Questions About Church Doctrines/Practices

  • Thread starter Thread starter TNMan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TNMan

Guest
As some of you may have seen, I’ve been contemplating crossing the Tiber for a little over a year now. At certain times, I’m 100% convinced I’m ready to make the jump. Other times, doubt creeps in.

My biggest struggle right now is with the development of Church Doctrines and Practices. There’s not any one in particular that’s giving me pause, but for example, the practice of Eucharistic Adoration. In itself, I don’t have any issue with it. It’s the true Body, Soul, Divinity of our Lord. But Jesus in the Last Supper said “take this all of you and eat it.” He didn’t tell us to anything else. And this is a practice that didn’t become widespread until the 16th century. There’s no mention of it in the Apostolic writings. I understand Church authority, but this feels like something that’s “added on” when it’s not something that we ever see Jesus or the Blessed Apostles mentioning.

Another example is the claim of Papal Infallibility. I have no issue with a Pope. I have no issue with the structure of the hierarchy. But Papal Infallibility (I know it’s been used only twice), is just not something we see in the early Church. Yes, Rome was seen as the “first among equals,” and there is a primacy there, but not a supremacy.

I guess what I’m trying to get at, besides the “authority of the Church” stance, is how can these doctrines/practices be explained when 1. We see no evidence Jesus speak to them and 2. We don’t see it in the Apostolic writings?

Thank you for any responses.
 
Hi @TNMan ! Good to hear from you !

I’d just written a lengthy and perfectly boring paragraph in answer to what you say about Eucharistic Adoration, from what pope Benedict XVI says about it in The Spirit Of Liturgy.

But I thought maybe a better idea would be to point you towards Saint John Henry Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, which helped me with pretty much the same question you have (how can we explain some of the doctrines?).
 
TNMan said:
And this is a practice that didn’t become widespread until the 16th century. There’s no mention of it in the Apostolic writings.
Click to expand...
Okay, I didn’t read carefully. I didn’t see that you were talking about adoration, and not the Eucharist itself.

In which case you’re referring to a devotional practice, and not a doctrine. But the doctrine it is based on is that the Eucharist really is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. This being the case, it can’t be wrong to engage in adoration. No one is obliged to, and it isn’t a teaching, it is a practice.

-Fr ACEGC
 
Last edited:
Edit to your edit. Thank you for the clarification.
 
Last edited:
It’s good to make the distinction between doctrine and practice.

Doctrine is what is taught.

Practice is what we do in response.

Some practices are enshrined in law, so liturgical worship. And some are just commonly done by people, what we might call devotional prayer.

Some devotional practices give rise to liturgical ones. Some devotional practices may appear formalized and liturgical, but still aren’t the public worship of the Church.

Adoration actually has its own liturgical praxis, in that the Church provides a rite and regulations on it. But it isn’t mandatory, of course.

Practices tend to be the logical outgrowth of teachings.
 
Well…makes sense. let me try to put these things in perspective.

Did you know the word 'Trinity" never appears in the Bible? To the extent the concept is there, it’s pretty vague as to exactly what it means. For hundreds of years disputes and heresies concerning the Trinity raged throughout Christendom. The concept of homoousia was not clearly and definitive set forth until Nicea. The faith developed, was explained and became clearer.

Similarly the nature of Christ and the hypostatic union was unclear for hundreds of years. Again, disputes and heresies as to the very nature of Jesus abounded. The Bible is not as clear as some would think. This also plays into the concept of Mary as Mother of God - Dei Para or Theotokos. Councils at Chalcedon and Ephesus addressed these issues. Again, the faith and its understanding developed and became clearer.

The above-referenced matters are pretty basic, but remained somewhat undefined for centuries. If such basic dogmas were not entirely clear, then perhaps it’s not so odd that other matters over time need clarity…not created out of whole cloth, but clarity and understanding.

Eucharistic Adoration follows from the deepening understanding of the nature of the Eucharist - it is Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity - and as such adoration - latria - is appropriate and good.
That Christ did not in the Bible say to do this, in no way limits its appropriateness given the nature of the Eucharist.

Similarly with Papal Infallibility. Read up on the Councils. The councils became binding when the Pope approved them. In ancient times distance and slowness of communication would hamper exercise of primacy. To this day, subsidiarity supposes that the local church handles things appropriate to it. Find and read Bishop Gasser’s Relatio as to infallibility at Vatican I - the official explanation of what the formula of infallibility means.

So the answer is the same charism that allowed the ancient Church to define dogma at the early councils not explicit or not clearly in the Bible, is the same charism that lives in the Church today - and throughout history. Matters of the Deposit of Faith including those matters that flow from it are always part of the Church’s magisterium.

So the Church can say dogmatically what the relation between the 3 persons of the Trinity is and how there is only 1 God; how the 2 natures of Jesus are joined in 1 person; why is appropriate to call Mary “Mother of God”, why Eucharistic Adoration is appropriate and what is Papal Infallibility…

Does that make sense?
 
TNMan said:
But Jesus in the Last Supper said “take this all of you and eat it.” He didn’t tell us to anything else. And this is a practice that didn’t become widespread until the 16th century. There’s no mention of it in the Apostolic writings. I understand Church authority, but this feels like something that’s “added on” when it’s not something that we ever see Jesus or the Blessed Apostles mentioning.
Click to expand...
Adoration is a devotional practice that can develop and is used to literally adore Christ in the vessel He wished to manifest Himself. Think of the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus wanted His apostles to stay up with Him and pray. Jesus doesn’t have to explicitly command this, but it’s implicit on how much respect we have for the Eucharist. He asks us to stay with Him and pray.
TNMan said:
But Papal Infallibility (I know it’s been used only twice), is just not something we see in the early Church. Yes, Rome was seen as the “first among equals,” and there is a primacy there, but not a supremacy.
Click to expand...
A primacy is a form of supremacy, the Pope is first among equals. This again is implicit in what the Church thought all along, because they respected the authority of the Pope. Infallibility should be expected when we have a divine authority established by Christ. You can read more here: https://www.catholic.com/qa/did-the-early-church-fathers-espouse-papal-infallibility
 
Last edited:
Makes sense. I don’t know if it’s pride or what that’s giving me pause on some of these things.

I guess I sometimes don’t see the need to “define” smaller (in terms of salvation) things. I accept the teaching that the Blessed Mother was ever-virgin. I accept calling her Mother of God (I don’t mean to say that she is smaller or to diminish her importance).

Maybe it’s 30+ years in a Protestant (mostly Presbyterian, now Lutheran) background where, especially the Lutheran Church, just leaves things to “mystery.”
 
Popes have invoked infallibility quite often, many more times than the two cases you allude to. The whole point of Vatican I’s definition was to defend a doctrine that already existed (they either exist from the beginning or they are not true). Vatican I set forth the framework by which infallibility could be more clearly recognized and understood.
 
TNMan said:
…
Click to expand...
The Trinity and Christology is what gave most difficulties to the early Church. These are not described in scripture except in a dispersed form across all sources.
  • Nicaea, 325 A.D. – Affirmed the divinity of the Son.
  • Constantinople I, 381 A.D. – Affirmed the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
  • Ephesus, 431 A.D. – Affirmed that Jesus Christ’s divinity and humanity are united in one person.
  • Chalcedon, 451 A.D. – Affirmed two natures, unconfused, in Jesus Christ in one person.
  • Constantinople II, 553 A.D. – Affirmed two natures possessed by one person, the Son of God.
  • Constantinople III, 680-681 A.D. – Affirmed that Jesus Christ possessed two energies and two wills.
  • Nicaea II, 787 A.D. – Affirmed adoration for God, the three persons of the Trinity, including Christ’s human nature. Affirmed veneration of holy images.
 
Last edited:
As a Lutheran, I accept these 7 ecumenical councils.

As I’m sure is the case with most converts, the devotion to the Blessed Mother is another stumbling block. I know that if I were to become a Catholic, praying to her (even though her intercession is asked for in the Mass) is not something that’s necessary, praying the Rosary isn’t necessary (I do love the Divine Chaplet, however). I understand her importance. I think today’s Evangelicals have gone too far out of their way to make her seem just another person.

But to the point, yes, we see devotions to her at a fairly early point (I think~3rd-4th century) but it seems to really look different than it did then.

I feel like I’m rambling so my apologies.
 
I think you are making perfectly reasonable objections. You need to work through them. Perfectly understandable.

I think one thing that might be helpful is to consider why you accept the 7 Councils? Presumably its because they were conducted by the Church… If Catholicism is that same Church - which is what it claims - then don’t the rest follow?

Keep in mind the Oriental Church left after Chalcedon. The Orthodox left after Florence. The Old Catholics left after Vatican I. Of course, from the perspective of the Orientals, Orthodox and Old Catholics it was the Catholic Church that “left” as it fell into heresy.

Of the things you mention it appears to me that Papal Infallibility is most troubling. It’s highly nuanced and often described wrongly. Hence I suggest reading the Relatio of Bishop Gasser. It, of course, ties to the promise of God to be with His Church always…it is related to the infallibility of the Church from God. Only God is absolutely infallible.

For me, it makes sense that a single person - here the Pope - is where you can find this Truth. Otherwise you have a terrible time telling what’s right and what’s not. Majority decision of the Bishops? We’ve many times seen the majority come and go…it’s not terribly reliable. Acceptance by the “people”? How does one even measure this? It strikes me that the issue that Protestants have is not so much the role or existence of the Pope - as much as each Protestant wants to BE the Pope. That quip has a nugget in that there is a strong streak in Protestantism that each person decides everything. Hardly a prescription for declaring Truth. Better to have a single locus of that ability to proclaim the Truth especially when it’s part of a college of Bishops that support, question and interact with the Pope on such issues. You won’t find a definitive answer outside of Faith. That’s the nature of it.
 
Last edited:
TNMan said:
As a Lutheran, I accept these 7 ecumenical councils.
…
But to the point, yes, we see devotions to her at a fairly early point (I think~3rd-4th century) but it seems to really look different than it did then.
…
Click to expand...
The Calvinists rejected Nicaea II.

After Ephesus (431 A.D.) the hymn to the Theotokos increased in use in the liturgy of the Church. These are still use in the liturgy of the eastern Catholic churches.
 
TNMan said:
Another example is the claim of Papal Infallibility. I have no issue with a Pope. I have no issue with the structure of the hierarchy. But Papal Infallibility (I know it’s been used only twice), is just not something we see in the early Church. Yes, Rome was seen as the “first among equals,” and there is a primacy there, but not a supremacy.
Click to expand...
Hello. If you haven’t already read The Early Papacy - to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451; Adrian Fortescue; Ignatius Press - I would like to recommend it to you, all 109 pages.
 
Yes. I come from a family of Maronite Catholics. Absolutely beautiful liturgy.
 
Best to think of infallibility as a negative quality. There’s no assurance the pope will speak the truth - he doesn’t know everything - but if he does teach under certain conditions, it won’t be wrong.

Consider this as part of the Magisterium. If there’s no authoritative magisterium, we don’t know what books are in the NT, we don’t have a NT at all.
 
Just to chime in about the correct distinction between doctrine and devotional practices, as others have explained. The Church’s history is such that different devotional practices evolve and often arise in particular cultures and times. Clearly we see many of these, such as Adoration, as guided by the Holy Spirit in their evolving and growth. Just because these practices did not exist from the early Church in no way suggests they are “wrong.”
I rather think your remaining issues about the Catholic Church will be resolved really quickly once you take the “leap.” Step out in faith and keep your eye on Jesus!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top