Offered to expand understanding—Catholicism does not rely entirely on the Bible

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Fri Mar 15, 2013, 02:03 PM - Edit history (1)

Most Protestant sects are much more about the Bible, which makes sense. If you are going to break away from 1500 years of developed tradition you have to have some touchstone other than that tradition.

Catholicism sees the Bible as a really excellent book... a special and holy book. But not a book that is necessarily true or false.

Catholicism does not hold that God has explained everything to man in a few thousand pages of text. If that were the case there would be no need for a Pope. The Pope could say tomorrow that Noah's Ark is a fable, related to a lot of similar fables around the world. The Pope could say that a lot of details in the Gospels about the Last Supper are wrong.

The Pope could say that the whole thing was written by fallible men trying to do the best they good in interpreting whatever guidance God did or did not give them. And that other later books are really good and wise in adding to the total of understanding.

Wouldn't change much.

It's not that Catholicism isn't dogmatic. It's as dogmatic as can be. But it is a living faith in sort of the way way we are said to have a living constitution.

If some nation uses nerve gas the Vatican doesn't set to trying to divine what the Bible says about nerve gas. It tries to figure what, given everything we know about God, what he thinks about nerve gas today. Similarly, when the Church is anti-gay it is not interpreting the text of Leviticus or even the text of Paul.

Put another way, when the Pope says, "God wants X" he is not saying, "This is my inspired and correct interpretation of the Bible." He is saying this is my inspired and correct interpretation of God's wishes.

(The Pope is not a dictator -- I focus on the Pope here as an example, but it is really tons of councils and bishops and such throughout history.The genral idea is that God would not have dropped a book on us and left the scene. God isn't past tense. The revelation is ongoing.)

That is not better or worse than a different approach to Christianity. It is just what it is.

[liberal_at_heart]

1. Protestants have been claiming this is what God wants for centuries

People use to use the Bible to say that God didn't want white people to marry black people. Over the centuries what God wants according to Protestantism has changed. When attitudes change so does what God wants. Just because you can't snap you fingers and change the world in two seconds does not mean it is not changing. It is changing. All you have to do is look at the lay people themselves to see that.

[cthulu2016]

2. Right. It works out the same in practice since interpretation is as flexible as the mind of a Pope.

Anyone can come up with whatever they want from interpretation of a text.

[liberal_at_heart]

3. I'm sorry I even responded. I'm going to spend about ten minutes and trash every single one of these

hateful threads.

[cthulu2016]

4. I was sincerely agreeing with you (!)

I was saying that Catholicism and Protestanism both evolve, and the OP is about different approaches to that evolution.

It's not better or worse—just different.

(My response to you in another thread was responding to a statement that people who think what I think are full of crap, so it was "in kind" but not really meant to be hostile to you.)

[HiPointDem]

5. and it's no different in practice than 'what the constitution wants' or 'what democracy wants'

of 'what socialism wants'.

it's all filtered through a ruling class eye as conditions evolve.

[pnwmom]

6. You're largely right. But you're putting too much emphasis on the Pope,

who is not considered infallible unless he speaks ex cathedra, which has only happened twice in history.

But the Catholic Church does believe there is truth in doctrine developed by the all the Bishops --including the Pope, the Bishop of Rome; and in individual conscience; and that those truths are revealed by the Holy Spirit over time.

[cthulu2016]

7. Your are right, of course.

My emphasis on the pope in the OP is merely meant to be explanatory, since he's the last word.

In America our Protestant roots are so deep that the idea of a Christianity that is not textual is novel, which is why I wrote the OP.