I spent part of today reading the Pope’s statement creating a feast day for Mary.
based on that example, the “Sacred Deposit of faith” seems to consist of all the writings of all the ‘saints’, which are then cherry-picked to support what you want to do.
I do not doubt the Catholic Church doesn’t derive doctrine from scripture...instead, it decides which doctrine it wants, and then twists scripture interpretation to support it.
For example, I just recently learned that in 325 AD, it was determined when Easter would be celebrated, and made a matter of the faith. And the decision wasn’t at Passover (when the resurrection occurred), but on the ridiculous formula used today.
That may be the Sacred Deposit of the Faith (hard to say, since no one has ever published what is or is not in that deposit), but it is foolishness - doctrine made up by men for political purposes. Rome then foisted it upon the world.
By 325 AD, the “Church” was paying attention to all wrong things for the wrong reasons. That is why scripture is so important.
While it is possible for texts to be distorted, the oldest texts we have are in 95-98% agreement with modern texts - depending on who you ask to keep count.
That is a far more trustworthy source than a Pope in 1950 citing art examples, and various statements from men who obviously didn’t care a whit about what the Apostles said.
Unfortunately, that's pretty much how it comes across. But that's no different than the Bible. It's very authority is presupposed and then cherry-picked to support whatever form of Christianity you wish to follow. Traditional heresies all used the Bible as their source.
I do not doubt the Catholic Church doesn’t derive doctrine from scripture...instead, it decides which doctrine it wants, and then twists scripture interpretation to support it.
But so do the Protestants.
For example, I just recently learned that in 325 AD, it was determined when Easter would be celebrated, and made a matter of the faith. And the decision wasn’t at Passover (when the resurrection occurred), but on the ridiculous formula used today.
It was decided that the day will be the day of Resurrection, Sunday. According to the Greek understanding of the Greek scriptures back then, Christ resurrected Sunday morning (even if it was Saturday evening, the next day begins at sunset, not at sunrise).
This was also done to differentiate the Judaizers who followed the Jewish calendar and also to have uniformity of worship. It was not made a "matter of faith" but a matter of Church canon and liturgy, since many if not most orthodox Christians celebrated Sunday as the day of resurrection, the Lord's Day, the Christian "Sabbath.". And, the decision was considered sacred because the Council of AD 325 was an ecumenical council whose decisions are believed to be are guided by the Holy Spirit.
Heave you ever heard that reason or excuse (depends how you look at it) before? I have—every time I ask a Protestant how does he or she know that what is in the Bible is true! It seems a little disingenuous for someone who uses the same "authority" in his private interpretation of the Bible, or even to justify the authority of the Bible by it, while mocking the Church for using the same.
But I would agree that any such arrogated authority by anyone can appear as ridiculous.
That may be the Sacred Deposit of the Faith (hard to say, since no one has ever published what is or is not in that deposit), but it is foolishness - doctrine made up by men for political purposes. Rome then foisted it upon the world.
Then why not the scriptures? Are they not something men collected as their choice and then claimed it was God's own word, but other books weren't? The Protestant foist their own doctrines derived from a book they consider and call holy or sacred, and claim the same dubious authority for their righteousness.
While it is possible for texts to be distorted, the oldest texts we have are in 95-98% agreement with modern texts - depending on who you ask to keep count.
Nothing could be farther form the truth. I suggest you diversify your research and consult other scholars, such as Robert M. Grant, for example. besides, your statement is only partial truth because the oldest texts also contained other texts. Another consideration is the use of oral rather than written tradition up until and including Irenaeus (end of 2d, beginning 3rd century), or the observation by scholars that even apostolic fathers such as Ignatius make a better case for Montanism than orthodoxy.
The formation of calendar is the task of the Church Universal, most naturally belonging to the Pope. Would you rather not have holidays?
the oldest texts we have are in 95-98% agreement with modern texts - depending on who you ask to keep count.
I absolutely agree: the arguments from doubts in the scripture are silly and generally are symptoms of a loss of faith. They are also anti-Catholic as their purpose generally is to undermine faith through sowing doubt in the trustworthiness of the Church who produced the Holy Scripture.
all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.Leo XIII on the inerrancy of scripture (from Providentissimus Deus) [ecum.]
That is a far more trustworthy source than a Pope in 1950 citing art examples
A quote or a link would be helpful here. However, Christian practice, including sacred art, are indeed a valid reference point in order to establish the ancient origins of a doctrine, especially when it lies outside of the scope of the Scripture, like the Assumption does.
***I do not doubt the Catholic Church doesn’t derive doctrine from scripture...instead, it decides which doctrine it wants, and then twists scripture interpretation to support it.***
It really doesn’t matter about your doubts. The Church derives its doctrine from Scripture and the Tradition which includes many other writings from the Church Doctors, for instance. Many of the doctrines trace back to the first or second centuries, then fleshed out over the next decades or centuries. Easter, for instance, is based on a formula similar to Passover; do you call that ridiculous too?
***By 325 AD, the “Church” was paying attention to all wrong things for the wrong reasons. That is why scripture is so important.***
But you don’t have all Scripture, and the Scripture that you use is not the original.
***While it is possible for texts to be distorted, the oldest texts we have are in 95-98% agreement with modern texts - depending on who you ask to keep count.***
Just remember that when you tell us what happened on Resurrection Sunday with all the Gospels side by side.