I used to say the same thing as a Protestant, however, what would you consider to be minor?
For example, I used to hold to the Baptist view on Baptism…until I started reading what early Christians believed. You will find that the Early Church Fathers linked John 3:5 with water Baptism.
“5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:5&version=KJV) (accessed /1/18/10)
Now, Protestants do not unanimously agree whether or not Baptism is neccessary (in normal circumstances) for salvation. The early Church was unanimous on this fact. So, IMO, this is a major that some hold to be a minor.
Also, take the Eucharist for example. The early Church and the same Church on into the future taught the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist for the first 1200-1500 years without serious objection (source: a Catholic Answers tract I can’t find at the moment
) Furthermore, we have the words of the Savior that, “…Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” (John 6:53) (Ibid.) Now, Catholic teaching holds that, ordinarily, this is true. So the Eucharist is something that I think some would see as a “minor” when the reality is that it is a major.
In dealing w/ the Gnostic Heretics of his day (early 2nd century), St. Ignatious of Antioch (who was possibly ordained a Bishop by St. Peter himself) wrote:
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.” (
newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm) (1/18/10)
The problem is, if the Apostolic teaching is one thing and somebody, years later comes up with their own private interpretation, they depart from the teaching of the Apostles, who: “…like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her [he is speaking of the Church] hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. Revelation 22:17 For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers.”
Against Heresies, St. Irenaeous, Bishop of Lyons, second century (
newadvent.org/fathers/0103304.htm) (1/18/10.) (Colored comment mine)
In short, it is the Church who holds the Sacred Tradition, of which Scripture is a part of, who is able to correctly interpret the bible by virtue of the fact that the Apostles handed on their teaching to her, also, by virtue of the fact that the Church is to arbitrate in matters of faith & morals amongst believers (Mathew 18:15) and that Her decision is binding (Mathew 18:16), and that the Church is protected from teaching error by the Holy Spirit (Mathew 16:18, John 16:13.)
I believe that in the context of novel interpretations, St. Vincent of Lerins wisely said this:
“
Therefore, as soon as the corruption of each mischievous error begins to break forth, and to defend itself by filching certain passages of Scripture, and expounding them fraudulently and deceitfully, forthwith the opinions of the ancients in the interpretation of the canon are to be collected, whereby the novelty . . . may be condemned. But the opinions of those Fathers only are to be used for comparison who, living and teaching, holily, wisely, and with constancy, in the Catholic faith and communion, were counted worthy either to die in the faith of Christ or to suffer death happily for Christ. Whom yet we are to believe on this condition, that only is to be accounted indubitable, certain, established, which either all or the most part have supported and confirmed manifestly, frequently, persistently, in one and the same sense, forming, as it were, a consentient council of doctors, all receiving, holding, handing on the same doctrine. But whatsoever a teacher holds, be he a bishop, be he a confessor, be he a martyr, let that be regarded as a private fancy of his own, and [let it] be separated from the authority common, public, general persuasion. (Commonitoria 28:72-23 [A.D. 434])” (
catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/early%20Church/page4) (accessed 1/18/10) (emphasis mine.)
So, to ask a question Fair Lady, would you consider the debate on Baptismal Regeneration (held by some but not all Protestants) and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (held by some but not all Protestants), to be a “minor issue.”
I would submit to you that any concept of agreeing on the “majors” but disagreeing on the “minors” if the “minors” include Baptism and/or the Eucharist, would be a tradition of men passed on to you by an incorrect, albeit well intentioned, person.
Don’t get me wrong, truly somethings are “minor” and these, I believe would relate more to disciplines, not Dogma.
Peace,
Nick
