Does Doctrine Matter?

[clmowry]

From Scripture and the Tradition of the Christian Church.

Then you know this because of the defined doctrine.

diggerdomer:
Your logical fallacy is equating God with doctrine. God is not doctrine. Do you agree?

No, I didn’t say God = Doctrine. I said God defines Doctrine.

Given that God exists outside of time and is immutable, so is his doctrine. [At least this seems to be logically true to me, maybe I didn’t formulate it correctly, where’s a philosophy major when you need one?]

diggerdomer:
The same way that you know whether or not you’ve experienced love.

I’m not so sure that I do “know” without special revelation that better defines what love is…

For example, when as teenager I had premarital sex, I may have thought I experienced love. Many others surely think the same.

Based on what I know of Love from the doctrine revealed to us by God, I would submit that I, and they did not participate in a loving act.

In my mind, it really is just a chicken and the egg question, after all we all grow up in a world full of revealed doctrine, be it via the natural law or special revelation, that helps form how we experience the world.

But I think I’m in the midst of de-railing the thread…so I’ll cease and desist…

Chuck

 

[Roy5]

Cat Herder and others

A couple quick points.

1. Are you saying that because the Church handed 'heretics' over to the civil authority to be tried and sometimes murdered for 'heresy' the Church is absolved of responsibility? That's what it sounds like. That's really passing the buck.

2. Are you endorsing the 'Syllabus of Errors' by Pius IX? For those who haven't read it, it can be googled. Obviously Pius IX was sharply condemning religious freedom and separation of church and state. Wasn't he the same Pope under whom the infallibility of the Pope was defined as a required-to-believe doctrine?

3. Okay. I haven't checked out *Sic et Non* in years - actually since college when I delved into much of this. My undergraduate thesis was on St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. But as I recall Abelard was pointing out that pontiffs had said Sic (yes) and Non (no) in apparent contradiction to one another.

4. I don't defend the Spanish loyalists or the Spanish nationalists. I, of course, was too young to take sides, but I recall a picture on the front of the parochial school pupil newspaper showing people in Madrid on their knees greeting the army of Franco into that city in 1939. I visited Spain some years later and found that Protestants there were not permitted religious freedom. They had to, in effect, worship underground. Didn't I read recently that Spain now has same-sex marriage? That would seem to say a mouthful about the influence of Catholicism in Spain today. At the beginning of that war, of course, the loyalists were the elected majority and not primarily communists. That changed as the war went on and the Catholic Church became a special target of the loyalists because it sided with the nationalists. Keep in mind that Mussolini and Hitler (both baptized in the Church, by the way) sent help to Franco and his army. That's why I don't defend either side. Rather like when Hitler invaded USSR. I remember my Dad saying that it was a Godsend, that the two regimes hopefully would destroy each other.

1. I guess I’ve arrived at the conclusion that doctrine doesn’t matter all that much and can get in the way of loving God and especially of loving one another. Frankly, I don’t care if Mary was a perpetual virgin or that she lived as husband and wife with Joseph. I don’t really care if the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ or if they serve as powerful symbols of his sacrifice. I don’t care if St. Francis of Assisi actually levitated or if he gave up wealth to live a holy, simple, self-giving, loving life. I’m not even sure about the full nature of Christ who said “why do you call me good (Matt 19:17)? There is no one good except God.” He also promised that “greater works than I do shall ye do” (John 14:12) I don’t think God cares about all of our doctrinal debates. This world is so magnificent, so mammoth, so miraculous and so mysterious that I am ready to respect different ideas on many doctrinal issues because our human minds simply can’t fathom the depths of it all. None of this bothers me. That’s why God is God. In Psalm 139 (a favorite of mine) we read that “such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it.” I can live by faith and ponder a variety of doctrines without committng myself to some of them that seem beyond human understanding.

 6. This afternoon I watched a bit of a film on Columbus on EWTN. It reminded me of one of my concerns about some of Catholicism - the strongly traditionalist segment. It seems to be caught in a time warp. This film idolizes Columbus for bringing Christianity to the New World. I'll give him credit where credit is deserved, and he was a visionary and courageous. But he was brutal, also. He seemed to have little respect for the native people. And the Spanish military that accompanied him and other early explorers came with the cross and the sword, at times killing those who would not convert. Sadly, certain elements of the Catholic hierarchy put so much emphasis on church history, church tradition as though a golden age was back there somwhere. When I think of those times - whether 300 AD or 1400 AD - I think of poverty, illiteracy, oppression, serfdom, life spans of 40 years or less, widespread disease, despotism by monarchs and nobles, religious persecution, and much more. 

  God bless Catholics, Protestants and sincere followers of every creed, regardless of their religion or its doctrines, if they earnestly seek to love God and serve humankind. God help us realize that we all of one 'one blood' (Acts 17:26), that our role is not to claim any form of supremacy, even by association, but to serve humbly. "What doth the Lord require of thee? To do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God." (Micah 6:8) No mention of of doctrine there.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Are you saying that because the Church handed ‘heretics’ over to the civil authority to be tried and sometimes murdered for ‘heresy’ the Church is absolved of responsibility?

Yes.

That’s really passing the buck.

Let’s say a Texan commits a capital assault on a police officer and flees to New York, where he is arrested. Texas wants to try him in Texas, where he will face the death penalty. Is New York wrong to allow extradition?

“Ah,” you say, “but that is a violent crime, not heresy.”

You define heresy as simply holding a belief that is out of conformity. The heretics of antiquity did far more than that. They also rejected the civil authorities (who to them were themselves heretics and therefore unjust rulers) and often did so violently. This is one reason why North Africa was impossible for Rome to govern, why it fell to the Vandals so quickly, and why it in turn fell to the Muslim conquest. The early Protestants were violent heretics too, and were the instigators of every single European war of religion. But it wasn’t really the Reformers’ fault; in fact the Reformation was far more a political game of intrigue than a theological debate. Luther and the Anglican clergy were mere pawns of their rulers; Zwingli’s proto-Calvinism was a cover for a coup-de-etat.

Were the Reformers and their political supporters right to war against the Catholics? If you answer yes to that question, are you going to apply the same standard that you do against the Catholic Church to, say, the United States? Is the USA wrong to fight the Taliban simply because the Taliban are… well… violent heretics?

To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.

2. Are you endorsing the 'Syllabus of Errors' by Pius IX? For those who haven't read it, it can be googled. Obviously Pius IX was sharply condemning religious freedom and separation of church and state.

Read the Syllabus. Of course a Catholic believes Catholicism is the true religion just as a Muslim says the same about Islam. And yes, he condemns separation of church and state. So does the Tea Party. What’s your point?

3. Okay. I haven't checked out *Sic et Non* in years - actually since college when I delved into much of this. My undergraduate thesis was on St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. But as I recall Abelard was pointing out that pontiffs had said Sic (yes) and Non (no) in apparent contradiction to one another.

If the Pope tells you the lotto numbers for tomorrow you may safely disregard him. Not everything a Pope says is infallible. In fact, I can count the number of infallible statements made by a Pope ex cathedra on one hand.

Bottom line: If they weren’t making infallible statements, who cares?

This film idolizes Columbus for bringing Christianity to the New World. I’ll give him credit where credit is deserved, and he was a visionary and courageous. But he was brutal, also. He seemed to have little respect for the native people.

There is no evidence of any of that.

And the Spanish military that accompanied him and other early explorers came with the cross and the sword, at times killing those who would not convert.

Why are you blaming the Church for this? Have you never heard of Fr. Bartolome de las Casas? (Of course you haven’t… )

Do you understand that the Central American natives RESISTED the Spanish and WOULD NOT convert until Mary Herself appeared to them and caused them to convert?

Sadly, certain elements of the Catholic hierarchy put so much emphasis on church history, church tradition as though a golden age was back there somwhere.

There were several. The Byzantine Empire, the Carolingan Renaissance and “The” Renaissance to name a few.

When I think of those times - whether 300 AD or 1400 AD - I think of poverty, illiteracy, oppression, serfdom, life spans of 40 years or less, widespread disease, despotism by monarchs and nobles, religious persecution, and much more.

I used to think so too. But then I actually started studying the period and discovered that I had much to learn about history. As do you, as has been clearly demonstrated.

Frankly, I don’t care if Mary was a perpetual virgin or that she lived as husband and wife with Joseph.

You should, as if She didn’t, then Jesus did not fulfill all of the prophecies of Isaiah.

I don’t really care if the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ or if they serve as powerful symbols of his sacrifice.

You should, because you are required to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood or else you will not have life within you (John 6).

I don’t care if St. Francis of Assisi actually levitated or if he gave up wealth to live a holy, simple, self-giving, loving life.

Do you care if Jesus rose from the dead? Or are you just arbitrarily selective when it comes to miracles?

 

[Cat_Herder]

One more link correction…

Do you understand that the Central American natives RESISTED the Spanish and WOULD NOT convert until Mary Herself appeared to them and caused them to convert?

 

[Roy5]

I have to hand it to you, Cat Herder, you are a devout Catholic. Fine. If it gives you comfort and furnishes you a satisfying world view, I respect it.

Now, I have many things to do, as you probably have. CAF can become addictive, and I give it too much time, tempted to discuss religion, a favorite interest of mine.

No offense intended, but I find your remarks rather wild, starting out with the first one. You let the church off the hook because they turned heretics over to the civil authorities who then murdered them. Is any blame to be assigned to an accomplice in a murder case, one who wants a guy killed, then arranges for his murder by someone else? I see the Inquisition as a black eye in the history of Catholicism, and either JPII or Benedict XVI, as I recall, apologized for it You apparently are ready to justify it. Maybe you are more Catholic than the Pope.

I have read the Syllabus of Errors, of course. I have read Sic et Non. As for Columbus, I recall 1992 when the Catholic Church wanted to make a big deal out of the 500th anniversary of the arrival of Catholicism in the Americas. "All hell broke loose" - if you'll pardon the expression. Native Americans and others brought to the fore the carnage and cruelty wrought by Columbus and the Conquistadors. Could I humbly suggest that you catch up on your history?

Let me add, as kindly as I know how, that opinions like yours among Catholics did much to foster anti-Catholicism over the years. Fortunately, today all has changed, thanks in part to JFK, in part to John XXIII and Vatican II, and in part because most Catholics here in the USA have become thorough democrats (small d) and have cast aside what formerly was a deep and intense hostility toward Protestantism. Today most Catholics have Protestant neighbors and even relatives - and vice versa. Both have learned to respect the faith of one another. God bless America!

And God bless and guide everyone! May religion become a bridge and not a barrier.

 

[Cat_Herder]

No offense intended, but I find your remarks rather wild, starting out with the first one.

None taken, let’s have at it.

You let the church off the hook because they turned heretics over to the civil authorities who then murdered them. Is any blame to be assigned to an accomplice in a murder case, one who wants a guy killed, then arranges for his murder by someone else?

How would the Church be an accomplice to an independent decision made by a secular tribunal? (Keep that in mind when we get to the Inquisition below.)

For that matter, how can a secular judge be guilty of false imprisonment, let alone murder, for, uh, handing down a sentence?

I see the Inquisition as a black eye in the history of Catholicism,

Which Inquisition? The Spanish one? You didn’t specify so I’ll assume that’s the one you want to talk about.

and either JPII or Benedict XVI, as I recall, apologized for itYou apparently are ready to justify it. Maybe you are more Catholic than the Pope.

What makes you think that I think the Spanish Inquisition was justified? I have only put forth that the Spanish Inquisition was not the Church’s fault. Yes, it needed ecclesiastical sanction to get going, but kind of like your lawnmower, it proved to be very hard to turn off once it started attacking people. The Church certainly tried to stop the Spanish government (YES, the [Spanish Inquisition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish Inquisition) was a government institution–not an ecclesiastical one!) would not listen to the Church. Not even to the Pope.

I have read the Syllabus of Errors, of course. I have read Sic et Non. As for Columbus, I recall 1992 when the Catholic Church wanted to make a big deal out of the 500th anniversary of the arrival of Catholicism in the Americas. "All hell broke loose" - if you'll pardon the expression. Native Americans and others brought to the fore the carnage and cruelty wrought by Columbus and the Conquistadors.

Conquistadors yes. Columbus no. Just ask Fr. Bartolome de las Casas. He represented the Church, didn’t he? He tried to pull the plug on the conquistadores just like the Pope had tried to stop the Inquisition. But Spain, once again, had other plans.

Let me add, as kindly as I know how, that opinions like yours among Catholics did much to foster anti-Catholicism over the years.

And you say I’m wild? Sorry, the Ku Klux Klan is not the fault of the Church.

Fortunately, today all has changed, thanks in part to JFK, in part to John XXIII and Vatican II, and in part because most Catholics here in the USA have become thorough democrats (small d) and have cast aside what formerly was a deep and intense hostility toward Protestantism.

History shows that the hostility mostly went the other way.

 

[Geremia]

The fact that the Church has supported the United States of America since July 4, 1776 is highly damaging to your fable.

Hmm… George Washington was a Masonic Grand Master. How can you get more anti-Catholic than that? Freemasons think their religion of religious syncretism is more universal than the Catholic Church!

 

[Cat_Herder]

Hmm… George Washington was a Masonic Grand Master. How can you get more anti-Catholic than that? Freemasons think their religion of religious syncretism is more universal than the Catholic Church!

Well, I am not the one who referred to “the Great Washington” as “famed for his courage and keen intelligence.” These are the Holy See’s words–issued despite his Masonic ties.

 

[Tomster]

The reason I opened this thread was simply to point out the absurdity of the Protestant positions regarding doctrinal unity.

Given their definition of “church” and the disagreement over fundamental beliefs, they are forced to choose between two alternatives:

1. Doctrine does not matter; or
2. Conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable in the one body of Christ.

Alternatively, they could accept that Jesus Christ established one, visible, hierarchical Church with an earthly head and vested that Church with real authority to settle matters of dispute.

This Church is, of course, the Catholic Church.

Right you are Randy!

With rare exception, the Protestant churches in America owe their beginning to the religious upheaval in the 16th century when Luther, Calvin, and their followers broke with Roman unity and began religious institutions of their own. Few of the sects will admit this, of course. They claim to be the original Church of Christ which goes back to Apostolic times. But when they try to prove their claim, they fall back on one of two expedients: either they deny that Catholicism was ever the true Church and trace their genealogy through the gallery of heretics from Marcion and Arius to Luther, Calvin and Zwingli; or they admit that Catholics formed the true Church up to the Reformation but, contrary to the promise of Christ, were overcome by the gates of hell so that a new church had to be founded. Certain denominations, like the Lutherans, emphasize the second method. Others, like Baptists and Episcopalians, prefer the first. Sometimes the lineage from Reformation times is not very clear historically; but there is never any doubt about the transmission of ideas from the original Reformers to modern sectarians. When Orestes Brownson charged that Protestatism has “no fixed and permanent character except hatred of Catholicism,” and “no principles, doctrines, or forms which, in order to be itself, it must always and everywhere maintain,” he oversimplified the case. But substantially it is true to say that Protestantism as a form of Christianity is essentially changeable and unstable. Whatever religious stability individual sects may show, they owe to whatever doctrines or practices they still share in common with the Catholic Church. The instability of Protestantism is due to a strange concept of human autonomy which the Reformers injected into the body of Christian tradition.

Church historians correctly say there were two fundamental principles of the Reformation: the supreme authority of Scripture and the doctrine of justification by faith. Against these the Catholic position is that Scripture alone is not sufficient, but tradition is also needed; and that a man is justified or made pleasing to God not only by faith but also by the good works he performs. However, beneath these two Reformation issues lay a deeper error from which they are both derived. This was the assertion of man’s independence of any society as the final arbiter in questions of faith and morals. It was “the Protestant belief in the inspiration of the individual and the consequent right of private judgment.” So basic is this principle that by it we may explain not only the Protestant imperviousness to history and argument which is so incredible to Catholics, but also the resistance among Protestants themselves to any attempt on the part of their leaders to unite the churches under “authoritarian domination.” By this standard the Catholic Church is accused of being the worst pretender in history. She has “usurped the majesty of God,” according to Reinhold Niebuhr, because her priests claim to be “in control of God’s redemptive powers and purposes and in possesion of the keys of heaven.”

 

[JimG]

To assert that doctrine does not matter, is itself a doctrine. It is an assertion of what is believed to be true of the Christian message.

To say, for example, that all you need is love, is fine, but that is of course also a doctrine, and one which ultimately must be fully explicated in practice.

If doctrine does not matter, then there should be no denominations. But differences of doctrine lead to different denominations precisely because of differences in what is believed to be true of the Christian faith.

Is Christ a savior or merely a good man? Did he demand love or did he demand obedience to his commandments, or both? Did he establish a Church or did he write a book?

The answers to these questions and others constitute doctrine.
If doctrine doesn’t matter, well that’s a doctrine. And it’s a doctrine which minimizes the importance of truth or falsity.

 

[Tomster]

To assert that doctrine does not matter, is itself a doctrine. It is an assertion of what is believed to be true of the Christian message.

To say, for example, that all you need is love, is fine, but that is of course also a doctrine, and one which ultimately must be fully explicated in practice.

If doctrine does not matter, then there should be no denominations. But differences of doctrine lead to different denominations precisely because of differences in what is believed to be true of the Christian faith.

Is Christ a savior or merely a good man? Did he demand love or did he demand obedience to his commandments, or both? Did he establish a Church or did he write a book?

The answers to these questions and others constitute doctrine.
If doctrine doesn’t matter, well that’s a doctrine. And it’s a doctrine which minimizes the importance of truth or falsity.

Very well said JimG!

One must then wonder where the articulator of this “doctrine” received the authority to proclaim it.

Thank you Jim.

 

[paul_c]

Right you are Randy!

With rare exception, the Protestant churches in America owe their beginning to the religious upheaval in the 16th century when Luther, Calvin, and their followers broke with Roman unity and began religious institutions of their own. Few of the sects will admit this, of course. They claim to be the original Church of Christ which goes back to Apostolic times. But when they try to prove their claim, they fall back on one of two expedients: either they deny that Catholicism was ever the true Church and trace their genealogy through the gallery of heretics from Marcion and Arius to Luther, Calvin and Zwingli; or they admit that Catholics formed the true Church up to the Reformation but, contrary to the promise of Christ, were overcome by the gates of hell so that a new church had to be founded. Certain denominations, like the Lutherans, emphasize the second method. Others, like Baptists and Episcopalians, prefer the first. Sometimes the lineage from Reformation times is not very clear historically; but there is never any doubt about the transmission of ideas from the original Reformers to modern sectarians. When Orestes Brownson charged that Protestatism has “no fixed and permanent character except hatred of Catholicism,” and “no principles, doctrines, or forms which, in order to be itself, it must always and everywhere maintain,” he oversimplified the case. But substantially it is true to say that Protestantism as a form of Christianity is essentially changeable and unstable. Whatever religious stability individual sects may show, they owe to whatever doctrines or practices they still share in common with the Catholic Church. The instability of Protestantism is due to a strange concept of human autonomy which the Reformers injected into the body of Christian tradition.

Church historians correctly say there were two fundamental principles of the Reformation: the supreme authority of Scripture and the doctrine of justification by faith. Against these the Catholic position is that Scripture alone is not sufficient, but tradition is also needed; and that a man is justified or made pleasing to God not only by faith but also by the good works he performs. However, beneath these two Reformation issues lay a deeper error from which they are both derived. This was the assertion of man’s independence of any society as the final arbiter in questions of faith and morals. It was “the Protestant belief in the inspiration of the individual and the consequent right of private judgment.” So basic is this principle that by it we may explain not only the Protestant imperviousness to history and argument which is so incredible to Catholics, but also the resistance among Protestants themselves to any attempt on the part of their leaders to unite the churches under “authoritarian domination.” By this standard the Catholic Church is accused of being the worst pretender in history. She has “usurped the majesty of God,” according to Reinhold Niebuhr, because her priests claim to be “in control of God’s redemptive powers and purposes and in possesion of the keys of heaven.”

Its a matter of pride. Martin Luther and John Calvin were both very prideful individuals who felt that their ability to interpret scriptures was far superior to that of the church. If you read their writings, they are VERY condenscending…

Ironically, while they were intellectually prideful, they both felt they were sinners. Conveniently enough, they developed theologies where sin doesn’t matter (sola fide)…

 

[Tomster]

Its a matter of pride. Martin Luther and John Calvin were both very prideful individuals who felt that their ability to interpret scriptures was far superior to that of the church. If you read their writings, they are VERY condenscending…

Ironically, while they were intellectually prideful, they both felt they were sinners. Conveniently enough, they developed theologies where sin doesn’t matter (sola fide)…

Right you are paul c!

And we see where the ol’ Protestant dogma of OSAS originates.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Randy Carson

Fine. You seem to make unity the priority thing. I was raised in a Catholic/Protestant situation - a long story - but have studied religion in some detail. Spent time at a Trappist monastery, keep informed through EWTN, Catholic radio, Our Sunday Visitor, attending mass, etc,

Unlike you, apparently, I find myself moving further away from traditional Catholicism. I emphasize traditional because most Catholics I know resemble me in that we think for ourselves. We do not view doctrinal orthodoxy and required conformity as a plus in this era of more and more well-educated, thinking people.

Why is it that those of us who accept and view docrinal orthodoxy and required conformity as a plus are continually assaulted with the insult the we are not “well-educated, thinking people”? And that only those who dissent from Church teaching are thinking for themselves? It is the height of arrogance to think that you can take 2000 years of thought (much of it in dead languages) and teaching–and come up with…many us have done the same thinking, have poured over the texts and come up with a much different conclusion than you–a conclusion that has left us accepting the magisterium of the Church–as something Christ left us to protect teaching so that we would know what was true and how to live out a Christian life. Our acceptance of that does not make us any less well educated or any less thinking…in my humble opinion it is much harder to accept the conclusions of our thought–because it subjects us to a higher authority than ourselves–which is something we all resist–especially those of us raised in America or Europe. We have thought this through and to imply that we have not (and when you say “in that we think for ourselves” – you implication is that we do not) is just plain rude, insulting and far from the truth. I wouldn’t insult you by implying that you arrived at you conclusions not because of “well educated free thought” but because they conform better with how you want to live–and give you greater freedom in the way you can live your life and still get to heaven. I would give you the benefit of the doubt that you sincerely did think it through, studied the anceint texts and early Church history and reached a different conclusion–albeit one I don’t agree with or think is supported. However, I will say that the vast majority or Catholics I know who dissent–do not do so because they have thought it out and studied the matter–rather they simply want to contracept because they think it makes living their life easier, they don’t want to go to confession, they want to get divorced and remarried, etc. so they just dismiss those teachings. Many of them have not read a book since college and have had no religious education since grade school or conformation. Most noncatholics I know – seem to choose their church based on if it’s teachings affirm the way they are living, if it has a good band and if the pastor delivers a good sermon–a search for the truth does not enter into it. Now that does’t speak to those who come to this forum–most of whom I believe are looking for the truth or believe they have found it–it simply speaks to the run of the mill Catholic and non-Catholic Christians that one ones across.

In short: dissent does not equal well educated free thought any more than nondissent equals stupid blind acceptance. We should all be on a search for truth and attempt to conform our lives, to the best of our ability, to that truth.

Peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[clmowry]

Why is it that those of us who accept and view docrinal orthodoxy and required conformity as a plus are continually assaulted with the insult the we are not “well-educated, thinking people”?

I would submit that this is largely because the moral/theological relativism reflected in this thinking is largely spawned in liberal academic institutions.

These folks have become “enlightened” by their education, so if we have not been similarly “enlightened”, then we must not be educated.

Chuck

 

[Roy5]

A couple thoughts

** I have no  particular interest in defending Protestantism**. In fact, when I watch most evangelical programs on cable TV, I am unsympathetic to the rantings and ravings of many of the preachers. Not all, but many. They seem like huckcsters to me.

** And I have no particular affection for Luther**, Calvin, and certainly not Henry VIII (who was never a Protestant, but a schismatic only).

 **What I find attractive about mainstream Protestantism** is the way it permits and often encourages the individual Christian to think through religion without feeling the constraints that Catholicism imposes. I have illustrated already. For example, Mary. All Christians admire Mary. But over the years I came to regard the Mariology that has developed within the Church as well beyond anything in the Bible. I have offered evidence already. As one example, in all of St. Paul's writings he never once mentions Mary. If Mary was supposed to be so central in Christian worship I feel he would have at least referred to her once or twice. It was not until 1870 (as I recall) that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined and not until 1950 that the dogma of the Assumption was defined. I now the Catholic response: it had been believed from the outset of the church. I find no evidence to support that. I suspect it was borrowed from pagan religion where virgin mothers - Queens of the Universe, etc. - were commonplace. But for those who can believe such doctrined, fine. The Mormons and Muslims and many other faiths have unusual beliefs, too, and I respect them, but I can't accept those beliefs either and thereby cannot become a Mormon or a Muslim.

** Actually, as for hatred of Catholicism,** after awhile on CAF I have concluded that bitterness toward Protestantism seems to be at least equal and probably more pronounced than ‘hatred of Catholicism’ today. Did I deal with that already? JFK, John XXIII and Vatican II, and a spirit of ecumenial have helped overcome suspicion of Catholicism. Papal documents like the “Syllabus of Errors” (1864) by Pius IX that led Protestants to suspect Catholicism. You will recall how he denounced democracy, demanded special privilege for Catholicism, etc.

 **One of my main hesitations re Catholicism** is that it seems to live so much in the past. It's as though earlier centuries were somehow more pure spiritually and that we should be faithful to the traditions and beliefs of those times. I regard the medieval ages, for example, as a time of widespread oppression, extreme poverty, short life spans, killing of heretics, rule by despots, illiteracy of most people, human bondage, rampant disease, high infant mortality, harsh gender bias, and many other evils. It also was an era of widespread superstition and wild tales of miracles. Unfortunately, some of this took root in the church - along with corruption, simony, etc. The Counter Reformation helped some, but not enough. The Reformation had its bad results, but it did free much of Europe from domination by one religious institution which eventually led to the religious freedom we enjoy in the USA. Many sects make it difficult for any one to dominate, and I thank God for that. Of course, Catholicism dominates in few nations today. Even in places like Spain and Argentine same-sex marriage is now permitted (which I do not support, by the way).

** Reinhold Niebuhr was quoted in a negative way**. A truly great theologian, though I find that I can’t agree with him on some things. Perhaps he was the greatest US theologian of the 20th century. His writings and those of Paul Tillich helped elbow me toward ‘big tent’ Protestantism. I don’t even know what denomination they belonged to, but they were superb thankers. One of my favorite Catholic writers is Fr. Richard Mc Brien, professor at Notre Dame, whom I understand is ill at the present time. Keep him in your prayers.

** I thank God that I can explore**, investigate, ponder, meditate, and weigh spiritual ideas and not feel compelled to end up echoing the ‘party line’ of any one church - just as I am grateful to have political freedom and not be expected to follow any ‘party line’. And it’s true: I have discovered that many Protestants, maybe most, at least here in the USA, pick their church affiliation not by label but by a variety of other factors, ranging from the preacher’s preaching ability, personality and reputation to the quality of the Sunday School and the church’s location, its music, its liturgy, its friendliness, and its parking! There tends to be a split between 'liberal Protestantism" (which appeals to me) and sola scriptura Protestantism, usually literalistic when it comes to scripture (which does not appeal to me). Catholicism had the same division, despite an exterior unity. One poll, for example, indicated that 43% of Catholic do not believe in transubstantiation.

** God bless all of his children**, of every creed, color and country. May religion serve as a bridge instead of a barrier.
Finally, I do believe that the more people become educated in our society today the more they are likely to leave dogmatic religion and embrace the idea that this mammoth, miraculous and majestic world is simply too mysterious for any of us - or any church - to claim all that much ultimate knowledge. So, I choose to walk by simple faith in God, seeking to live as Christ would have us live.

 

[Philthy]

There is something even more important which is the foundation called love. Does doctrine matter? Yes. But more important even is that love be present.

Is the claim that “love is more important” a doctrine which matters or not?

 

[Philthy]

A couple thoughts

** I have no  particular interest in defending Protestantism**. In fact, when I watch most evangelical programs on cable TV, I am unsympathetic to the rantings and ravings of many of the preachers. Not all, but many. They seem like huckcsters to me.

** And I have no particular affection for Luther**, Calvin, and certainly not Henry VIII (who was never a Protestant, but a schismatic only).

 **What I find attractive about mainstream Protestantism** is the way it permits and often encourages the individual Christian to think through religion without feeling the constraints that Catholicism imposes. I have illustrated already. For example, Mary. All Christians admire Mary. But over the years I came to regard the Mariology that has developed within the Church as well beyond anything in the Bible. I have offered evidence already. As one example, in all of St. Paul's writings he never once mentions Mary. If Mary was supposed to be so central in Christian worship I feel he would have at least referred to her once or twice. It was not until 1870 (as I recall) that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined and not until 1950 that the dogma of the Assumption was defined. I now the Catholic response: it had been believed from the outset of the church. I find no evidence to support that. I suspect it was borrowed from pagan religion where virgin mothers - Queens of the Universe, etc. - were commonplace. But for those who can believe such doctrined, fine. The Mormons and Muslims and many other faiths have unusual beliefs, too, and I respect them, but I can't accept those beliefs either and thereby cannot become a Mormon or a Muslim.

** Actually, as for hatred of Catholicism,** after awhile on CAF I have concluded that bitterness toward Protestantism seems to be at least equal and probably more pronounced than ‘hatred of Catholicism’ today. Did I deal with that already? JFK, John XXIII and Vatican II, and a spirit of ecumenial have helped overcome suspicion of Catholicism. Papal documents like the “Syllabus of Errors” (1864) by Pius IX that led Protestants to suspect Catholicism. You will recall how he denounced democracy, demanded special privilege for Catholicism, etc.

 **One of my main hesitations re Catholicism** is that it seems to live so much in the past. It's as though earlier centuries were somehow more pure spiritually and that we should be faithful to the traditions and beliefs of those times. I regard the medieval ages, for example, as a time of widespread oppression, extreme poverty, short life spans, killing of heretics, rule by despots, illiteracy of most people, human bondage, rampant disease, high infant mortality, harsh gender bias, and many other evils. It also was an era of widespread superstition and wild tales of miracles. Unfortunately, some of this took root in the church - along with corruption, simony, etc. The Counter Reformation helped some, but not enough. The Reformation had its bad results, but it did free much of Europe from domination by one religious institution which eventually led to the religious freedom we enjoy in the USA. Many sects make it difficult for any one to dominate, and I thank God for that. Of course, Catholicism dominates in few nations today. Even in places like Spain and Argentine same-sex marriage is now permitted (which I do not support, by the way).

** Reinhold Niebuhr was quoted in a negative way**. A truly great theologian, though I find that I can’t agree with him on some things. Perhaps he was the greatest US theologian of the 20th century. His writings and those of Paul Tillich helped elbow me toward ‘big tent’ Protestantism. I don’t even know what denomination they belonged to, but they were superb thankers. One of my favorite Catholic writers is Fr. Richard Mc Brien, professor at Notre Dame, whom I understand is ill at the present time. Keep him in your prayers.

** I thank God that I can explore**, investigate, ponder, meditate, and weigh spiritual ideas and not feel compelled to end up echoing the ‘party line’ of any one church - just as I am grateful to have political freedom and not be expected to follow any ‘party line’. And it’s true: I have discovered that many Protestants, maybe most, at least here in the USA, pick their church affiliation not by label but by a variety of other factors, ranging from the preacher’s preaching ability, personality and reputation to the quality of the Sunday School and the church’s location, its music, its liturgy, its friendliness, and its parking! There tends to be a split between 'liberal Protestantism" (which appeals to me) and sola scriptura Protestantism, usually literalistic when it comes to scripture (which does not appeal to me). Catholicism had the same division, despite an exterior unity. One poll, for example, indicated that 43% of Catholic do not believe in transubstantiation.

** God bless all of his children**, of every creed, color and country. May religion serve as a bridge instead of a barrier.

 Finally, I do believe that the more people become educated in our society today the more they are likely to leave dogmatic religion and embrace the idea that this mammoth, miraculous and majestic world is simply too mysterious for any of us - or any church - to claim all that much ultimate knowledge. So, I choose to walk by simple faith in God, seeking to live as Christ would have us live.

Interesting thoughts and observations. So, back to the question - “Does doctrine matter or not?” Or perhaps for you the question should be tailored a bit: “Does the freedom to explore ideas (ie big tent) trump doctrine?” Try starting with a yes or no!

 

[Roy5]

Yes, for me freedom to explore matters of faith - including dogma - trumps automatic acceptance of church-decreed doctrine. This applies to all churches though I have found that mainline Protestants seem to permit considerable flexibility. Personally, I need that flexibility. Otherwise, I feel like I’m in an intellectual straight-jacket.

 For those who are ready to accept pre-packaged theology, traditional Catholicism and Protestant fundamentalism may be preferred options. Fine. Their choice. Some people prefer the security that this provides. But not me.

 As I have mentioned, however, many of my Catholic friends (and relatives, too) take doctrine lightly. They attend mass more because of family, tradition, cultural attachment, church fellowship, etc. That's okay, also. But they don't believe in certain doctrines and in many cases disagree with the church on such matters as artificial birth control and required prestly celibacy. Some hope women can be ordained - as Deacons, at least.

 

[paul_c]

Yes, for me freedom to explore matters of faith - including dogma - trumps automatic acceptance of church-decreed doctrine. This applies to all churches though I have found that mainline Protestants seem to permit considerable flexibility. Personally, I need that flexibility. Otherwise, I feel like I’m in an intellectual straight-jacket.

 For those who are ready to accept pre-packaged theology, traditional Catholicism and Protestant fundamentalism may be preferred options. Fine. Their choice. Some people prefer the security that this provides. But not me.

 As I have mentioned, however, many of my Catholic friends (and relatives, too) take doctrine lightly. They attend mass more because of family, tradition, cultural attachment, church fellowship, etc. That's okay, also. But they don't believe in certain doctrines and in many cases disagree with the church on such matters as artificial birth control and required prestly celibacy. Some hope women can be ordained - as Deacons, at least.

You have a misconception about Catholicism. It wants you to find the truth through reason. That’s why they provide such detailed explanations of their positions. You mention the Immaculate conception. If you read the actual Papal bull, (its 50 paragraphs long), you will get all the historical support you want. And there is nothing wrong with questioning church teachings because it can lead to enhanced understanding if done properly. The question is one of humility. When you find something in Church teaching doesn’t seem right to you, there are two basic approaches. The first one is to immediately believe you know better than the church and declare the church wrong as if you have some special insight or superior intellect. In this case, you learn nothing. The other approach is to recognize the authority of the church and the intellect of prior theologians and to ask yourself what they saw that you don’t. If you approach it this way, you will learn.and the truth will set you free. And by the way, you are right, that many don’t think of their faith at all. That’s unfortunate, but you can’t define people’s priorities for them and they will be held accountable for their actions nonetheless.