Christianity's First Dark Age

[JRKH]

We totally equate Christ with the Church, just not “the Church” with the Catholic Church. The apostles “churches” that were set up, do not look like the Catholic Church that Clement and Ignatius talk about with this head church in Rome or whatever. This is the dark age we’re trying to figure out on this thread. Where is the apostolic evidence to have a church lead by 1 individual, other than Christ? I want proof that Clement and Ignatius were supported by someone holy in the Bible. It doesn’t have to be an apostle, but someone an apostle mentioned as being trustworthy would be really helpful. It’s just that Clement and Ignatious come out of nowhere claiming themselves to be successors of the apostles, but noone in the Bible has said they would be. It makes it fishy or risky that THEY were the bad guys that started this wrong idea of “Church” that the Catholics took hold of.

 

[Arandur]

No, just that they are taught what’s in the Bible, by someone who knows it.
yes, or someone that can teach it like above

 

[mesl4]

mesl4;4854523:

How do you know that said person is trustworthy or has the correct interpretation?

As Paul, said, we should test everything with scripture. If that person cannot read for themselves, they need to test the person that is teaching them and compare it to what others are saying and I guess just have to pick the one they think would be most reliable.

We have thousands of disunified denominations today teaching different things because of the failure of this model–those people doing the teaching “from the Bible” can’t agree on anything

.
We have what we call “A, B, C” theology, and “DEFGH, etc.” So the A is most important, that all christians believe is necessary for salvation (belief in Christ as the Messiah), then I’d say B might be the trinity, most Christians would say necessary for salvation, C, maybe that Scripture is completely inspired, as you move farther from “A” the things are less important for salvation, and get more controverial, but the contoveries don’t really matter because our salvation are not dependant on them (Things like predestination, prophesies, what kind of music/style your church has, what kind of practices the believers have, etc.)

How can such a model be what God wants?

Because he gives us freedom within his boundaries. So it would seem his minimum goal is for us to love and worship Him, 2nd, to love and serve others, we get closer to him by knowing him more and can love better by knowing him better. So, that means, understanding doctrines/Christ is a step closer to him. We know the kingdom of heaven has many rooms. Revelation shows us that their is the throne, the taberbacle, the outer courts, etc. The more righteous/chosen are closer to the throne. THe Gentiles are in the outer courts. Those that worship GOd yet don’t understand the trinity, might be in the outer realm of the kingdom, yet still part of the kingdom, then the Beatitudes speak of those that “Inherit the Earth” so there seems to be many places for people of God to be depending on how they lived their life.

 

[mesl4]

Arandur;4855528:

mesl4;4854523:

As Paul, said, we should test everything with scripture. If that person cannot read for themselves, they need to test the person that is teaching them and compare it to what others are saying and I guess just have to pick the one they think would be most reliable.

.
We have what we call “A, B, C” theology, and “DEFGH, etc.” So the A is most important, that all christians believe is necessary for salvation (belief in Christ as the Messiah), then I’d say B might be the trinity, most Christians would say necessary for salvation, as you move farther from “A” the things are less important for salvation, and get more controverial, but the contoveries don’t really matter because our salvation are not dependant on them (Things like predestination, prophesies, what kind of music/style your church has, etc.)

Because he gives us freedom within his boundaries. So it would seem his minimum goal is for us to love and worship Him, 2nd, to love and serve others, we get closer to him by knowing him more and can love better by knowing him better. So, that means, understanding doctrines/Christ is a step closer to him. We know the kingdom of heaven has many rooms. Revelation shows us that their is the throne, the taberbacle, the outer courts, etc. The more righteous/chosen are closer to the throne. THe Gentiles are in the outer courts. Those that worship GOd yet don’t understand the trinity, might be in the outer realm of the kingdom, yet still part of the kingdom, then the Beatitudes speak of those that “Inherit the Earth” so there seems to be many places for people of God to be depending on how they lived their life.

 

[mesl4]

If you accept the premise that Ignatius, Clement and others usurped the “True Church” then doesn’t it follows that the Bible itself becomes suspect? If the “church” was usurped in say 150 AD then everything from there forward is the product of an Apostate Church. Thus you cannot accept the canon of the Bible as established in 390-400 AD and maintained since then.
You would have to go back to EVERY writing available, from the time INCLUDING every Heretical Book/writing available to try to determine who or what the true church looked like.

Exactly. It would then make the LDS claims more believable. I’d probably end up becoming either Jewish, non-religious all thogether, and just living the way I think God wants me to, or LDS

First I must say that you are making a pretty broad satement regarding the Apostles. There were 12 Apostles but only 4 Gospels in the Bible - and 2 of them were not written by Apostles. (Mark, a disciple of Peter and Luke, a disciple of Paul). Why is that I wonder? There are other “Gospels” under the names of other Apostles that are not included in the NT canon. “The Gospel of Thomas” and I believe there was a Gospel by Barnabas are two though I may be mistaken on the Barnabas one.

I don’t know what was broad. Just that Paul says many times, “this is the gospel: .Christ died, rose, for us.”…“all scripture is profitable for rebuke, teaching, etc.”…“hold to the things I have taught you”…etc. (I’m praraphrasing).

Furthermore we have

held to their teachings. We follow The Church which Christ founded and to which he gave authority.

---

BUt you add all sorts of doctrine and the apostles warned that people would come in “adding al sorts of strange doctrine.” Wouldn’t it be safer to stick to what he said?
Also, what is the “SS concept?”

 

[JRKH]

Exactly. It would then make the LDS claims more believable. I’d probably end up becoming either Jewish, non-religious all thogether, and just living the way I think God wants me to, or LDS

BUt you add all sorts of doctrine and the apostles warned that people would come in “adding al sorts of strange doctrine.” Wouldn’t it be safer to stick to what he said?
Also, what is the “SS concept?”

SS is short for Sola Scriptura.

As for “Adding Doctrine” and sticking with what He said.
In order to "Stick with what He said, you have to accept the Bible and the Gospels. That means you have to accept the Church at least up to around 450 or 500 AD, well beyond ignatius etc “usurping” the Church.
If we do accept the Bible - and consequently The Church, we see Christ declaring that “Hell will not prevail” and “I will not leave you orphans” and “I will send the comfortor to lead you INTO all Truth” and “I have much more to say to you but you cannot bear to hear it now”.
So Christ founds a Church, protects it and sends the Holy Spirit of God to guide it and LEAD it INTO all Truth. This presuposses does it not that certain things might be added? Ours is a living faith, founded upon the sure and Living Word that is Christ and His guidance.

Peace
James

 

[Arandur]

As Paul, said, we should test everything with scripture. If that person cannot read for themselves, they need to test the person that is teaching them and compare it to what others are saying and I guess just have to pick the one they think would be most reliable.

Boy is that circular! A person should listen to someone who reads/preaches scripture to get their scriptural knowledge, but then test that against the scripture that they are trying to learn, and then compare to what everyone else is saying and ultimately come up with their own interpretation.

You have not established even a single objective measure here. Nor have you found a way out of the horrible quagmire that is prideful personal interpretation and which has caused so much division and contradiction. You have also left no room for God, relying entirely on men, and ultimately entirely on yourself. That’s a prescription for lost and wandering sheep, not a description of how the Good Shepherd guides his flock. You really think that’s God’s plan?

Exactly. It would then make the LDS claims more believable. I’d probably end up becoming either Jewish, non-religious all thogether, and just living the way I think God wants me to, or LDS

Exactly? Really? You’re agreeing that in order to get anywhere, you need access now to all sorts of non-scriptural writing? You’ll need then also to widen this search out to effectively examine all theologies at least contemporary, and probably all ever written.

Do you really think God intended every one of His children to have to perform such an endless and exhaustive search of all thought in order to arrive at His truth? What was the point of sending Christ, then? Really, what you’ve described is much more similar to the practice of humanistic philosophy than of any Christian faith.

And what would lead you more to the LDS interpretation than any other anyway?

.
We have what we call “A, B, C” theology, and “DEFGH, etc.” So the A is most important, that all christians believe is necessary for salvation (belief in Christ as the Messiah), then I’d say B might be the trinity, most Christians would say necessary for salvation, C, maybe that Scripture is completely inspired, as you move farther from “A” the things are less important for salvation, and get more controverial, but the contoveries don’t really matter because our salvation are not dependant on them (Things like predestination, prophesies, what kind of music/style your church has, what kind of practices the believers have, etc.)

Where are these standard lists of this alphabetical hierarchy that all Christian denominations have agreed to? Your personal view doesn’t cut it. If many other denominations disagree with this, your theory is broken–they cannot all be “the true church” in the manner in which God intended it to exist if they disagree so.

Because he gives us freedom within his boundaries. So it would seem his minimum goal is for us to love and worship Him, 2nd, to love and serve others, we get closer to him by knowing him more and can love better by knowing him better. So, that means, understanding doctrines/Christ is a step closer to him. We know the kingdom of heaven has many rooms. Revelation shows us that their is the throne, the taberbacle, the outer courts, etc. The more righteous/chosen are closer to the throne. THe Gentiles are in the outer courts. Those that worship GOd yet don’t understand the trinity, might be in the outer realm of the kingdom, yet still part of the kingdom, then the Beatitudes speak of those that “Inherit the Earth” so there seems to be many places for people of God to be depending on how they lived their life.

I’m trying to see where you differ here from the Catholic position. There’s plenty of “freedom within His boundaries” in the Catholic Church. We have the benefit of having a guide, and more objective measures as aids in our learning of God.

I don’t know what was broad. Just that Paul says many times, “this is the gospel: .Christ died, rose, for us.”…“all scripture is profitable for rebuke, teaching, etc.”…“hold to the things I have taught you”…etc. (I’m praraphrasing).

Yes, Scripture is profitable for many purposes. So is the Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. So are the Traditions Paul tells us to hold to. You seriously err and miss what the Scriptures themselves say if you leave out the Church and Tradition, for you leave out the Body of Christ and the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth if you do.

Furthermore we have held to their teachings. We follow The Church which Christ founded and to which he gave authority.

BUt you add all sorts of doctrine and the apostles warned that people would come in “adding al sorts of strange doctrine.” Wouldn’t it be safer to stick to what he said?
Also, what is the “SS concept?”

Sounds like you were just doing that with your alphabetical list of doctrines. How is the Catholic Church different, except that we do it with much more unity, with many more objective measures, and have maintained historical continuity in belief, only increasing our understanding of those truths, since the beginning of the Church?

Where you err is in your baseless assumption that the Catholic Church has “added all sorts of doctrines” and that these are “strange doctrine.” Through historical proof alone we have a much stronger case that we are the ones “sticking to what he said,” since our beliefs are supported straight back to the times the Scriptures were written and the Apostles’ immediate successors/students were speaking. On what basis do you claim to trump such evidence?

 

[Arandur]

mesl4;4858483:

SS is short for Sola Scriptura.

Might I clarify that there are no true “additions” in the sense of “innovations” or teachings that had no prior form. Instead Catholic teachings were present like seeds cast by Jesus, having taken root in his Church and grown. For what a pathetic excuse for a Church and family we would be if God’s Church did not grow in understanding of Him, did not learn more of His Truth. For then God would have crafted a Church that was no better than the man who buried his talent rather than investing it, and Jesus no better than the fool who starts building a tower without counting the cost, thus leaving it incomplete.

No, though we frail sinners have sinned, the Spirit still leads the Church and nurtures it; the Body grows and learns; the seeds sown sprout and rise and bear fruit; the Word does not go out and become lost. Catholic understanding has grown as the seeds have taken root and grown; occasionally the Church has had to defend a Truth against the assault of a false teaching that sought to smother the Truth, and that is where you see doctrines more formally defined.

What are these supposed “strange doctrines” anyway, and why do you (mesl) consider them strange? I hope, if you answer this, that you’ll do some homework and at least see that every single Catholic belief can be and has been defended Scripturally and historically. Whether you agree with the Scriptural basis or not does not change the fact that there are rational evidences for their support in Scripture. So the claim that “such and such isn’t supported by Scripture” is not effective as a dismissal. It only highlights the fact that by your personal interpretation, you pick and choose what you consider as “strange doctrine.” Well, Catholics obviously see the post-1500 sects as proliferating “strange doctrines,” often times rehashes of failed heretical groups from times past.

 

[JRKH]

JRKH;4858594:

mesl4;4858483:

Might I clarify that there are no true “additions” in the sense of “innovations” or teachings that had no prior form. Instead Catholic teachings were present like seeds cast by Jesus, having taken root in his Church and grown. For what a pathetic excuse for a Church and family we would be if God’s Church did not grow in understanding of Him, did not learn more of His Truth. For then God would have crafted a Church that was no better than the man who buried his talent rather than investing it, and Jesus no better than the fool who starts building a tower without counting the cost, thus leaving it incomplete.

No, though we frail sinners have sinned, the Spirit still leads the Church and nurtures it; the Body grows and learns; the seeds sown sprout and rise and bear fruit; the Word does not go out and become lost. Catholic understanding has grown as the seeds have taken root and grown; occasionally the Church has had to defend a Truth against the assault of a false teaching that sought to smother the Truth, and that is where you see doctrines more formally defined.

What are

these supposed “strange doctrines” anyway, and why do you (mesl) consider them strange? I hope, if you answer this, that you’ll do some homework and at least see that every single Catholic belief can be and has been defended Scripturally and historically. Whether you agree with the Scriptural basis or not does not change the fact that there are rational evidences for their support in Scripture. So the claim that “such and such isn’t supported by Scripture” is not effective as a dismissal. It only highlights the fact that by your personal interpretation, you pick and choose what you consider as “strange doctrine.” Well, Catholics obviously see the post-1500 sects as proliferating “strange doctrines,” often times rehashes of failed heretical groups from times past.

Thanks for the Addemdum/clarification

Peace
James

 

[Bastoune]

According to Catholics, not Protestants

Not in terms of the heirarchy, but it does in terms of the lack of rules/hundreds of “disciplines” the followers must obey in order to stay in a state of grace. It was more simple then, like the Evangelical/protestant churches are today.

And since the Bible was canonized by the CATHOLIC Church (whose bishops also left plenty of writings – including the Didache – at the same time), it would make little sense that the Catholic Church would approve books that so “clearly” contradict what she teaches. Rolling my eyes here.

Especially when the very leaders you are criticizing (Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Justin Martyr) were MURDERED for their beliefs…

And what do you define as “disciplines”?

What’s more, “disciplines” have nothing to do with doctrine. Bear in mind the Church’s “binding and loosing” authority as they exercised in Acts.

Justin Martyr in A.D. 150 talks in great detail as well about the worship of the early Church. And what about YOUR church? Where were they? I am willing to bet that they don’t resemble anything of the primitive Church. If I’m wrong, prove it.

 

[Bastoune]

In regards to Clement, many early Christian writers pointed to Paul’s mention of him in Philippians 4:3 –

"Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life."

What about Clement’s legitimacy then? Well why not READ his letter to the Corinthians – he appeals to a generation who STILL REMEMBERS PETER AND PAUL – members of the congregation still alive who knew those two pillars of the Church!

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes.** Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. **Through envy and jealousy the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.

I think that clears up anything about the so-called “dark age” you wish to invent.

There is no gap. Clement knew Peter and Paul and refers to them as people of that generation to people who also knew Peter and Paul.

Sounds like a direct link to me.

I’d cite other sources but I’ll let you reply then.

And remember: the CATHOLIC CHURCH, if apostate, canonized and APOSTATE BIBLE… so how can you be sure the Bible is truly God’s word when the Catholic Church preserved and canonized its content?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I think that clears up anything about the so-called “dark age” you wish to invent.

I don’t want to get into the Catholic/Protestant debate over SS and Papal Succession but with respect to the titular issue of Christianity’s First Dark Age, I was referring to the period between Paul in Rome and Ignatious and Clement. And even for Ignatious and Clement there is no contemporary narrative comparable to Acts, just a few letters.

For whatever reason, the early Church did not find that period to be worth writing about at the time.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Here is an example of an intereting debate surrounding the first dark age:

preteristarchive.com/JewishWars/articles/1998_scott_flee-pella.html

 

[Bastoune]

Here is an example of an intereting debate surrounding the first dark age:

preteristarchive.com/JewishWars/articles/1998_scott_flee-pella.html

No offense, but as I’ve demonstrated, there was no gap, no “dark age.”

The true “dark age” could be claimed to be between A.D. 33 when Christ was crucified, and around AD 60 when the first of the NT books were written… what took them so long?!?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

No offense, but as I’ve demonstrated, there was no gap, no “dark age.”

I don’t think connecting a letter with a name in the NT dispels this dark age.

The true “dark age” could be claimed to be between A.D. 33 when Christ was crucified, and around AD 60 when the first of the NT books were written… what took them so long?!?

But we do have a narrative of that period, Acts. Where is the comparable narrative of the period between 60AD and, well, when do we see a contemprory narrative again (as opposed to a few random letters)?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Here is another website on the Dark Age that cites two books that seek to address it:

moseshand.com/studies/TrueHustory.htm

He quotes a Catholic instructor thus:
We base the church’s authority upon Peter being the first Pope, but we can not prove it. It is as if the curtain of history went down about 70 AD and when it went up many years later, ‘poof’ there was the Catholic Church. In this play, we don’t really know what happened during the intermission between act one and act two.

 

[Arandur]

Not in terms of the heirarchy, but it does in terms of the lack of rules/hundreds of “disciplines” the followers must obey in order to stay in a state of grace. It was more simple then, like the Evangelical/protestant churches are today.

Bastoune, I read your response to this quote of mesl’s and I reflected on these “rules/hundreds of ‘disciplines’ the followers must obey in order to stay in a state of grace” that he claims.

I still haven’t really heard from him what those rules/disciplines are that he’s complaining about, but I have thought of what I am aware of that I must abide by as a Catholic in order to stay in a state of grace. Perhaps providing a list will help the discussion and show just how simple the Catholic faith really is to follow, quite the opposite of what mesl is suggesting.

1. I must accept God’s Truth; those things defined as truth are most succinctly laid out in the Nicene Creed, detailed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Rejecting God’s Truth is rejecting God. Seems pretty simple and uncontroversial a concept.
2. I must make every reasonable effort to participate with my parish community in a once-weekly celebration of the mass, devoting time to worship God. There are a few Holy Days of Obligation a year that I must make similar efforts to attend, as they are great and important feast days of worship.
3. I must make an act of Reconciliation at least once a year.
4. I must take Communion at least once a year.
5. I must participate with my diocese in fast and abstinence on Ash Wednesday and on Fridays during Lent.
6. I must be baptized and confirmed.
7. If I get married, I must be married within the Church, be open to life, and raise children in the faith.
8. I must not commit grave sin (of which there are three conditions involved in commiting–grave matter, free intent, and full knowledge). The Catechism gives guidance on what is grave matter, but it is pretty mainstream among Christians.

That hardly seems onerous to me. It’s certainly not a list of hundreds of things. And it’s all that is required to remain in a state of grace. That’s very minimal, of course; Christians should do much more to act our their faith and love of God.

So what is it that you object to mesl?

 

[mesl4]

Woe! There’s a lot of info here to respond to, not sure I can respond to ever single question/remark but you do have many good points about Clement/Ignatius, the Bible, etc. Reading Clement’s 1st letter to the Corinthians about a year ago is what initially raised my curiosity/opened my eyes to the idea of church insitution/heirarchy, and the Catholics. It would seem awfully strange for him to say good things about the apostles if he were an anti-christ, or against them. The link Bubba provided though also is something I’ve thought about before…like what if those apostles really were “raptured” and that’s why the silent years. I haven’t read the whole article, but if they were raptured and Revelation already took place w/the fall of Jerusalem, where does that leave us? When I get time I will read the rest of that article, but I’m a mom, and have to take care of my kids’ and their activites. I already spend way to much time on this forum and studying this stuff! I look forward to the day I can rest assured in my faith and not have to read so much!

 

[mesl4]

Bastoune, I read your response to this quote of mesl’s and I reflected on these “rules/hundreds of ‘disciplines’ the followers must obey in order to stay in a state of grace” that he claims.

I still haven’t really heard from him what those rules/disciplines are that he’s complaining about, but I have thought of what I am aware of that I must abide by as a Catholic in order to stay in a state of grace. Perhaps providing a list will help the discussion and show just how simple the Catholic faith really is to follow, quite the opposite of what mesl is suggesting.

1. I must accept God’s Truth; those things defined as truth are most succinctly laid out in the Nicene Creed, detailed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Rejecting God’s Truth is rejecting God. Seems pretty simple and uncontroversial a concept.
2. I must not commit grave sin (of which there are three conditions involved in commiting–grave matter, free intent, and full knowledge). The Catechism gives guidance on what is grave matter, but it is pretty mainstream among Christians.

That hardly seems onerous to me. It’s certainly not a list of hundreds of things. And it’s all that is required to remain in a state of grace. That’s very minimal, of course; Christians should do much more to act our their faith and love of God.

So what is it that you object to mesl?

Before I run out for a while, I sill just respond to the above/…
These 2 are where it get’s elaborate because they may each contain hundreds of discipline. a grave sin/grave matter could be doing anything the church says not to do, or not doing something the church says to do. You mentioned God’s truthes as stated in the Catechism. There’s a lot of stuff in that book. I don’t feel comfortable thinking of Mary as the mediatrix of all graces for example. Jesus is. Much of what is said and done toward Mary I have only done toward Jesus and feel idolatrous to treat her that way. I know Catholics say they don’t worship her, but where would you draw the line then? What would you say to God that you wouldn’t say to Mary in terms of praises/adoration. How would you treat God differently than you’d treat her? The line is too thin and that’s why I’d rather keep her as a blessed child of God that she is, and leave it at that. Catholic doctrine says I have to believe in Mary to be saved, not just believe in Jesus. That’s just one example, I have to go now.

 

[Arandur]

Before I run out for a while, I sill just respond to the above/…
These 2 are where it get’s elaborate because they may each contain hundreds of discipline. a grave sin/grave matter could be doing anything the church says not to do, or not doing something the church says to do. You mentioned God’s truthes as stated in the Catechism. There’s a lot of stuff in that book. I don’t feel comfortable thinking of Mary as the mediatrix of all graces for example. Jesus is. Much of what is said and done toward Mary I have only done toward Jesus and feel idolatrous to treat her that way. I know Catholics say they don’t worship her, but where would you draw the line then? What would you say to God that you wouldn’t say to Mary in terms of praises/adoration. How would you treat God differently than you’d treat her? The line is too thin and that’s why I’d rather keep her as a blessed child of God that she is, and leave it at that. Catholic doctrine says I have to believe in Mary to be saved, not just believe in Jesus. That’s just one example, I have to go now.

Thanks for the response.

Those two points don’t each contain “hundreds of disciplines.” First, they don’t contain any disciplines at all. Second, mortal sin is not nearly so malleable or large a category as you suggest.

“Grave matter” involves serious inherent evils. The list is fairly limited and fairly known: the egregious violation of the 10 Commandments. The traditional collection of 7 deadly sins is another formulation, but all of those area really just contained in the 10 Commandments.

Not all violations of the 10 Commandments are “grave matter,” either. Minor theft or white lies are wrong, for instance, but not so seriously evil that they constitute you cutting yourself off from God.

Is that sufficient explanation for you to remove number 8 from your list–that the requirement to not commit mortal sin is nothing expansive or unusual among Christians?

That brings us back to number 1. Now, again, the list of dogmas is pretty short, and there is no requirement really that Catholics have any greater knowledge of doctrines than the Nicene Creed contains. We are not like Protestant churches that imply that God requires everyone to be eminently literate and scholarly and truly understand the Bible in great depth in order to really say that you know the truth.

No, Catholics need not have great knowledge of the Catechism to be in a state of grace. You need not even be comfortable with everything the Church teaches. Even belief differing from that of the Church is not heresy until you start knowingly advocating it. And if you willfully reject the Church’s teaching and go around preaching a message in rebellion against it, well, what church of any denomination would accept such a thing and retain your membership?

The point about belief is that God ensures that the Church does not teach falsehood in matters of faith and morals (under specific circumstances). We can thus be sure such teachings are God’s Truth. Rejecting God’s Truth is rejecting God. You need not know much about truth, you need not be happy about it, you can even have reservations about it, but you can’t reject it outright.

A good test for being in the state of grace is under what conditions can you receive communion? There aren’t many things that disqualify you from it. A state of mortal sin does. Actively spreading heresy in rebellion against God’s Truth also does. There’s not much else that I can think of that would cause you to take Communion sacrilegiously.

Does anything still seem onerous?

Take any other reasonably good non-Catholic Christian and put him in a Catholic Church and look at what he must do differently. Not much that I can see. He still needs to believe the essentials of the faith well enough to desire to join the faith (same as any denomination) and needs to not rebel against those dogmas (same as any denomination). And he’s not in a state of grace if he grievously violates God’s moral law; he can then only return to a state of grace with repentence and seeking Reconciliation.

Sorry for rambling quite a bit. I was kind of distracted while writing this and don’t have the time to proof it.