Does Doctrine Matter?

[diggerdomer]

Then you know this because of the defined doctrine.

No, I know this because of the entire Christian Tradition.

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

Yes, you said that. But you said (or at least implied) more than that.

You said:

God defines doctrine.
God has exisisted and has been the same for all time.
Therefore doctrine has existed for all time.

In other words, as I read your post…and please correct any misunderstanding…both God and doctrine existed before all time. In other words, either you are equating God and doctrine, or you are claiming two “beings” (at least) existed before all time: “God” and “doctrine”. So…what did you exactly mean?

 

[paul_c]

No, I know this because of the entire Christian Tradition.

Yes, you said that. But you said (or at least implied) more than that.

You said:

In other words, as I read your post…and please correct any misunderstanding…both God and doctrine existed before all time. In other words, either you are equating God and doctrine, or you are claiming two “beings” (at least) existed before all time: “God” and “doctrine”. So…what did you exactly mean?

I don’t get what you guys are arguing about. The elemental truths taught by the Church are eternal. They don’t change. Our understanding of them does change as we learn more as individuals and as a Church, bringing more clarity. You will never see doctrinal change in the Church. Iin other words, new Doctrinal statements will not contradict old ones. What you will see is that new doctrinal statements will refine previous views, making them more and more clear.

 

[clmowry]

In other words, as I read your post…and please correct any misunderstanding…both God and doctrine existed before all time. In other words, either you are equating God and doctrine, or you are claiming two “beings” (at least) existed before all time: “God” and “doctrine”. So…what did you exactly mean?

If a tree falls in the woods…

Maybe this will clear it up.

It is my [perhaps erroneous] assertion that what constitutes theological doctrine exists independently of when and how it is revealed to man.

What I mean is that God defines what constitutes doctrine by His very nature and existence. i.e. If there is no God, there is no doctrine. If God exists, then what constitutes doctrine is defined by Who He Is.

Maybe I need a new word, or a modifier. Something like “True Theological Doctrine” to differentiate what I’m thinking about from the “rules” of some particular religion.

I maintain that Truth is defined by Who God Is and therefore has existed for all time.

What constitutes right or wrong, a loving or non-loving act, is defined by Who God Is, and therefore does not change.

I also maintain that we can only “know” what is loving or non-loving in relationship to what we know about God, that is through His revealed doctrine.

I believe some of that truth was revealed to us in our very creation through the natural law engrained in our vary souls.

Some of that truth was revealed to us through special revelation from God’s prophets and in these last Days by God Himself through the Church He came to Earth and created.

So I don’t disagree that man can experience and know real love independent of a religious institution. But I only think that is the case because some portion of what constitutes “True Theological Doctrine” has already been written into our hearts.

Maybe “Doctrine” is simply the wrong word for what I’m thinking of….?

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

I don’t get what you guys are arguing about. The elemental truths taught by the Church are eternal. They don’t change. Our understanding of them does change as we learn more as individuals and as a Church, bringing more clarity. You will never see doctrinal change in the Church. Iin other words, new Doctrinal statements will not contradict old ones. What you will see is that new doctrinal statements will refine previous views, making them more and more clear.

That’s OK, I’m not sure I know what I’m arguing about either.

The point I was originally trying to make was essentially that we [all humans] have no idea what constitutues right and wrong [loving and non-loving] independently of what God has revealed to us about right and wrong *

Chuck*

 

[paul_c]

That’s OK, I’m not sure I know what I’m arguing about either.

Probably a good time to stop this part of the discussion then.

The point I was originally trying to make was essentially that we [all humans] have no idea what constitutues right and wrong [loving and non-loving] independently of what God has revealed to us about right and wrong *

Chuck*

I think the issue here is terminology. Most people would think of doctrine as Formal statement of belief from the Church. (Immaculate conception, Papall Infallibility, etc). What you are talking about are eternal truths, I think. And that can be revealed in a number of ways, including through our consciences…

Your point that our understanding of what is right and wrong comes from God is true by definition almost. He is the arbiter of Good, afterall.

 

[clmowry]

Probably a good time to stop this part of the discussion then.

Yeah. I tried that several posts ago!

“Just when I think I’m out…”

Chuck

 

[Roy5]

This idea that if we only understand Catholic doctrine we will inevitably accept it - that’s what I can’t accept. If we don’t, then, of course, we are accused of lacking humility.

 Over the years I have read tons of Church Fathers, church theologians, and all sorts of material to - for example - substantiate the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception or of transubstantiation or of miraculous intercession by various saints. None of this has convinced me. They still strike me as the sort of dogmas that have their roots in medievalism, when people also believed in ghosts, all manner of apparitions, miracles galore, etc. I need a reasonable religion.

 Again, this is not to demean those who put their faith in the magisterium. If they want to accept something because Mother Church says so, fine. I sometimes wish I honestly could, but honesty requires that I don't. I suspect that many of the people who have drifted away from the church (30,000,000 in the USA, I understand) have drifted because they simply cannot turn their minds and brains over to the Church. Like me, they treasure the freedom to think for themselves. Usually, like me, they believe that God honors such independence as long as we seek to follow the teachings and example of Christ. He is my Lord, and not any ecclesiatical organization.

 But God bless everybody. And may religion cease being such a divider and become a bridge instead. I'm sure Christ would approve of that.

  I recognize that this flies in the face of traditional Catholicism, but that's where I'm at. I guess I'm not ready to salute because some church expects me to.

 

[paul_c]

This idea that if we only understand Catholic doctrine we will inevitably accept it - that’s what I can’t accept. If we don’t, then, of course, we are accused of lacking humility.

 Over the years I have read tons of Church Fathers, church theologians, and all sorts of material to - for example - substantiate the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception or of transubstantiation or of miraculous intercession by various saints. None of this has convinced me. They still strike me as the sort of dogmas that have their roots in medievalism, when people also believed in ghosts, all manner of apparitions, miracles galore, etc. I need a reasonable religion.

 Again, this is not to demean those who put their faith in the magisterium. If they want to accept something because Mother Church says so, fine. I sometimes wish I honestly could, but honesty requires that I don't. I suspect that many of the people who have drifted away from the church (30,000,000 in the USA, I understand) have drifted because they simply cannot turn their minds and brains over to the Church. Like me, they treasure the freedom to think for themselves. Usually, like me, they believe that God honors such independence as long as we seek to follow the teachings and example of Christ. He is my Lord, and not any ecclesiatical organization.

 But God bless everybody. And may religion cease being such a divider and become a bridge instead. I'm sure Christ would approve of that.

  I recognize that this flies in the face of traditional Catholicism, but that's where I'm at. I guess I'm not ready to salute because some church expects me to.

The Church exists for the service of the faithful. It gives guidance for the road to salvation and administers the sacraments. No one is compelled to follow the advice but you must be properly disposed to partake of the sacraments because they are holy… No one is asking you to turn your brain over to the church, but what in the world makes you think you know better than the Church does about salvation? Wisdom is understanding your limitations and it is the truth that really sets you free…

 

[Roy5]

As I stated several times, as soon as we indicate that we cannot accept all the teachings of the church we are accused of thinking we are wiser than the Church. There have been millions of brilliant minds that have taken issue with the church, along with the millions who agreed with the church. I’m not sure that proves anything. The majority of Americans over the years have been Protestants. Does that prove anything??? I don’t think so.
I do not criticize those who are able to submit their intellects to the magisterium. That is their choice. I spent time in a Trappist monastery, have studied the Church Fathers, wrote my undergraduate thesis on St. Thomas Aquinas, continue to read Catholic books and periodicals regularly, still attend mass sometimes, watch EWTN for awhile nearly every day, am quite well-acquainted with Catholic apologetics, etc. - and still find that I cannot in good conscience accept some of the dogmae of Catholicism. For those who can, fine. My prediction, however, is that until the Church provides more flexibility for independent thinkers like myself, and doesn't insist upon conformity and uniformity when it comes to some doctrines, people will show this independence by becoming ex-Catholics.

 

[Geremia]

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.

Yes, the Holy See was speaking as a sovereign state to the head another sovereign.

 

[paul_c]

As I stated several times, as soon as we indicate that we cannot accept all the teachings of the church we are accused of thinking we are wiser than the Church.

Seriously. That’s exactly what you are thinking. You know better…Right? There’s no way around it.

There have been millions of brilliant minds that have taken issue with the church, along with the millions who agreed with the church. I’m not sure that proves anything. The majority of Americans over the years have been Protestants. Does that prove anything??? I don’t think so.

right. You don’t defined the truth by a vote.

 I do not criticize those who are able to submit their intellects to the magisterium. That is their choice. I spent time in a Trappist monastery, have studied the Church Fathers, wrote my undergraduate thesis on St. Thomas Aquinas, continue to read Catholic books and periodicals regularly, still attend mass sometimes, watch EWTN for awhile nearly every day, am quite well-acquainted with Catholic apologetics, etc. - and still find that I cannot in good conscience accept some of the dogmae of Catholicism. For those who can, fine. My prediction, however, is that until the Church provides more flexibility for independent thinkers like myself, and doesn't insist upon conformity and uniformity when it comes to some doctrines, people will show this independence by becoming ex-Catholics.

The church will not and CAN not change the truth to placate those who won’t accept it, even if it results in serious defections. It is after all, the Church’s responsibility to safegard those truths and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Pope Benedict has been fairly consistent in saying a smaller church consistent with the Apostolic ideals is superior to a larger church that compromises them. He’s not worried about numbers, onl in the truth.

 

[Cat_Herder]

This idea that if we only understand Catholic doctrine we will inevitably accept it - that’s what I can’t accept. If we don’t, then, of course, we are accused of lacking humility.

 Over the years I have read tons of Church Fathers, church theologians, and all sorts of material to - for example - substantiate the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception or of transubstantiation or of miraculous intercession by various saints. None of this has convinced me. They still strike me as the sort of dogmas that have their roots in medievalism, when people also believed in ghosts, all manner of apparitions, miracles galore, etc. I need a reasonable religion.

Christianity is a religion full of miracles. It is founded on one in particular: the resurrection of the son of an obscure Jewish carpenter.

You accept that one without question, I take it. So you want a religion that is free of miracles–except that one.

This is called special pleading and it is a logical fallacy that people use to cover their own unreasonable arguments. So you demand a “reasonable religion” while you yourself stand upon a fallacy.

What is reasonable, anyway? Science? Please take a long, solid and unbiased look at where science came from.

There is only one religion that is reasonable: one that is compatible with science and is free of internal inconsistencies, one that has taught the same thing for 2000 years, one that can show an unbroken line of succession to God Himself.

 

[Roy5]

paul.c

No, I don't claim to be wiser than the Church. What I am suggesting is that the Church would be wise to permit more flexibility when it comes to doctrine. Too many Catholic doctrines - in my view - reflex an earlier era when people could more easily believe things that most of us don't believe today.

This weekend is Halloween. I've read that a substantial number of Americans - is it 25 or so, I forget the exact number - still believe in ghosts. Many also believe in astrology, and millions take horoscopes seriously. Fine. I don't claim to be wiser than these, but I don't believe in ghosts nor in astrology. There are things in Catholicism that, in my view, approximate such beliefs. For example, did Padre Pio really levitate and bilocate? If you can believe it, fine. I can't. Yet, I have enormous faith in God. But I can only embrace a reasonable faith that doesn't (in my mind) conflict with modern science and/or common sense. 

 When we are accused of thinking we are wiser, that we are arrogant, that we lack humility, etc., this ceases to become a discussion. You move from that to an argument ad hominem. You demean me rather than my  viewpoint. Unfortunately that too often replaces civil debate. 

  But God those of different faiths and beliefs. The Lord knows the truth that is sufficient for me. My trust is in God and not in the wisdom of any church or preacher or theological theories.

 

[Roy5]

Sorry. I type too quickly. The final paragraph should read:

But God bless those of different faiths and beliefs. The Lord knows the truth and that is sufficient for me. My trust is in God and not in any church or preacher or theological theories.

 

[Cat_Herder]

This idea that if we only understand Catholic doctrine we will inevitably accept it - that’s what I can’t accept. If we don’t, then, of course, we are accused of lacking humility.

 Over the years I have read tons of Church Fathers, church theologians, and all sorts of material to - for example - substantiate the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception or of transubstantiation or of miraculous intercession by various saints. None of this has convinced me. They still strike me as the sort of dogmas that have their roots in medievalism, when people also believed in ghosts, all manner of apparitions, miracles galore, etc. I need a reasonable religion.

Christianity is a religion full of miracles. It is founded on one in particular: the resurrection of the son of an obscure Jewish carpenter.

You accept that one without question, I take it. So you want a religion that is free of miracles–except that one.

This is called special pleading and it is a logical fallacy that people use to cover their own unreasonable arguments. So you demand a “reasonable religion” while you yourself stand upon a fallacy.

You say science is reasonable? Please take a long, solid and unbiased look at where science came from.

There is only one religion that is reasonable: one that is compatible with science and is free of internal inconsistencies, one that has taught the same thing for 2000 years, one that can show an unbroken line of succession to God Himself.

 

[Philthy]

As I stated several times, as soon as we indicate that we cannot accept all the teachings of the church we are accused of thinking we are wiser than the Church. There have been millions of brilliant minds that have taken issue with the church, along with the millions who agreed with the church. I’m not sure that proves anything.

 

[MarkInOregon]

This idea that if we only understand Catholic doctrine we will inevitably accept it - that’s what I can’t accept. If we don’t, then, of course, we are accused of lacking humility. Humble: 1 not proud or haughty: arrogant or assertive 2 reflecting, expressing, or offered in a spirit of deference or submission 3 low ranking in a hierarchy or scale: insignificant, unpretentious.
I can not judge your humilty.

Over the years I have read tons of Church Fathers, church theologians, and all sorts of material to - for example - substantiate the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception or of transubstantiation or of miraculous intercession by various saints. None of this has convinced me. They still strike me as the sort of dogmas that have their roots in medievalism, when people also believed in ghosts, all manner of apparitions, miracles galore, etc. I need a reasonable religion. And how is this different from today? Don’t people today believe in ghosts, all manner of apparitions, miracles galore, etc.? All that’s changed is that now many people who believe this aren’t “religious”. They just believe in all sorts of spirits. Look at our TV shows–Medium, Ghost Whisperer, Supernatural etc. We midevilism? People believed in these things long before the midevil period and still do today. The roots appear much deeper than midevilism don’t they?

Again, this is not to demean those who put their faith in the magisterium. If they want to accept something because Mother Church says so, fine. I sometimes wish I honestly could, but honesty requires that I don’t. I suspect that many of the people who have drifted away from the church (30,000,000 in the USA, I understand) have drifted because they simply cannot turn their minds and brains over to the Church. Like me, they treasure the freedom to think for themselves. Usually, like me, they believe that God honors such independence as long as we seek to follow the teachings and example of Christ. He is my Lord, and not any ecclesiatical organization. Would you please provide examples from Scripture of God or Jesus honoring such independence as I do not see that when I read Scripture–thank you. It is admirable to seek to follow the teachings and example of Christ. Wasn’t Christs example to us to submit to the will of the Father? Those of us who have put our faith in the magisterium of the Church do so because we believe that Christ instituted it for our protection and that by doing so we are following Christs teaching and example. We don’t see the evidence for the independence that you do which is why examples of it would be helpful.

But God bless everybody. And may religion cease being such a divider and become a bridge instead. I’m sure Christ would approve of that. And may all Christians be unified in this world doing the work of Christ. May they know us by our love.

I recognize that this flies in the face of traditional Catholicism, but that’s where I’m at. I guess I’m not ready to salute because some church expects me to. We don’t salute because some church expects us to–I think that is the point you miss. We submit because Christ revealed that he expects us to. We submit not to the Church, per se, but to the will of God which he revealed to the Church. I think, and feel free to correct me if I am incorrect, that you view submitting to the Church as submitting to other men who are no better than you and so you refuse. We see the Churches teaching as protected by the Holy Spirit which guides it to all truth–it is to God that we submit our lives not to men./quote]

I am sure I have not said the above very well so forgive me for that–hopefully the gist of what I mean to say came through without offending.

Peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Randy_Carson]

I spent time in a Trappist monastery.

Which one?

Were you a retreatant, a candidate, an observer, a postulant, a novice, or junior professed?

 

[Roy5]

A few random comments

Philthy. I don’t connect independent thinking with being a sinner, as you apparently do. I know many people were put to death because they were heretics, then viewed as a serious sin, but I hope that notion is long dead. I recall my shock when, in reading Aquinas I discovered that he favored the execution of heretics! I must say that this suddenly weakened by respect for his opinions even though he obviously was a great and systematic scholar.

You apparentlky question my qualifications to come to different conclusions on theology than those arrived at by ancient and medieval councils. I understand this. Traditional Catholicism teaches, of course, that God will preserve the church from doctrinal error. I simply can’t believe that. I respect the theological opinions of others and wish that the Catholic Church showed more respect for those who disagree. They are dogmatic when it comes to only ‘one true church’ and it’s theirs. As I probably have stated several times, I put my trust in God and not in churches, preachers, or theologies.

I think it’s great that a host of Christian scholars express different views re this magnificent universe and our life here. As stated earlier, I’ve read (and continue to read) many Catholic scholars, including the Church Fathers, but also such Protestant scholars as Niebuhr, Tillich, Barth, Bunner, etc. One of my favorite books is entitled “The Christian Agnostic” by a British Methodist ckergyman - Weatherford, maybe, his name. I rather found myself in this book. He was (deceased now) devoted to Jesus but when it came to such questions as the origin of the universe, the historicity of the Old Testament, the accuracy of the Nativity accounts in the Gospels, the precise nature of Christ, the end times, afterlife, etc., he felt that one could (and probably should) be agnostic - not claiming to know precisely the answers, but full of faith and interested in various perspectives.

True, people believe in ghosts and such today. As I recall some poll found that as many as 25% of American believe in ghosts, and millions turn to the horoscope every day. To be honest, there are things within traditional Catholicism that smack too much (in my opinion) of such ideas. All those rather wild stories about past saints. I see stories of Padre Pio, a ‘modern’ saint, and how he levitated, bilocated, etc. Millions believe in such things, but I remain a skeptic. Many Protestants as well as Catholics accept on faith all manner of faith healings, exorcisms, and whatnot. Sorry, I have a problem with such things, though I go along with the idea that faith can help overcome illness and sometimes help with various forms of psychological illness, Demons? No.

Other points. Remember when the lawyer confronted Jesus and asked him point-blank how he could have inherited eternal life? It always has struck me that he avoided any theological doctrine in his response but simply said love God and your neighbor. Then, when the lawyer persisted, Jesus gave the parable of the Good Samaritan. The hero? A Samaritan, who had intermarried, held to a different faith, and was despised by the Jews. This suggests to me that we are not be judged by our doctrines but by our love. Remember, too, when Jesus told about those going to heaven and hell - the sheep and the goats, as I recall. When did we see you hungry? When did we visit you in prison? Etc. Not a word about doctrine, again.

Oh, and by the way. I;ve always been puzzled by that passage in which someone refers to Jesus as good. Jesus replies: “Why do you call me good? There is only one good, and that is God.” Hm! Still causes me to wonder what Jesus meant by that.

I was asked about the Trappist monastery. It was at Oka in Quebec. My paternal family is of French-Canadian (Quebec) heritage. I spent two brief times years ago when I was struggling with just such matters as are discussed here. The ‘guest father’ was very kind and patient and tried to ‘straighten me out’. Oka was then full of priests and lay brothers, noted for its cheese, etc. The last time I visited, perhaps a decade or so ago now, there were a handful of quite elderly monks, less than a dozen as I recall, complaining that the younger generation is no longer willing to make the sacrifices they had made. In fact, Quebec over the past 30-40 years has moved from a citadel of devout Catholicism to becoming very secular. This past summer we visited the town where my Grandmother had lived as a child. The large Catholic Church there is up for sale. I really don’t understand the rapid change. Some say delayed backlash to church dominance for 350 or so years???

That’s more than enough for now. God bless everybody. If you are comfortable being a devout Catholic, accepting the Church’s doctrines as infallible, fine. Obviously, I can’t. I am finding myself attracted to ‘big tent’ Christianity that permit a variety of beliefs. This seems to exist in some of the mainline denominations, such as Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian and United Church of Christ. But, as Christ commanded, I do my best to love everybody.

 

[paul_c]

Roy,
What do you think is the point of doctrine? I haven’t given this a ton of thought but it seems to me that there are two types of doctrine:

1. Doctrine that defined how you should lead your life to go to heaven
2. Doctrines that explain God and his relation to man and the universe

Now in both cases, there is only one truth and one valid doctrine. Now, I would say the first category of Doctrines is important for everyone and its important to get it right. This incorporates some very fundamental disagreements between Christians including:

Do you need the grace of the sacraments to go to heaven
Do you need to do works of mercy or is faith alone sufficient
Is there forgiveness of sin or does sin not even matter if you have “saving faith”
Do we need to become holy or only need to be proclaimed holy because of our faith
Getting these wrong could conceiveable cost you hell.

The second set of doctrines are important for understanding God, the Church, etc.
Many will never delve into these truths but they are important as well. ro intance, Papal Infallibility goes to the point of having a trusted source for the first category of Doctrines.

The definition of the Jesus as both God and Man is important to understand as well. If he was only man, as some heritics have stated, then that effects how we relate to God.