Doctrine is not necessary?

[Sirach2]

In post 16, I mentioned the comments by Cardinal Dolan in the interview with Colleen Campbell, but the program had not been uploaded to youtube yet. If anyone is interested in his comment, this link will take you directly to the important part.
youtube.com/watch?v=8TTIpDX8h3U&feature=c4-overview&list=UUijDos-LUTh9RQvSCMQqN6Q&t=16m55s

While we’re at it, I was very delighted to hear these two comments about Pope Francis, spoken by both Abp. Kurtz and Card. Dolan.
youtube.com/watch?v=8TTIpDX8h3U&feature=c4-overview&list=UUijDos-LUTh9RQvSCMQqN6Q&t=12m15s

youtube.com/watch?v=8TTIpDX8h3U&feature=c4-overview&list=UUijDos-LUTh9RQvSCMQqN6Q&t=15m17s

 

[Isaiah45_9]

As the title reads, that is the question here folks.

After a long debate on this matter and an accusation that I had derailed a thread, I thought what better way to settle this matter than by creating a new thread (a simple solution).

So far this is where the matter stands. A proposition has been set forth that

“Doctrine is not important. Love is what is important”.

My position in reply has been to point out that Doctrine describes the truth. There can be no love without knowledge of the truth. Therefore, doctrine is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for love or anything else. I also propose that those who advocate love over doctrine have a grave misunderstanding that either

1. Doctrine is not really a description of the truth, or
2. Truth is not important for love

Now I hope we can continue this discussion without any accusations of “derailing the thread” and settle it once and for all.

I just posted this in the Non-Catholic area:

Post #67

 

[Jaberwocky]

The most valuable lesson I have learned in my 50 years on earth is to not be too sure of myself. It took a lot of struggle - addiction, the death of a child, abandonment by a spouse - but through the struggle I learned that I really don’t know as much as I thought I knew and that most of what I thought was fact was really just my own opinion.

I have also learned how easy it is to fall. All the doctrine in the world can’t save you from temptation. One moment you are sure that you will someday be canonized a saint and that St. Michael the Archangel himself goes before you. The next moment you are kneeling in the confessional in tears, begging Jesus Christ to take the temptation away, wondering how you could have possibly fallen so far and sure that God has abandoned you.

So I have learned not to trust myself. I have learned not to be too sure of myself. I am a cracked and broken vessel, held together poorly with tape and glue, and I have to frequent the sacraments again and again to fill myself up with divine grace. Those sacraments are not acts of doctrine but a Father’s act of love toward his children.

When you go to the hospital to visit a man with no friends and family, who was told the day before that he is being taken off the list for a liver transplant and that he should consider hospice - the last thing he wants to hear about is doctrine. When you tell him you have to go but he won’t let go of your hand, and through his tears he says how grateful he is that you showed up and prayed with him, then you will realize the value of love. This is something Mother Theresa understood. I hope everyone who reads this gets a chance to minister to a dying person once in their life.

Are you sure about your own Catholic faith Tim? About Jesus Christ as being God? Or are you still in doubt on these matters?

If you are sure of those, you should know that those are indeed doctrine.

 

[Jaberwocky]

We cannot love that which we do not know. We cannot love fully that which we know in part.

Doctrine helps us to know God more fully, and thereby, we are able to love him more fully.

Somehow there is a group of people it seems that do disagree with this seemingly obvious truth!

 

[Jaberwocky]

Please know, Brian, that nobody has said both are not necessary! This was a misstatement made by the OP that is being carried to extremes here.
How is that folks are illiterate with respect to critical reading? While you’re at it, do you have a solid teaching source that says faith is not sufficient for salvation unless it knows doctrine? A source that labels it “heresy?”

Really? In this very thread you have said

“To negate this scripture and insist that one cannot love unless one knows doctrine is a fallacy.”

One cannot love that which one does not know, period. One who loves may not know something as Catholic doctrine but that does not mean that they inevitably had to know that doctrine to love.

There cannot also be “faith” if there is no doctrine. There must be something to believe by faith i.e. we believe in what doctrine reveals by faith. Without doctrine, there is no knowledge. Without knowledge, there is nothing to have faith in.

The knowledge may of course be infused, directly revealed, gained through study. But the matter of how it was attained does not contradict the fact that knowledge is necessary for love.

Think about it this way. To love is to will the good of another. How can one will the good of another if they do not know what is good? You may say that the knowledge of good is infused but that does not change the fact that it is knowledge.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The most valuable lesson I have learned in my 50 years on earth is to not be too sure of myself. It took a lot of struggle - addiction, the death of a child, abandonment by a spouse - but through the struggle I learned that I really don’t know as much as I thought I knew and that most of what I thought was fact was really just my own opinion.

I have also learned how easy it is to fall. All the doctrine in the world can’t save you from temptation. One moment you are sure that you will someday be canonized a saint and that St. Michael the Archangel himself goes before you. The next moment you are kneeling in the confessional in tears, begging Jesus Christ to take the temptation away, wondering how you could have possibly fallen so far and sure that God has abandoned you.

So I have learned not to trust myself. I have learned not to be too sure of myself. I am a cracked and broken vessel, held together poorly with tape and glue, and I have to frequent the sacraments again and again to fill myself up with divine grace. Those sacraments are not acts of doctrine but a Father’s act of love toward his children.

When you go to the hospital to visit a man with no friends and family, who was told the day before that he is being taken off the list for a liver transplant and that he should consider hospice - the last thing he wants to hear about is doctrine. When you tell him you have to go but he won’t let go of your hand, and through his tears he says how grateful he is that you showed up and prayed with him, then you will realize the value of love. This is something Mother Theresa understood. I hope everyone who reads this gets a chance to minister to a dying person once in their life.

-Tim-

Tim, what you just posted is the practice of sound doctrine. Not all can talk or write clearly just as not all can help and love clearly.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Tim, what you just posted is the practice of sound doctrine. Not all can talk or write clearly just as not all can help and love clearly.

I agree with you that Tim has mentioned many good points. However, we cannot forget that Tim’s reply is only beautiful in so far as it reflects the truth, which means, doctrine.

So the problem I had with Tim’s reply was that he seemed to say he was never sure about himself and believes that the last thing a person needs to hear of is doctrine. But I think that is incorrect.

A dying person on his death bed can only find comfort in the doctrine of the judgement and eternal life. For us to even deny him such truths so that he may repent and even seek absolution, to me, seems criminal.

Even Tim is sure about things like “what a dying person needs is not doctrine”. So there is the aspect of inconsistency in his reply as well. In this world, every man must be sure about something. Catholics are sure about Jesus as the one they want to follow and they are further sure and know what else to believe, including that he is God, through doctrine. Even our sense of good and evil is due to moral doctrine written/infused in to our hearts.

So to me, Tim’s reply contains some dangerous errors.

 

[fred_conty]

I agree with you that Tim has mentioned many good points. However, we cannot forget that Tim’s reply is only beautiful in so far as it reflects the truth, which means, doctrine.

So the problem I had with Tim’s reply was that he seemed to say he was never sure about himself and believes that the last thing a person needs to hear of is doctrine. But I think that is incorrect.

A dying person on his death bed can only find comfort in the doctrine of the judgement and eternal life. For us to even deny him such truths so that he may repent and even seek absolution, to me, seems criminal.

Even Tim is sure about things like “what a dying person needs is not doctrine”. So there is the aspect of inconsistency in his reply as well. In this world, every man must be sure about something. Catholics are sure about Jesus as the one they want to follow and they are further sure and know what else to believe, including that he is God, through doctrine. Even our sense of good and evil is due to moral doctrine written/infused in to our hearts.

So to me, Tim’s reply contains some dangerous errors.

What would you say about an atheist, who fits the criteria of the church as one being saved?
Just curious.

 

[Jaberwocky]

What would you say about an atheist, who fits the criteria of the church as one being saved?
Just curious.

Well as the Church states, he/she is saved in so far as he sought the truth, forms his conscience according to it, and acts according to his conscience. So the Atheist too, if saved, must know and act according to doctrine although he may not know it as “Doctrine” and “Catholic”.

 

[fred_conty]

Well as the Church states, he/she is saved in so far as he sought the truth, forms his conscience according to it, and acts according to his conscience. So the Atheist too, if saved, must know and act according to doctrine although he may not know it as “Doctrine” and “Catholic”.

Good answer.

 

[Sirach2]

I agree with you that Tim has mentioned many good points. However, we cannot forget that Tim’s reply is only beautiful in so far as it reflects the truth, which means, doctrine.

So the problem I had with Tim’s reply was that he seemed to say he was never sure about himself and believes that the last thing a person needs to hear of is doctrine. But I think that is incorrect.

A dying person on his death bed can only find comfort in the doctrine of the judgement and eternal life. For us to even deny him such truths so that he may repent and even seek absolution, to me, seems criminal.

Even Tim is sure about things like “what a dying person needs is not doctrine”. So there is the aspect of inconsistency in his reply as well. In this world, every man must be sure about something. Catholics are sure about Jesus as the one they want to follow and they are further sure and know what else to believe, including that he is God, through doctrine. Even our sense of good and evil is due to moral doctrine written/infused in to our hearts.

So to me, Tim’s reply contains some dangerous errors.

This is about as tacky and insensitive as it gets! I’m ashamed to read it. The man bares his very soul and is pooh-poohed in such a demeaning manner and told how wrong he is.

 

[Sirach2]

Randy Carson:

Doctrine helps us to know God more fully, and thereby, we are [potentially capable] able to love him more fully.

Jabberwocky:

Somehow there is a group of people it seems that do disagree with this seemingly obvious truth!

I’m sure you read it, but since your post here is meant to garner support from others to the detriment of your opposition, they may want to read another testimony that disproves your “seemingly obvious” truth.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11405839&postcount=76

I will bet the farm that it is very seldom doctrine that moves a person to embrace the faith. The Journey Home on EWTN has thousands of testimonies from people who either converted or reverted, and they never said it was due to knowing doctrine. You may want to check with at least some of those folks and watch the program. Nor is it doctrine that moves a sinner to give up a decadent life style. Unless they experience in their being the love of Christ/God, and are drawn by the Holy Spirit, knowledge is a dead letter to them. Many will admit to knowing doctrine, but live according to the flesh despite it.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I agree with you that Tim has mentioned many good points. However, we cannot forget that Tim’s reply is only beautiful in so far as it reflects the truth, which means, doctrine.

So the problem I had with Tim’s reply was that he seemed to say he was never sure about himself and believes that the last thing a person needs to hear of is doctrine. But I think that is incorrect.

A dying person on his death bed can only find comfort in the doctrine of the judgement and eternal life. For us to even deny him such truths so that he may repent and even seek absolution, to me, seems criminal.

Even Tim is sure about things like “what a dying person needs is not doctrine”. So there is the aspect of inconsistency in his reply as well. In this world, every man must be sure about something. Catholics are sure about Jesus as the one they want to follow and they are further sure and know what else to believe, including that he is God, through doctrine. Even our sense of good and evil is due to moral doctrine written/infused in to our hearts.

So to me, Tim’s reply contains some dangerous errors.

Like Sirach2 said - this is insensitive.

I am a sucker for Scriptures, after all they were entrusted to our Church.

I like what St. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13:

*If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. *4 Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; 5 it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; 10 but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. 13 So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

I see Tim as crossing into maturity and realizing the fragility of life, and being honest enough to understand his faults and in his actions becoming less of him and letting Christ fill him up with more of Him. He sounds frustrated because doctrine can’t explain matters of the heart. After all, the peace of God surpasses all understanding. And that is what Tim seems to need the most.

Don’t get me wrong, doctrine matters. I get into all kinds of debates and discussions about doctrine, it stimulates my mind and helps me understand the Faith better.

But if I had to choose between doctrine and love…

To me this is a no brainer - love wins all.

 

[Jaberwocky]

This is about as tacky and insensitive as it gets! I’m ashamed to read it. The man bares his very soul and is pooh-poohed in such a demeaning manner and told how wrong he is.

So I take it your idea of love does not entail telling the truth either?

 

[Jaberwocky]

I’m sure you read it, but since your post here is meant to garner support from others to the detriment of your opposition, they may want to read another testimony that disproves your “seemingly obvious” truth.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11405839&postcount=76

I will bet the farm that it is very seldom doctrine that moves a person to embrace the faith. The Journey Home on EWTN has thousands of testimonies from people who either converted or reverted, and they never said it was due to knowing doctrine. You may want to check with at least some of those folks and watch the program. Nor is it doctrine that moves a sinner to give up a decadent life style. Unless they experience in their being the love of Christ/God, and are drawn by the Holy Spirit, knowledge is a dead letter to them. Many will admit to knowing doctrine, but live according to the flesh despite it.

Sirach my friend, why do you not address my objections or arguments? You cannot just direct me to your own posts as source of understanding because you are being challenged here as having an heterodox view.

Your argument is also invalid. If there are those who have knowledge but do not use it, like the devil, that does not mean knowledge is not necessary. That just means some people and beings will refuse to willfully disobey the creator.

But to obey the creator, one must have knowledge. Whether this is infused, revealed directly, or through the Church is not the question here.

So the reason why feel very confident, and to be honest anyone should feel confident, in saying that you are wrong in this matter is because you are promoting something logically impossible. You might as well say “God can make a stone he cannot lift” because what you are asserting is pretty much as impossible.

You cannot obey God if you do not know what God wants you to do. What God wants you to do is knowledge. Hence, there can be no pleasing God without knowledge.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

As the title reads, that is the question here folks.

After a long debate on this matter and an accusation that I had derailed a thread, I thought what better way to settle this matter than by creating a new thread (a simple solution).

So far this is where the matter stands. A proposition has been set forth that

“Doctrine is not important. Love is what is important”.

My position in reply has been to point out that Doctrine describes the truth. There can be no love without knowledge of the truth. Therefore, doctrine is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for love or anything else. I also propose that those who advocate love over doctrine have a grave misunderstanding that either

1. Doctrine is not really a description of the truth, or
2. Truth is not important for love

Now I hope we can continue this discussion without any accusations of “derailing the thread” and settle it once and for all.

“There can be no love without knowledge of the truth”

So those of other faiths or no faith are incapable of love? I don’t think so.

Doctrine deals with mind and beliefs. Love deals more with the will.

Love is more imprtant than doctrine because it fulfills the primary commandement of Jesus, “Love one another as I have loved you. This is my commandment”

That is not to say doctrine is not important but love is both necessary and sufficient while, as you say, doctrine is necessary (but not sufficient).

 

[Jaberwocky]

Like Sirach2 said - this is insensitive.

I am a sucker for Scriptures, after all they were entrusted to our Church.

I like what St. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. 4 Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; 5 it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; 10 but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. 13 So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

I see Tim as crossing into maturity and realizing the fragility of life, and being honest enough to understand his faults and in his actions becoming less of him and letting Christ fill him up with more of Him. He sounds frustrated because doctrine can’t explain matters of the heart. After all, the peace of God surpasses all understanding. And that is what Tim seems to need the most.

Don’t get me wrong, doctrine matters. I get into all kinds of debates and discussions about doctrine, it stimulates my mind and helps me understand the Faith better.

But if I had to choose between doctrine and love…

To me this is a no brainer - love wins all.

Well perhaps this is due to imprecise definitions.

What is love?

Since you have a liking of Scripture, let us turn to 2 John 1:5-6

“But now, dear lady, I ask you, not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but one we have had from the beginning, let us love one another. And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment just as you have heard it from the beginning—you must walk in it.”

Now we may know his commandments by infused, revealed, learned knowledge but that is just it. commandments are knowledge and hence there can be no love without knowledge.

The reason why you and Sirach seem to dislike this is because you have understood the passages you quoted as being against knowledge when they simply acknowledge the truth that while knowledge is necessary for love, it is not sufficient.

 

[Jaberwocky]

“There can be no love without knowledge of the truth”

So those of other faiths or no faith are incapable of love? I don’t think so.

Doctrine deals with mind and beliefs. Love deals more with the will.

Love is more imprtant than doctrine because it fulfills the primary commandement of Jesus, “Love one another as I have loved you. This is my commandment”

That is not to say doctrine is not important but love is both necessary and sufficient while, as you say, doctrine is necessary (but not sufficient).

Did you read this?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11405225&postcount=29

There can be no love without doctrine. It is impossible (at least if we are speaking of Christian love). If you mean the emotion that is commonly identified as “love” today, then yes, a person only needs a physical body to “love”.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Did you read this?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11405225&postcount=29

There can be no love without doctrine. It is impossible (at least if we are speaking of Christian love). If you mean the emotion that is commonly identified as “love” today, then yes, a person only needs a physical body to “love”.

From that link: [although he may not know it as “Doctrine” and “Catholic”]

I think that begs the question.

 

[Sirach2]

My response, Jabber: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11408799&postcount=79