages they use
The Papacy in Scripture - No Rocks Required | Catholic Answers

I don't attend Mass but here are the passages they use
The Mass Is Profoundly Biblical | Catholic Answers

I don't believe in the Assumption of Mary but here are the passages they use - This is easily the least supported by scripture of these 5.
Assumption of Mary: Scriptural Support : University of Dayton, Ohio

I don't support indulgences but here are the passages used to support them
Primer on Indulgences | Catholic Answers

 

[HankD]

Although they will attempt to satisfy sola scriptura Actually the RCC does not need to find anything in the scripture to define its dogma.

i.e. Since the scripture is silent concerning purgatory the Church can rely on Tradition or the official statements of the Magesterium - these have equal weight with scripture.

Also any ex cathedra papal statements are binding upon all "the faithful".

 

[atpollard]

In the Book of Hesitations. Near ...

"Cleanliness is next to godliness."
"God helps those that help themselves."

 

[Yeshua1]

Although they will attempt to satisfy sola scriptura Actually the RCC does not need to find anything in the scripture to define its dogma.

i.e. Since the scripture is silent concerning purgatory the Church can rely on Tradition or the official statements of the Magesterium - these have equal weight with scripture.

Also any ex cathedra papal statements are binding upon all "the faithful".

That is why they have to set up church trasdition and the papacy as valid authorities, as the scriptures themselves will not support most of their doctrine/dogma!

 

[Yeshua1]

In the Book of Hesitations. Near ...

"Cleanliness is next to godliness."
"God helps those that help themselves."

I am still trying to loctae the verse" there is only one church given by which we must be saved"

 

[HankD]

That is why they have to set up church tradition and the papacy as valid authorities, as the scriptures themselves will not support most of their doctrine/dogma!

The most offensive are the Marian dogma which elevate (in affect) Jesus mother to a semi-divine status.

The 5th Marian dogma has been believed for decades but has not been proclaimed ex cathedra.
It is before the pope to promulgate it:

The Fifth Marian Dogma;
Mary Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces, and Advocate

The Fifth Marian Dogma: Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces, and Advocate

 

[atpollard]

The most offensive are the Marian dogma which elevate (in affect) Jesus mother to a semi-divine status.

It is ironic that it was "The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin" that prevented me from ever becoming a Roman Catholic. I was converted from atheism to Christianity by a Catholic Charismatic Fellowship. I started reading the Bible and was up to the part where people were telling Jesus "your mother and brothers are outside" as the Church was preparing for the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin (Mary). I may not know a lot about theology but I know the definition of "virgin" and "brothers" and the problem posed by that verse and the RCC beliefs on Mary's lifelong virginity. So reading through "A Catechism for Inquirers" didn't resolve the questions and the "Church Tradition" answer from the priest convinced me that I could never in good conscience accept the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church so patently contradictory to the Apostolic writing. If the Bible can't be trusted to tell the truth, then we know NOTHING about Christ for sure. That was unacceptable to me.

 

[HankD]

In the Book of Hesitations. Near ...

"Cleanliness is next to godliness."
"God helps those that help themselves."

A stitch in time saves nine.

 

[Yeshua1]

The most offensive are the Marian dogma which elevate (in affect) Jesus mother to a semi-divine status.

The 5th Marian dogma has been believed for decades but has not been proclaimed ex cathedra.
It is before the pope to promulgate it:



The Fifth Marian Dogma: Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces, and Advocate

Yes, as that terminology makes her the 4th Person of the trinity!

 

[Yeshua1]

It is ironic that it was "The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin" that prevented me from ever becoming a Roman Catholic. I was converted from atheism to Christianity by a Catholic Charismatic Fellowship. I started reading the Bible and was up to the part where people were telling Jesus "your mother and brothers are outside" as the Church was preparing for the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin (Mary). I may not know a lot about theology but I know the definition of "virgin" and "brothers" and the problem posed by that verse and the RCC beliefs on Mary's lifelong virginity. So reading through "A Catechism for Inquirers" didn't resolve the questions and the "Church Tradition" answer from the priest convinced me that I could never in good conscience accept the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church so patently contradictory to the Apostolic writing. If the Bible can't be trusted to tell the truth, then we know NOTHING about Christ for sure. That was unacceptable to me.

It does seem that the RCC has elevated Mary to be the co reddemer with Jesus...

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Just in the accepted 66 books, where can purgetory, papacy, Mass, Assumption of Mary, Indulgences et all be found?

Well, you have to tell me where in the 66 books of the bible that it lists the 66 books as canon? If you cannot tell me because it does not then how did you canonize 66 books. That would have to come from a source outside of the 66 books right? Then if that is the case couldn't one then say you also rely on tradition in determining which books are considered canon? It seems to me you can only account for 34 of the 39 books, and if you only mentioned those explicitly mentioned in the New Testament rather than an implied reference you may have to drop that number to 29.

 

[HankD]

Well, you have to tell me where in the 66 books of the bible that it lists the 66 books as canon? If you cannot tell me because it does not then how did you canonize 66 books. That would have to come from a source outside of the 66 books right? Then if that is the case couldn't one then say you also rely on tradition in determining which books are considered canon? It seems to me you can only account for 34 of the 39 books, and if you only mentioned those explicitly mentioned in the New Testament rather than an implied reference you may have to drop that number to 29.

Although Baptist are very reluctant to admit to "tradition" They/We do rely on outside sources to affirm the 66 books of the Bible.

Who Compiled the 66 Books of the Bible and When?

However, the Church of Rome goes far beyond that point and has in the opinion of many created many heretical dogma a few of which Yeshua1 has mentioned.

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, you have to tell me where in the 66 books of the bible that it lists the 66 books as canon? If you cannot tell me because it does not then how did you canonize 66 books. That would have to come from a source outside of the 66 books right? Then if that is the case couldn't one then say you also rely on tradition in determining which books are considered canon? It seems to me you can only account for 34 of the 39 books, and if you only mentioned those explicitly mentioned in the New Testament rather than an implied reference you may have to drop that number to 29.

The early Church, right at end of the first century ALREADY had accepted as inspired all but 4 books, and those 4 were not delayed due to not being inspired, but questions as to authorship. The Council just ratified as canon the 66 Books already accepted at lareg for hundered of years!

 

[Yeshua1]

Although Baptist are very reluctant to admit to "tradition" They/We do rely on outside sources to affirm the 66 books of the Bible.

Who Compiled the 66 Books of the Bible and When?

However, the Church of Rome goes far beyond that point and has in the opinion of many created many heretical dogma a few of which Yeshua1 has mentioned.

The truth is that the early church had already accept pretty much as inspired all but a few NT books, and those few were dealing with questions on authorship, not its theology!Rome just formally raitifed the books alreadu commonly been seen and accepted as canon, did not create it!

 

[HankD]

The truth is that the early church had already accept pretty much as inspired all but a few NT books, and those few were dealing with questions on authorship, not its theology!Rome just formally raitifed the books alreadu commonly been seen and accepted as canon, did not create it!

Prove it with historical evidence.
If you cannot prove with historical evidence what you say then it is a belief of faith.

 

[Yeshua1]

Prove it with historical evidence.
If you cannot prove with historical evidence what you say then it is a belief of faith.

The ECF, by the end of the second century, had either directly or indirectly quoted/alluded to essentially all of the NT canon books.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The early Church, right at end of the first century ALREADY had accepted as inspired all but 4 books, and those 4 were not delayed due to not being inspired, but questions as to authorship. The Council just ratified as canon the 66 Books already accepted at lareg for hundered of years!

So, what you are saying is that you are relying on Church Tradition to tell you which books were canon and not from the canon itself? Ok, if that is the case then I can show you where Church Traditions has upheld more than just the 66 books which you claim is the only canon.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The ECF, by the end of the second century, had either directly or indirectly quoted/alluded to essentially all of the NT canon books.

I don't believe any of the NT books were in question with discussions of canon. The OT is another story.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't believe any of the NT books were in question with discussions of canon. The OT is another story.

the OT canon was firmly established by the time of Jesus, as they never did recognize any of the so called apocrapha deutrocanonical books as being valid