Does Doctrine Matter?

[paul_c]

** 5. My continual theme is this: Catholicism needs to become a bigger tent.** Benedict XVI (whom I saw and heard at Yankee Stadium - I have seen and heard in person four Popes, by the way, so I have devoted considerable time thinking about faith concerns) has made it possible for ‘high-church Anglicans’ who object to women clergy to become part of the wider Catholic Church. If such accommodation can be made, perhaps the church could consider become more tolerant of a variety of views. Millions upon millions of Catholics ignore the church’s doctrines anyway. The majority of married Catholics approve of artificial birth control. I saw a poll that 43% of US Catholics don’t believe in transubstantiation. Etc. If such allowances were made, many people (like me) might be less attracted to ‘big tent’ Christianity as we observe in mainline Protestantism.

Again, the truth is eternal. It doesn’t change just because we think we have a better idea or that the truth is inconvenient. Those Protestant churches you speak so glowingly love are imploding at a much more rapid rate than Catholicism, as they change their doctrines at the whims of the people. Look at what is happening to the Anglicans, for instance. Lets look at Birth control. Since the pill became available, we have far more out of wedlock pregnancies, far more abortions, far more STDs and a flourishing pornography trade that demeans everyone it touches. Is that progress?

** 6. I do not for a moment demean those who don’t agree with me, as Paul c seems to suggest.** There always are those who respond to a message by casting aspersions on the messenger. I am simply advocating a different attitude within Catholicism, one less concerned about uniform doctrine, less criticial of those who can’t agree with the Magisterium on this or that matter, more true freedom to ‘think and let think’ - words of John Wesley. Most Catholics I know have that attitude already. I see the Catholic Church as involved in a momentous internal battle, which is not publicly acknowledged. There are those like John Paul II and Benedict XVI, brilliant and able men, but determined to reenforce the hard traditions of the past and repress those who, for example, may want to have a discussion of the marriage of clergy or the ordination of women Deacons. Then there are those (like Fr. McBrien) who are not afraid to challenge hard traditions and, like John XXIII, wish to open the windows of the church and let in more fresh air.

I am merely trying to help you see the truth. Its one thing to challenge Church practice, how it teaches the faith, because this is by definition changeable with different situations. So if you don’t like the Latin mass, fine, that can be changed if it helps people get to heaven. It is another thing entirely to challenge Church doctrine, what it teaches, because those are eternal truths that have been handed down from the Holy Trinity through the Apostles. If you don’t like the fact the Jesus is really present in the eucharist, you can’t change that because it is the truth.

 

[PRmerger]

The point being made was that you do indeed support doctrines, just ones of your choosing.

That, paul, has been my argument with Roy for a long time.

A “Big Tent Systemology” is, essentially, a tent to which Roy declares who can enter and who can’t. He would, I presume, exclude white supremacism from this tent. He would exclude (fill in the blank) but include (fill in the blank again).

In the end, he is doing the same thing he criticizes the Catholic Church of doing, no?

 

[PRmerger]

Therefore doctrine is the one that puts love in action, but there first must be love, doesn’t it?

This was addressed by St. Augustine centuries ago:

Originally posited by St. Augustine: “Does love bring about the keeping of the commandments, or does the keeping of the commandments bring about love?”

And he answered:

“But who can doubt that love comes first? For the one who does not love has no reason for keeping the commandments”.

 

[PRmerger]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...sts,_E._J._Pace,_Christian_Cartoons,_1922.jpg

Cat, this “cartoon” is going in my “saved” file.

It speaks volumes.

Volumes.

 

[Roy5]

** 1. The Catholic parents who decided to have an early abortion rather than - according to the doctors - subject both the mother and her baby to likely death did, in my mind, what probably was the wisest thing. **Had she and the baby died, there would have been a grieving husband and six young motherless children. Let’s agree, then, that we disagree on that. The baby is in heaven, and the parents and their six children are alive and well. I thank God.

** 2. An abortion is by definition killing the innocent. True. But modern warfare is, by definition, killing the innocent. **How many of the 4000 US soldiers and 100,000 Iraqi citizens were guilty, and of what? It strikes me as inconsistent to hear people, often Christians, rage against abortion, yet they can seem eager for the next war! Profane! And think of all the babies, many still in the womb, among those 100,000.

** . 3. I smile when I read that somehow I am condemning anybody or that I would limit membership in my ‘ideal’ church. **No, everyone should be eligible. Yes, even racial and religious bigots. They may need it more than most others. Who was it who said that the hospital is for sinners more than for saints - or words to that effect? What I am suggesting is that the church should be more tolerant of differing opinions on a variety of issues, which Catholic disagree about already. Check any poll and you will see that many Catholics disgree with their church on basic dogma, such as transubstantiation. We’re not children anymore. We are now adults and merit the right to think for ourselves. If we choose to accept everything the Church teaches, fine. If not, provide breathing space.

** 4. Yes, I do think that I am one of millions who have serious doubts about certain Christian doctrines (both among Catholics and Protestants).** Many still attend church because of other reasons - family, friends, tradition, etc. Actually, most thinking people have periods of doubt. Consider Mother Theresa and her long periods of emptiness. And didn’t one of the saints say: “Lord, I believe. Help thou my unbelief.” Or, words to that effect.
**
5. When it comes to being judgmental, have you heard Fr. Corapi often?** Now, there’s a lesson in judgmentalness! He represents the style of Catholicism that I so strongly reject. “You’d better believe right and do what the church says, or you’re in serious trouble!” When will be treat us like grown-ups?
** God bless everybody, yes, even Fr. Corapi!**

 

[paul_c]

** 1. The Catholic parents who decided to have an early abortion rather than - according to the doctors - subject both the mother and her baby to likely death did, in my mind, what probably was the wisest thing. **Had she and the baby died, there would have been a grieving husband and six young motherless children. Let’s agree, then, that we disagree on that. The baby is in heaven, and the parents and their six children are alive and well. I thank God.

Its a matter of trust, right. They trusted their doctor more than God… Don’t think for a minute that they don’t have second thoughts about this.

** 2. An abortion is by definition killing the innocent. True. But modern warfare is, by definition, killing the innocent. **How many of the 4000 US soldiers and 100,000 Iraqi citizens were guilty, and of what? It strikes me as inconsistent to hear people, often Christians, rage against abortion, yet they can seem eager for the next war! Profane! And think of all the babies, many still in the womb, among those 100,000.

Why do you keep bringing up war in the context of Abortion as if wars justify killing your own child?

** . 3. I smile when I read that somehow I am condemning anybody or that I would limit membership in my ‘ideal’ church. **No, everyone should be eligible. Yes, even racial and religious bigots. They may need it more than most others. Who was it who said that the hospital is for sinners more than for saints - or words to that effect? What I am suggesting is that the church should be more tolerant of differing opinions on a variety of issues, which Catholic disagree about already. Check any poll and you will see that many Catholics disgree with their church on basic dogma, such as transubstantiation. We’re not children anymore. We are now adults and merit the right to think for ourselves. If we choose to accept everything the Church teaches, fine. If not, provide breathing space.

Are you really that worried about being called a child? And why should the church teach anything other than the truth? And who cares about public opinion? If that counted for anything, Christianity would have ended at Calvary. And by the way, you do recognize that membership in the Catholic church is open to everyone and is completely voluntary, right?

** 4. Yes, I do think that I am one of millions who have serious doubts about certain Christian doctrines (both among Catholics and Protestants).** Many still attend church because of other reasons - family, friends, tradition, etc. Actually, most thinking people have periods of doubt. Consider Mother Theresa and her long periods of emptiness. And didn’t one of the saints say: “Lord, I believe. Help thou my unbelief.” Or, words to that effect.

Those words were spoken by a man in the Gospel who was asking Jesus to cure his son…

**
5. When it comes to being judgmental, have you heard Fr. Corapi often?** Now, there’s a lesson in judgmentalness! He represents the style of Catholicism that I so strongly reject. “You’d better believe right and do what the church says, or you’re in serious trouble!” When will be treat us like grown-ups?

** God bless everybody, yes, even Fr. Corapi!**

Why are you so insecure about your adulthood? Father Corapi is just telling it like it is and you can’t handle the truth. So be it. And he’s right, if you don’t do as the chruch teaches, you ARE in trouble.

 

[Cat_Herder]

** 1. The Catholic parents who decided to have an early abortion rather than - according to the doctors - subject both the mother and her baby to likely death did, in my mind, what probably was the wisest thing. **Had she and the baby died, there would have been a grieving husband and six young motherless children.

Is that much better than either a grieving husband and five young motherless children, or a happy mother, father and six children?

Or does no one grieve for the aborted child?

** God bless everybody, yes, even Fr. Corapi!**

But not the unborn?

 

[Roy5]

You keep trying to make this personal by discrediting me personally. Now you suggest that I worry about my adulthood??? Actually, I was thinking of the last verses of I Cor. 13, the love chapter. I suggest we stick with the issues at hand and not attempt to read minds, psychoanalyze. etc. I also suggest that we are adults and we have been provided a brain. I suspect that God isn’t going to punish us for using it.

** Obviously, you are a totally devout the committed Catholic. Fine.** I have been simply been expressing my problems with some areas of Catholic doctrine and CAF seemed like a good place to do it. I don’t think it’s working out very well, which I suspect you will blame on my ego or whatever.

**For example, I don't think God cares a whit whether we believe Jesus had blood brothers or not.** Why it is so bad if we think he may have? The Bible clearly calls them brothers and Mary and Joseph were married. I don't know, and I suggest probably nobody knows for sure. So, why not grant people tha option to believe he did or he didn't? 

**The same is true regarding the sinless life of Mary.** There certainly is nothing in scripture to suggest that, and the Bible clearly says that "all have sinned and fallen short." This theme is expressed at various times in scripture. Again, I don't know if Mary sinned. I admire her as much either way and don't understand why it's so important that she lived a sinless life. Gosh, St. Paul wrote all those epistles and never mentioned Mary once. The two references to her in the Gospels (only two) between Jesus at age 12 and the crucifixion can make you wonder. To me they sound a bit dismissive. Matt. 12:46-50, John 2:4. 

** By the way, and perhaps irrelevant. In Judges 5:24 we find Jael described as "most blessed among women." **Recall what she did? She drove a peg through the temple of Sisera while he was sleeping! Nice bedtime story to share with the kids. Too much violence like that in the Old Testament. And Jael had promised Sisera that she would protect him in her tent, gave him milk to quench his thirst, etc. The word of God? Hm! I sometimes have to wonder.

** And, to change the subject just a bit, why is the lineage of Jesus traced through Joseph in both Matthew and Luke?** And why don’t those genealogical lists agree? And why would they trace Adam back to no earlier than maybe 4000 BC when we know that the first humans were on the earth thousands of years before that?

** I treasure the freedom to ask such questions. They don’t shake my faith in God for a moment**, but they are reasonable, logical questions. When it comes to scripture I guess I’m always a bit surprised when Catholics sound like Protestant fundamentalists. I presume that’s what has made me admire mainstream Protestantism with its lack of 'you must believe everything the Bible says" or “you must believe everything the church says”.

Okay. Wandering off. Bedtime. **God bless everybody, and help create understanding, peace and joy. **

 

[Cat_Herder]

For example, I don’t think God cares a whit whether we believe Jesus had blood brothers or not. Why it is so bad if we think he may have? The Bible clearly calls them brothers and Mary and Joseph were married. I don’t know, and I suggest probably nobody knows for sure. So, why not grant people tha option to believe he did or he didn’t?

**The same is true regarding the sinless life of Mary.**

If either dogma is false then Jesus is disqualified from being the Jewish Messiah for failure to fulfill the prophets.

I do not think that you ever answered my inquiry into whether you believe that Jesus is God.

 

[paul_c]

You keep trying to make this personal by discrediting me personally. Now you suggest that I worry about my adulthood??? Actually, I was thinking of the last verses of I Cor. 13, the love chapter. I suggest we stick with the issues at hand and not attempt to read minds, psychoanalyze. etc. I also suggest that we are adults and we have been provided a brain. I suspect that God isn’t going to punish us for using it.

Roy, you equate being disobedience to chruch teachings with being an adult who uses his brain. Others might see obedience as a measure of spiritual maturity and wisdom. Its all a matter of perspective.

** Obviously, you are a totally devout the committed Catholic. Fine.** I have been simply been expressing my problems with some areas of Catholic doctrine and CAF seemed like a good place to do it. I don’t think it’s working out very well, which I suspect you will blame on my ego or whatever. [/qupte] I think your expectations were wrong. When you go into the Apologetics section of CAF, you are going to interact with devoted Catholics eager to share their faith. So when you come in with the view that that Faith needs to be watered down to make it more publicly acceptable, you should expect to get strong resistance. If you want to get people who agree with you, try one of the Born again forums…
Roy5;7234876:

**For example, I don't think God cares a whit whether we believe Jesus had blood brothers or not.**

Why it is so bad if we think he may have? The Bible clearly calls them brothers and Mary and Joseph were married. I don’t know, and I suggest probably nobody knows for sure. So, why not grant people tha option to believe he did or he didn’t? Well I guess it would be helpful to understand why we think its important that Mary was ever virgin. Sure, there’s nothing wrong with a married woman having children. But we aren’t talking about just any married woman. We are talking about a woman of such immense holiness that she was worthy of being the mother of God. And who would be worthy of following Jesus out of the womb? This teaching doesn’t change the way you should live your lie, but it does effect how you think about Jesus and that effects your personal relationship with him.

**The same is true regarding the sinless life of Mary.**

There certainly is nothing in scripture to suggest that, and the Bible clearly says that “all have sinned and fallen short.” This theme is expressed at various times in scripture. Again, I don’t know if Mary sinned. I admire her as much either way and don’t understand why it’s so important that she lived a sinless life. Gosh, St. Paul wrote all those epistles and never mentioned Mary once. The two references to her in the Gospels (only two) between Jesus at age 12 and the crucifixion can make you wonder. To me they sound a bit dismissive. Matt. 12:46-50, John 2:4. Again, it has to do with your understanding of the nature of Jesus. He is supremely holy and would not come into the world through sin. Paul’s purpose in writing his epistles was to train the communities he founded and address specific problems they had and to give instruction to the leaders he left there (Titus and Timothy) so its not shocking that he didn’t talk about Mary. Mary is venerated in Luke as Full of Grace, is she not

.

 

[paul_c]

** By the way, and perhaps irrelevant. In Judges 5:24 we find Jael described as "most blessed among women." **Recall what she did? She drove a peg through the temple of Sisera while he was sleeping! Nice bedtime story to share with the kids. Too much violence like that in the Old Testament. And Jael had promised Sisera that she would protect him in her tent, gave him milk to quench his thirst, etc. The word of God? Hm! I sometimes have to wonder.

Judith did likewise. It was regarded as God using a woman as his instrument to enact his vengence on enemies of Israel. Who is to say that deliverance from those that would kill the Israelites is an unjust act?

** And, to change the subject just a bit, why is the lineage of Jesus traced through Joseph in both Matthew and Luke?** And why don’t those genealogical lists agree? And why would they trace Adam back to no earlier than maybe 4000 BC when we know that the first humans were on the earth thousands of years before that?

Well, that was teh riddle that jesus put froth to those that were questioning him wasn’t it. How could David havebeen calling the savior his lord, when he was his son? Well it was because he was his stepson…As for different lineages, let Eusebius explain it to you from book 1 chapter 7 of his church history: newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm. Just page down to chapter 7. You will find it both interesting and enlightening I think…As for reading Genesis literally, I don’t think that’s how it was meant to be read. But perhaps the 4000 years goes back to when man first gained a soul, feel free to speculate on that.

** I treasure the freedom to ask such questions. They don’t shake my faith in God for a moment**, but they are reasonable, logical questions. When it comes to scripture I guess I’m always a bit surprised when Catholics sound like Protestant fundamentalists. I presume that’s what has made me admire mainstream Protestantism with its lack of 'you must believe everything the Bible says" or “you must believe everything the church says”.

Okay. Wandering off. Bedtime. **God bless everybody, and help create understanding, peace and joy. **

There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking these questions. Its how we all learn. The difference is how you ask the questions. If you find something you find questionable, and the first thing you think is “I must be right and everyone else is wrong”, doesn’t that strike you as unwise an a bit arrogant. On the otherhand, if you find something questionable and instead inquire with the subject matter experts to find out what you might be missing, then you might learn something.

Keep in mind, that our role here on Catholic answers is to actually give you the Catholic view of your questions. Don’t be shocked that we do that vigorously… Its what you should expect and hopefully it invigorates you intellectually and spiritually

 

[Roy5]

1. I doubt if my views would be tolerated any better dealing with ‘born-again’ Christians as here on CAF. They seem to have a similar mindset - "we have the truth and that’s it! Actually, I find many Catholics more open to different points of view than many evangelicals.

**2. The Old Testament has too many atrocity stories to be compatible with the Sermon on the Mount. **Sorry, but that's my conclusion. The Jael story is simply one of such stories. I personally cannot believe that the God I believe and trust in, the God of love, mercy and justice, would commit and/or order/or sanction such atrocities. I know that most Christians accept them, and so be it. I wonder how much this has contributed consciously or subconsciously to the excuses Christian nations have used to fight bloody wars over the centuries - and too often to initiate them. Remember when Christian Italy invaded and took over Ethiopia, as one simple and modern example. Our Catholic and Protestant ancestors who came to the New World used their religion as a ruse for killing off thousands of its inhabitants. "Bringing the light of the gospel to the heathen!"

** 3. Consider Esther.** Have you read Esther carefully? God isn’t even mentioned. Okay, Esther saved her people. But then, in revenge, 75,000 were slaughtered. I don’t find this story edifying and wonder why it’s even in the Bible. And why Esther is such a heroine. To think that Purim celebrates such a slaughter.

** 4. Holiness and virginity are not connected in my own mind.** A devout and committed mother and father, devoted to their children - now that and holiness are connected. As I may have mentioned before, there seems to be a link in Catholic thinking between virginity and holiness, and I see none whatsoever. Sex in marriage is sacred and certainly is not somehow inferior to the celibate state. My reading of Matt. 1:25 clearly suggests that Joseph and Mary had conjugal relations after the birth of Christ. Some modern translations even specifically indicates that they had no ‘sexual relations’ until that time. By the way, what do you do with I Timothy 3:2, where Paul says that the Bishop should have only one wife? To me it suggests that clergy (even higher clergy) may be married. I hope the Church changes its policy on marriage one of these days. Priests would be better equipped to counsel re domestic problems within their parishes, they would have a healthy outlet for God-given hormonal drives, and they would experience the normal joys and challenges of marital and parental responsibilities. And it’s time for the ordination of women, too, certainly as Deacons.

** 5. Oh, off thread, but this reminded me. How did the Church justify its change of policy **some years back of permitting women to worship with uncovered heads, in light of I Cor. 11:5? And how come, when I attend mass, a woman often reads one or two of the lessons in light of 1 Cor. 14:34-35? And does the Church go along with 1 Tim. 2:9-15, where St. Paul says women should not wear gold or pearls, that women should never teach a man (which EWTN obviously ignores)? And in the same passage we read: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing…” Is this Catholic teaching? To begin with, it assumes that the Adam and Eve story is history rather than parable, fable, folklore, and/or myth.

**6. Oh, and off the thread again, how do you handle the Magi,** astrologers from the East? And they entered "the house" where the baby lay. History? I need the right to question it, since I do. I have grave doubts about astrology. And you?

** I guess I’ve asked enough questions**. I rather think I should stop dialoging and give you guys (and gals?) a rest. But I did want to nake the point that accepting Catholic doctrine or being sola scriptura - either one - presents major problems. Thanks for all your efforts, and God bless.

 

[Cat_Herder]

**2. The Old Testament has too many atrocity stories to be compatible with the Sermon on the Mount. **

Before I can address this I need to know whether you think Jesus is a nice guy or the Son of God.

 

[Major_Tom]

Well I guess it would be helpful to understand why we think its important that Mary was ever virgin. Sure, there’s nothing wrong with a married woman having children. But we aren’t talking about just any married woman. We are talking about a woman of such immense holiness that she was worthy of being the mother of God. And who would be worthy of following Jesus out of the womb? This teaching doesn’t change the way you should live your lie, but it does effect how you think about Jesus and that effects your personal relationship with him.

This argument has never been satisfying to me. To expand on your question a little, who is worthy to dine with Jesus? Who’s worthy to wash his feet? Or bicker with him? Yet everyone did these things. I don’t see the importance of taking his birthplace (Mary’s womb) and giving it such unique status. I also agree with Roy’s comment: I don’t see how the issue has much impact either way.

As a follow-up to some of Roy’s comment, I’ll offer this:
I do not think that I’m going to convert anyone here. Who do I post then? Good question! I don’t have a great reason. Someone suggested that Roy go over the other boards to find people that he agrees with. For me, the opportunity to debate is too enjoyable, and the diversity of opinions is greater here than in the “Non-Catholic Religions” board. It’s boring to only talk with people that you agree with…!

 

[Major_Tom]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking these questions. Its how we all learn. The difference is how you ask the questions. If you find something you find questionable, and the first thing you think is “I must be right and everyone else is wrong”, doesn’t that strike you as unwise an a bit arrogant. On the otherhand, if you find something questionable and instead inquire with the subject matter experts to find out what you might be missing, then you might learn something.

Fair comment. But are you suppoing that all “subject matter experts” will agree on the answer?

 

[paul_c]

Fair comment. But are you suppoing that all “subject matter experts” will agree on the answer?

Well, Major tom, its like this. The Catholic church has two main roles, to teach what it has been taught and to administer the sacraments. Because it is teaching what it has been taught by previous generations going back all the way to Christ and the apostles, its teachings are infallible. The church goes to great leangths in all its public teachings to show this linkage to the past. It is always very thorough and can be believed. And because its administered by one universal leader with many, many advisors as well as the holy spirit, the teachigns are consistent.

 

[paul_c]

This argument has never been satisfying to me. To expand on your question a little, who is worthy to dine with Jesus? Who’s worthy to wash his feet? Or bicker with him? Yet everyone did these things. I don’t see the importance of taking his birthplace (Mary’s womb) and giving it such unique status. I also agree with Roy’s comment: I don’t see how the issue has much impact either way.

Surely you see the difference between giving birth and having dinner?

As a follow-up to some of Roy’s comment, I’ll offer this:
I do not think that I’m going to convert anyone here. Who do I post then? Good question! I don’t have a great reason. Someone suggested that Roy go over the other boards to find people that he agrees with. For me, the opportunity to debate is too enjoyable, and the diversity of opinions is greater here than in the “Non-Catholic Religions” board. It’s boring to only talk with people that you agree with…!

Well, there are many people who come on these pages with serious questions about the faith, not just as a debate forum. And many people do get converted or have their faith strengthened by being here. I know it has added to my personal understanding and my faith immeasureably. And even people like yourself, who profess no real interest in the faith, do have their purpose here because you pose probing questions that drive us to find the answers and when we do, our faith is strengthened, even if yours is not.

 

[Major_Tom]

Well, Major tom, its like this. The Catholic church has two main roles, to teach what it has been taught and to administer the sacraments. Because it is teaching what it has been taught by previous generations going back all the way to Christ and the apostles, its teachings are infallible. The church goes to great leangths in all its public teachings to show this linkage to the past. It is always very thorough and can be believed. And because its administered by one universal leader with many, many advisors as well as the holy spirit, the teachigns are consistent.

Fine. I’m not trying to pick apart your words, but my original comment was centered on your “subject matter experts” comment. Is it possible for a subject matter expert to speak credibly, if the conclusion is different from Catholic teaching?

 

[Major_Tom]

Surely you see the difference between giving birth and having dinner?

Certainly. Not to be obtuse, but having dinner is also different from having your feet washed. And Jesus did both of those.And…?
Now, having re-read your earlier post, I do see that the reason you mentioned that point originally was in regard to original sin.

And even people like yourself, who profess no real interest in the faith, do have their purpose here because you pose probing questions that drive us to find the answers and when we do, our faith is strengthened, even if yours is not.

I like to think that my faith would be strengthened, or else I wouldn’t be here…!