do doctrinal differences really matter?

[kempo1]

Ever hear of “cafeteria Catholics” they reject church teaching because they don’t like it, I reject some of it because of Scriptural study. When Scripture tells Christians things like study to show yourself approved unto God, …rightly dividing God’s word (2 Timothy 2:15); and grow in grace and knowledge (2 Peter 3:18); to test the spirits (1 John 4:1); always be ready to give an answer for the hope we have (1 Peter 3:15); and finally praises those who listen to teaching and then consult Scripture to see if it is true (Acts 17:11). After all this I can say this is what I believe and why, instead of this is what I was told to believe.

Hi, yes i have heard of these Catholics but you seem to be lumping yourself in with. First i would say i would never question your love of God or scripture. Now i as a Catholic do trust my church in interpretation of scripture. They have 2000 years of Holy Spirit guided, Apostolic handed down interpretation which more than qualifies their interpretation over mine or yours. Remember, the Holy Catholic church compiled the bible and gave it to the world. So how do you or a cafeteria catholic presume to be able to tell the church your interpretation is right and theirs is wrong, THEY COMPILED THE SCRIPTURE FOR YOU. And they also have Apostlicsuccession, which means it was all handed down to them all the way to our current Pope and Priests. I also study scripture but always compare what i believe to what the historic church teaches. Everybody wants to forget history and make their very own interpretations forgeting we have early church history to go by. These great men of faith were guided by the holy spirit to interpret scripture for us. I believe the pure unblemmished teachings handed to us by Holy mother church as handed down from the Apostles. Why would i trust any other avenue? it has all been discerned for us through history guided by the Holy Spirit.:hug1:

 

[PRmerger]

Doctrinal differences do not matter to me. I have gone to mass with friends. Christ is present in Catholic worship services just as He is present in meetings for worship among Friends.

And yet, friend, here you are espousing a doctrine.

If doctrinal differences do not matter to you, will you worship at the Reverend Fred Phelps’ church and say amen! to his preachings?

I would participate in the eucharist, but the rules of your tradition say I cannot. How can I agree that the papacy is infallible when I do not believe any man speaks infallibly for God.

That, Publisher, is another doctrine you’ve espoused.

What I find necessary is faith in Christ as God’s revelation.

So you do believe that this particular doctrine matters?

Religious differences simply do not mean much to me…how those beliefs cause me to treat others is more important. Since I do not believe the IM or the papal infallibility claim or who has the right pedigree to speak the special words and make the proper gestures over bread and wine to confect them into the body and blood of Christ, it would be hypocritical of me to claim I did in order to appease someone elses need to affirm their religious beliefs by my claiming to accept them. It’s not about “you” it’s me living my life in Truth…how my life or anyone elses causes others to say “He knows Jesus…I can tell by the way he lives…by the way he speaks…by the way he loves.” is the One Thing I must get right in this world.

Doctrines, all.

Truth is not something we profess and “couch” in doctrinal phrases…Truth is how we live…how we love.

Yes. And if someone professes a doctrine contrary to your doctrine above, is he also correct?

 

[guanophore]

My personal thoughts are that belief belief in Jesus is what saves us.

Yes, but if doctrine were not essential to the belief that saves, He would not have spent 3 years teaching it every day to His apostles. Mormons also believe that belief in Jesus is what saves, but what they believe about who He is is quite a departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

 Doctrinal differences and different denominations are more about how people choose to worship God and it comes down to what works best for individuals.

I think there is some truth to this. Certainly the greatest part of the differences are the result fo individual differences and opinons. However I think it goes far beyond how people choose to worship God. Many of the differences really have nothing to do with worship, but are related to how people understand who God is, who we are, what our relationship with Him is, or ought to be, etc.

The other issue is the idea that we should presume to take upon ourselves the privilege to determine how God is to be worshipped, and that it should be done in such a way that “works best” for us. This is a very upside down way of relating to our Creator. On the contrary, it is for us to receive His instruction on how we are to worship, as well as what is “right doctrine”. Truth exists, and it is revealed to us by God.

 One doctrine may be more correct than others, but if we believe in Christ, his saving mercy is much stronger than any human error in doctrine that we may have believed.

I agree that His mercy surpasses all human error, but the two are not mutually exclusive. He has revealed the Truth to mankind, and has called upon us to live and walk within His truth. It is not our perogative as His Creatures to take it upon ourselves to determine what “fits” best for us. He made us, so He gets to decide that.

This is assuming that the doctrine is not way off base or completely contrary to the fundamental teachings of Christ such as those in the beatitudes or the golden rule.

An here is where the rubber meets the road, does it not? Who decides what is “off base”, and what is not? What standard is to be used to determine whaat is “completely contrary”? Which are the f"undamental teachings"? You say they are the beatitudes, and someone else believes the most important doctrine related to salvation is found in the book of Romans. Whose opinion carries more weight?

Would Jesus really leave such matters pertaining to eternal life to our opinions?

 

[guanophore]

Christians have worshiped differently since the beginning. Acts 15 shows the apostles meeting to discuss the role of the Mosaic Law in Gentile congregations

One has to wonder what you might mean here by “worship differently”. Do you think that the Mosaic Law applies only to worship services? Or do you think that the whole of life is an act of worship for a Jew? If so, can the Mosaic law be separated from the life of a worshipping Jew?

but Acts 21 shows that Jewish Christians were expected to continue observing the Law.

Really? what makes you think that?

Expected by whom?

I worship where I worship because I love the people there, I enjoy the way worship is done there, I share the worldview of the leadership and congregation, and most important, the Bible is taught in all aspects of worship (Sunday School, singing, sermon, communion, children’s programs).

This description seems to imply that “worship” as you are using the term, applies to certain activities done in a buidling designed for this purpose on certain day of the week.

However, I would never tell someone they are not saved, unless the say something blatantly unorthodox, like Jesus is not part of the Trinity.

And how would a person making such as statement enable you to judge the state of their soul in the sight of God?

I believe what I believe because of study, and I can explain and support my belief’s Scripturally. The CC teaches some things I don’t believe are Scriptural. Since I must agree with all church teaching to be Catholic, I can’t be a member. In a nutshell, I worship at my church because I am comfortable there.

It sounds like you have made your own conclusions, reached through your own study, the standard of Truth. Truth, in your view, is established by how every individual reads and understands the Scripture. Second to that, what is “right” for you to do in terms of your worship practices is based upon your personal comfort level.

 

[guanophore]

 Ever hear of "cafeteria Catholics" they reject church teaching because they don't like it,

I think it is usally for moral reasons - they want to do things that the moral law of the Church prohibits. Most of those are also originating below the waist. Cafeteria Catholics have abandoned their Catholicity, just as the Jews of Jesus day had abandoned their Jewishness. St. Paul wrote that a real Jew is one who believes inwardly. In the same way, a Catholic is one who accepts the faith. “Cafeteria” Catholics are really just Protestants who don’t realize that they are.

I reject some of it because of Scriptural study.

What you seem to be saying is that your own conclusions, which you have reached through your own study, form the basis of your decision. I think this demonstrates well exactly what causes the splintering in Christendom today. Each man does what is right in his own eyes, and does not recognize any leader.

When Scripture tells Christians things like study to show yourself approved unto God, …rightly dividing God’s word (2 Timothy 2:15); and grow in grace and knowledge (2 Peter 3:18); to test the spirits (1 John 4:1); always be ready to give an answer for the hope we have (1 Peter 3:15); and finally praises those who listen to teaching and then consult Scripture to see if it is true (Acts 17:11). After all this I can say this is what I believe and why, instead of this is what I was told to believe.

Clearly you are sincere in the religion you have created for yourself.

 

[PRmerger]

What you seem to be saying is that your own conclusions, which you have reached through your own study, form the basis of your decision. I think this demonstrates well exactly what causes the splintering in Christendom today. Each man does what is right in his own eyes, and does not recognize any leader.

Indeed. And is this not the essence of creating a god in one’s own image?

I daresay that if you’re in a religion that has not made you change your view, conform your morality, convert your position, then you are in a religion created after the Almighty Self.

For should we not, as creatures, be conforming our views to the Creator? Rather than creating a false image after our own desires?

Find the Church Jesus established, and then conform your views to Christ’s. Not find a church (or create your own) that happens to conform to your own personal views.

 

[Publisher]

And yet, friend, here you are espousing a doctrine.

If doctrinal differences do not matter to you, will you worship at the Reverend Fred Phelps’ church and say amen! to his preachings?

Yes, I would worship with friend Fred…he too bears the Light Within. No, I would not say “amen” to his preachings of hate. When I say doctrinal differences do not matter to me, no doctrine that one espuoses of God necessairly will separate them from the Light Within. Even though their beliefs and practices do not indicate that they live in the Light…the Light still is borne within them. It is not their responsibility to prove to me God loves them…it is my repsonsibility to prove I love God and will share His Light and Love with them, and testify that they too bear His Light, though as dim as it may shine at times.

That, Publisher, is another doctrine you’ve espoused.

So you do believe that this particular doctrine matters?

No, because many do not believe as I do…it still does not negate my beliefs concerning the matter.

Doctrines, all.

Yes. And if someone professes a doctrine contrary to your doctrine above, is he also correct?
**
Depends on which doctrine. any doctrine that does not uplift humanity as the Children of God…any doctrine that belittles and robs others of their dignity as Children of God. Any doctrine that does not allow love, peace, kindness, gentleness, forebearance is incorrect. But them espousing such beliefs does not free me from the responsibility of viewing them as Children of Light. Your belief that the wine and bread becomes the body and blood of Christ makes no sense to me at all…oh…I understand the mechanics and reasons…but the Reality of it I would say is wrong…yet that belief you carry does not releive me of the responsibility of how I respond to you as a Child of God…what others believe does not free me of what I believe and how I must live and how I must respond. Doctrine does not matter to me…I don’t care if one is “monophysite” or 'oneness" or “trinitarian”…what matters is my respone to them as I seek to speak and relate " to that of God" within them. Doctrine about the Eternal and Infinite…about the Unknowable and Ineffable is not Truth…how we live speaks toward Truth…not necessarily the words we use to express it.**

Doctrine is not Truth…Truth is lived.

 

[PRmerger]

Doctrine is not Truth…Truth is lived.

Amen! That is the Catholic position.

Also, could you please not nest your posts in mine? It makes it difficult to respond.

Thanks.

Edit: I just saw the “not” in your statement.

Doctrine IS truth, Publisher. There is no dichotomy between Doctrine is truth. Truth is lived.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, I would worship with friend Fred…he too bears the Light Within.

That’s a bit different–worshipping *with *Fred. I asked if you would worship at his church, (meaning: while he is preaching, leading the worship service in prayer.)

I, too, would worship “with” him, side by side.

But definitely NOT at his church, under his leadership.

That’s because doctrines matter.

No, I would not say “amen” to his preachings of hate. When I say doctrinal differences do not matter to me, no doctrine that one espuoses of God necessairly will separate them from the Light Within.

So that is the Catholic position. If you proclaim the truth in your doctrine, you are part of the Body of Christ.

If doctrinal differences did not matter, then 2 contrary positions could both be true at the same time.

And that is illogical.

“God hates homosexuals!” cannot be reconciled with “God does NOT hate homosexuals!”
Both cannot be true at the same time.

Even though their beliefs and practices do not indicate that they live in the Light…the Light still is borne within them.

That’s a different animal, then, than saying doctrinal differences don’t matter.

It appears to me as if they matter very, very much to you!

It is not their responsibility to prove to me God loves them…it is my repsonsibility to prove I love God and will share His Light and Love with them, and testify that they too bear His Light, though as dim as it may shine at times.

A very important doctrine that needs to be heard by the Rev. Fred Phelps and his ilk!

 

[guanophore]

Indeed. And is this not the essence of creating a god in one’s own image?

I daresay that if you’re in a religion that has not made you change your view, conform your morality, convert your position, then you are in a religion created after the Almighty Self.

I do think that people are sincerely looking for Truth when this happens. When I embarked on my 3 year study in Protestant Seminary, my goal was to identify the Church in which I belonged, based on what I “knew” to be true. I did not know any better.

For should we not, as creatures, be conforming our views to the Creator? Rather than creating a false image after our own desires?

Yes, but most have been duped into thinking that this is indeed what one is doing. The false teaching is that every individual is led by the HS, an that we have no need that anyone should teach us, because the annointing us upon us, therefore we are divinely qualified by virtue of having received Jesus into the heart.

The other piece is that persons who do this are, by and large, sincerely wanting to conform our views to the Creator, and don’t believe that we are just creating it after our own image. We don’t see ourselves doing it.

Find the Church Jesus established, and then conform your views to Christ’s. Not find a church (or create your own) that happens to conform to your own personal views.

There are two problems with this, one being the insufficient ecclesiology concepts that are rampant in Protestantism. This issue is being addressed in another thread on here, but suffice to say that most folks believe that all the Churches that agree with their own conclusions about what is true, as the member above has demonstrated, are part of the church founded by Christ.

The other problem is that the Reformation necessitated that a number of doctrines be changed, and the definition of words. What constitutes the “Church founded by Christ” was one of those concepts that required revamping. Since most modern day Evangelicals have no concept of their history, they don’t even know they have inherited a deficient understanding of “church”.

 

[guanophore]

When I say doctrinal differences do not matter to me, no doctrine that one espuoses of God necessairly will separate them from the Light Within. Even though their beliefs and practices do not indicate that they live in the Light…the Light still is borne within them. It is not their responsibility to prove to me God loves them…it is my repsonsibility to prove I love God and will share His Light and Love with them, and testify that they too bear His Light, though as dim as it may shine at times.

One has to wonder, what good is any “doctrine” if those who espouse have practices that indicate they do not live in the Light? Did not the Apostle teach that it is the doers of the word, not the hearers only that will be saved?

Depends on which doctrine. any doctrine that does not uplift humanity as the Children of God…any doctrine that belittles and robs others of their dignity as Children of God. Any doctrine that does not allow love, peace, kindness, gentleness, forebearance is incorrect.

Again by whose standard of measurement? Does this not leave you, and any who practice this policy the one who decides whether a doctrien uplifts humanity?

But them espousing such beliefs does not free me from the responsibility of viewing them as Children of Light. Your belief that the wine and bread becomes the body and blood of Christ makes no sense to me at all…oh…I understand the mechanics and reasons…but the Reality of it I would say is wrong…yet that belief you carry does not releive me of the responsibility of how I respond to you as a Child of God…what others believe does not free me of what I believe and how I must live and how I must respond.

It is commendable that you honor your obligation to love others as being created in the image and likeness of God.

Doctrine does not matter to me...I don't care if one is "monophysite" or 'oneness" or "trinitarian"....what matters is my respone to them as I seek to speak and relate " to that of God" within them.

I agree with this in principle, because I believe we are called to love others, including our enemies. We are called to love even those who blaspheme our God, and those who repudiate all doctrine. That being said, it is right doctrine that brings us to this point of view.

Doctrine about the Eternal and Infinite…about the Unknowable and Ineffable is not Truth…how we live speaks toward Truth…not necessarily the words we use to express it.

Doctrine is not Truth…Truth is lived.

Thank you Publisher, for posting such an excellent example of what I was saying about redefining terms to suit our modern needs.

You rightly note that the “Eternal Light” within is infinite, unknowable and ineffable. However, Doctrine flows from what God has revealed to mankind, and therefore, it has entered space and time, and is, indeed, finite. Yes, it has always been a challenge to express the revelation of God in Christ with words, but the reason the Church has always struggled to accomplish this is because it is necessary. For that reason, we have the Creeds and Dogmas of the church from the early centuries - to prevent heresy.

Doctrine (right teaching) is defined by Christ, and was delivered once for all to the saints by the Apostles. We are obligated to learn and follow it because He commanded that we do so.

Matt 28:19-20
19 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, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

One becomes a disciple when one commits and follows The Way. If this Way were unidentifiable (mysterious) then there would be no way to ascertain that one was on the right path. This is one reason individuals fall to their own private discernment, and believe in their hearts or for the burning in the belly that they are on the right path.

1 Tim 4:15-16
16 Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; continue in these things, for in doing this you will save both yourself and your hearers.

Paul warns the young Bishop Timothy to heed the “teaching” - this is the very same didaskalia that Jesus entrusted to the Apostles. Right teaching is salvific. Paul is not commanding Timothy to pay close attention to something that is ineffible, but to the Truth that has been revealed by Christ.

2 Tim 4:3-4
3 For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander away to myths.

If doctrine could not be identified and categorized into right and wrong, we would not be able to discern what is sound teaching, and what is wandering away from the Truth. God is not going to command us to do something He does not give us the ability to do. Therefore, sound doctrine is identifiable.

2 John 8-11
. 9 Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. 10 If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; 11 for he who greets him shares his wicked work.

If the doctrine of Christ was mysterious and “unknowable” as you say, then it would not be possible for the faithful to discern who was abiding in it, and who had left it for “wicked work”.

No, the doctrine has been revealed by God, it is discernable, identifiable, and consistent. It was given once for all to the Church, and cannot be changed or redefined to suit our desires.

 

[PuddleJumper]

i just wonder for the Protestants (or non-Catholic Christians): if doctrinal differences really don’t matter bec. it is not that that will save us but faith in Jesus, then why don’t they just join us at Mass? Come, participate in the Eucharist. Agree with the Papacy or Infallibility or Immaculate Conception. It doesn’t matter, right? so long as all of us have faith in Jesus, then we’re safe. doctrinal differences do not come in place.

or really, salvation is a matter of “who’s got it right”? that’s why we’re having these differences in the first place?

On the contrary, I am a Protestant and doctrinal differences DO matter greatly.

 

[PRmerger]

On the contrary, I am a Protestant and doctrinal differences DO matter greatly.

Wonderful.

And how should doctrinal differences be resolved, in your opinion? If 2 people read the same Scriptures and come to differing doctrines, what is the next step?

 

[JonNC]

Wonderful.

And how should doctrinal differences be resolved, in your opinion? If 2 people read the same Scriptures and come to differing doctrines, what is the next step?

A council - with all the patriarchs. That’s what the early Church did.

Jon

 

[stevekehl]

Hi, yes i have heard of these Catholics but you seem to be lumping yourself in with. First i would say i would never question your love of God or scripture. Now i as a Catholic do trust my church in interpretation of scripture. They have 2000 years of Holy Spirit guided, Apostolic handed down interpretation which more than qualifies their interpretation over mine or yours. Remember, the Holy Catholic church compiled the bible and gave it to the world. So how do you or a cafeteria catholic presume to be able to tell the church your interpretation is right and theirs is wrong, THEY COMPILED THE SCRIPTURE FOR YOU. And they also have Apostlicsuccession, which means it was all handed down to them all the way to our current Pope and Priests. I also study scripture but always compare what i believe to what the historic church teaches. Everybody wants to forget history and make their very own interpretations forgeting we have early church history to go by. These great men of faith were guided by the holy spirit to interpret scripture for us. I believe the pure unblemmished teachings handed to us by Holy mother church as handed down from the Apostles. Why would i trust any other avenue? it has all been discerned for us through history guided by the Holy Spirit.:hug1:

Saying I’m lumping myself in with cafeteria catholics is innaccurate. Caf. caths. claim to be good catholics but don’t believe or follow all church teachings, and if you ask them why they can’t answer. I can. There are lots of commandments I would love to ignore, like using the Lord’s name in vain. I worked in a juvenile prison for 13 years and was tempted daily to swear up one side of an inmate and down the other (not to mention striking him on both cheeks). I had to make a deliberate effort to control my language. Now, take the CC doctrine on Mary being translated directly into heaven at death. A good Catholic has to believe that (along with other things) to be in a state of grace. That makes no sense to me. How does what happened to Mary’s body when she died affect my salvation? Believe it or don’t believe it, it makes no difference to anyone’s relationship with God. Which brings me to my final point, even though the church has 2,000 years of history and claims infallible teaching, doctrine changes. Like the above mentioned teaching about Mary, which I believe was made in the 1950s. Or how the church taught for 400 years that Protestants were the devil’s spawn, then after Vatican II started calling us separated brothers, and John Paul II went even further by making ecumenical efforts at relation building with Protestant leaders. Christianity is a simple religion, faith in Christ, baptism, study and grow, live out the fruits of the Spirit, love your brothers and sisters. (2 Corinthians 1:12 and 11:3)

 

[jrtrent]

Christianity is a simple religion, faith in Christ, baptism, study and grow, live out the fruits of the Spirit, love your brothers and sisters. (2 Corinthians 1:12 and 11:3)

I like the way you put that, but it seems I’m lapsing into heresy. You had earlier written, “I would never tell someone they are not saved, unless they say something blatantly unorthodox, like Jesus is not part of the Trinity.” And that’s a line-in-the-sand doctrine that many Christian churches would hold, but I have to admit that having been a Mormon, studied with Jehovah’s Witnesses, and read a little on how widespread the Arian heresy was, espoused by many intelligent, seemingly honest and God-fearing men, I can’t help but wonder if even people who don’t embrace the Trinity formula might not still be saved.

 

[PRmerger]

Now, take the CC doctrine on Mary being translated directly into heaven at death. A good Catholic has to believe that (along with other things) to be in a state of grace. That makes no sense to me.

And yet, I presume, you believe that Elijah was translated directly into heaven at death? Yes?

See 2 Kings, please.

How does what happened to Mary’s body when she died affect my salvation?

An impoverished understanding of Mary is an impoverished understanding of Christ.
All doctrines/dogmas/teachings on Mary always point to Jesus and nourish, enhance and highlight Christ’s divinity.

Believe it or don’t believe it, it makes no difference to anyone’s relationship with God. Which brings me to my final point, even though the church has 2,000 years of history and claims infallible teaching, doctrine changes. Like the above mentioned teaching about Mary, which I believe was made in the 1950s.

You seem to be operating from the misapprehension that something only came to be believed when it was formally defined.

By your reasoning, then, we could say that the Church just made up the dogma of the Trinity 400 years after the Apostles left this earth. And that you ought to reject the Trinity.

Right?

Or how the church taught for 400 years that Protestants were the devil’s spawn,

Please offer some Magisterial document that declare this. Something from the 16th century is good, but also from the 20th century.

 

[guanophore]

There are lots of commandments I would love to ignore, like using the Lord’s name in vain. I worked in a juvenile prison for 13 years and was tempted daily to swear up one side of an inmate and down the other (not to mention striking him on both cheeks). I had to make a deliberate effort to control my language.

I can really relate to this because I find myself in the same situation currently.

**

Now, take the CC doctrine on Mary being translated directly into heaven at death. A good Catholic has to believe that (along with other things) to be in a state of grace. That makes no sense to me. How does what happened to Mary’s body when she died affect my salvation? Believe it or don’t believe it, it makes no difference to anyone’s relationship with God. **

I think you have summarized well here one of the basic foundations of Protestantism, as well as what drives the phenomena of cafeteria Catholocism. The faith is One, as is written in scripture and what was handed down once for all time to the saints by the Apostles. Any single thread of the one faith that begins to come unravelled will eventually unravel the whole. This is why we see such splintering among our separated brethren today.

Although we may not be able to see why this ancient truth has been taught in the Church, or how it relates to the gospel (and our relationship with Christ), it is not for us to determine what is essential to our faith, and what is not. Since this One Faith comes to us from the Son of God, it is up to Him to decide which parts of it are essential to our salvation, and which are not. He has ordained to come into the world through His mother, and to take her with Him to heaven when her days on earth were done. This is part of His plan for humanity, and we may not fully understand the ramifications for it until we pass through the veil of this life.

stevekehl:

Which brings me to my final point, even though the church has 2,000 years of history and claims infallible teaching, doctrine changes. Like the above mentioned teaching about Mary, which I believe was made in the 1950s.

This is also a good point on a major misunderstanding among Christendom. The Church is not permitted to change any doctrine. The deposit of the One Faith is considered closed at the death of the last Apostle, and doctrine cannot be added, or subtracted. What can change (and needs to) is how the One Faith is proclaimed throughout the world, and transmitted to the faithful throughout the world. If you study the history of your faith you will find that the teaching on Mary has been held continuously by the Church. The proclamaiton of the Dogma in the 1950’s, as have all other dogmas, was made to combat rampant heresies.

Think about it this way. At the council of Nicea in 325 AD, a creed was formed and dogmatic statements created about the identity of Christ, and how his human nature and divine nature were joined. This was done to combat heresy. It did NOT mean that the nature of Christ as true God and true man did not exist for the first three centuries of the Church.

Similarly, the canon of scripture was not closed until 382 AD, but the books that we have in our New Testament were considered Scripture when they were written, not beginning 3 centuries later.

We also do not find the word Trinity in Scripture, but it is a term created by the Church in the second century to describe what we know about the nature of the Godhead. It is not that the Trinity is not evident in Scripture, or not believed for the first couple hundred years.

Or how the church taught for 400 years that Protestants were the devil’s spawn, then after Vatican II started calling us separated brothers, and John Paul II went even further by making ecumenical efforts at relation building with Protestant leaders.

This is not a doctrine, but pastoral practice. The culture and society has changed, and therefore, the church must respond differently to the needs of the populace. it does not change the doctrine, or the fact that our separated brethren have embraced heresies, or that heresy is considered a tool of the devil.

Christianity is a simple religion, faith in Christ, baptism, study and grow, live out the fruits of the Spirit, love your brothers and sisters. (2 Corinthians 1:12 and 11:3)

I happen to agree with you, but you and I are not the ones who get to decide what comprises the faith. This is the perogative of God only,and it has been delivered to us as one unified whole.

 

[JRKH]

I know that the below was not addressed to me, but I hope you don’t mind my commenting on your very fine post.

Saying I’m lumping myself in with cafeteria catholics is innaccurate. Caf. caths. claim to be good catholics but don’t believe or follow all church teachings, and if you ask them why they can’t answer.

This drives us crazy too. Such people are simply being lazy and prideful…

I can. There are lots of commandments I would love to ignore, like using the Lord’s name in vain. I worked in a juvenile prison for 13 years and was tempted daily to swear up one side of an inmate and down the other (not to mention striking him on both cheeks). I had to make a deliberate effort to control my language.

Good point…

Now, take the CC doctrine on Mary being translated directly into heaven at death. A good Catholic has to believe that (along with other things) to be in a state of grace. That makes no sense to me. How does what happened to Mary’s body when she died affect my salvation? Believe it or don’t believe it, it makes no difference to anyone’s relationship with God.

This is the primary point I wished to address. First of all, let me say that, even as a Catholic, I see your point. I have often wondered myself why the Church felt the need to dogmatically declare the assumption. But I accept it based on my belief in the Church’s authority to teach and to “bind and loose - Whatever”.
Which brings me to my main point.
Very often…I would say in most cases…These discussions present these matters of teaching in a very “Binary” way…Believe or Disbelieve (each teaching) and yet there is a third option open to the Catholic. That is to “Accept” the teaching - not based on an understanding of the teaching itself, but based on the belief in the Church’s Christ granted authority to Bind and Loose.
The Catechism says that Dogmas oblige, “the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith” (CCC 88). In other words, we accept the teaching on faith just as you accept the Bible on faith even though, as you yourself admit, there are parts you would like to have ignored - and just as I am sure there are parts of the bible that you struggle to understand.

Which brings me to my final point, even though the church has 2,000 years of history and claims infallible teaching, doctrine changes. Like the above mentioned teaching about Mary, which I believe was made in the 1950s.

Doctrine can and does evolve yes. If you wish to call that evolution “change” so be it…
As to the matter of the, “* the above mentioned teaching about Mary, which I believe was made in the 1950s*”, that would be inaccurate. It was dogmatically declared n the 1950’s but the teaching goes back much further.
I refer you here to THIS PAGE where, if you look at the Assumption in the Early Church Fathers you will find hints and statements to the belief going way back in the Church. I only mention this so that you understand that the declaration did not come “out of the blue”…

Or how the church taught for 400 years that Protestants were the devil’s spawn, then after Vatican II started calling us separated brothers, and John Paul II went even further by making ecumenical efforts at relation building with Protestant leaders.

Yes it is too bad that so much damage was done by so many for so long - on both sides…

Christianity is a simple religion, faith in Christ, baptism, study and grow, live out the fruits of the Spirit, love your brothers and sisters. (2 Corinthians 1:12 and 11:3)

Agree completely. It only starts to get complicated when people really start to try to understand exactly what “faith in Christ” entails, and when their study and growth and desire to live out the fruits of the Spirit, raises questions.
I’ve long said that the reason the Catechism is so fat is because of the human penchant for asking “Yea but what if…” Jesus himself dealt with this when asked questions like “How many times must I forgive…”, or “who is my neighbor…”
That said…I’m with you in this regard. I like to keep my faith simple.

Peace
James

 

[stevekehl]

Wow, that’s more of a response than I expected, so I’m going to try to answer most of the objections instead of replying to everyone individually.
I’ve never believed something because someone in authority told me to believe it. I kind of have this rule believe half of what you see and none of what you hear. When it comes to spiritual matters I only trust the Scriptures. Now, I don’t believe something because someone pulls a verse out of the Bible and says “look here.” The verse and interpretation must agree with Scripture as a whole. For example, a “Christian” friend once told me that God would forgive him for going to a strip club because Scripture said forgive your brother 70 times 7, so how much more forgiveness would God extend to us. An obvious misinterpretation that a little study will correct. Now, take my previously mentioned struggle with my language. I can look in Ephesians where it says let no coarse talk come out of your mouth, and Matthew and Luke where Jesus says out of an abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, and Mark where He says what goes into a man’s mouth does not condemn him, but what comes out, and Deuteronomy says be holy even as I am holy. Therefor, I can conclude that God wants me to watch my mouth. So, while I believe it is entirely possible for Mary to be translated at death (Jesus disappeared and appeared in front of the apostles a couple of times, Phillip was translated in front of the Ethiopian eunuch, Elijah, Enoch) I can’t find evidence that my salvation depends on believing it.
It’s not the belief I have a problem with, its adding things that must be believed in order to be in good standing with God.
There were a couple of mentions that the Trinity was not doctrinally defined until the second or fifth century, however, 1 John 5:7 clearly teaches the Trinity . While the word trinity is not in scripture, the divinity, unity, and separateness of the Father, Son, and Spirit is evident with a little Scriptural study. And understanding and believing in the Trinity is crucial for salvation, sorry jr.