Sacred Tradition, Dogma, and Ecclesia

[Jaberwocky]

Well, Jabber, after 29 posts where you pound the table with your theories, you’d think we’d all “get it”. (Add the 27 posts in the other thread.) We don’t, and you can type out another 56 posts affirming your views, and we will still disagree that your theology is in agreement with scripture, tradition, and Church teaching. It is purely YOUR opinion, which we believe is bizarre, adamant, pedantic, and any other pertinent adjective that describes your activity here.

Please know that you may continue many more posts with your last words. I and the others will still disagree. You have a strange obsessive mindset with regard to this, and strive to force-feed it upon others indisciminately and relentlessly. Is this the way of Jesus, who allowed others to walk away in John 6, when folks had difficulty coping with His teaching? He did not run after them. You are attempting to coerce folks here when obviously they do not accept it. So yes, this is a very unholy attitude, very un-Christ-like and highly imprudent, devoid of wisdom and love for your neighbor. Note well, the Church has put forth in several of her documents that nobody is to be coerced with regard to the faith. If so, She will condemn the act. Mystici Corporis.

You’ll not see my face in this thread again. So carry on.

Well lets be clear on somethings.

The Church has been around for 2000 years now and there are many and will continue to be many who do not agree with her nor understand her. So I think the metric that you do not understand or agree with what I am saying is hardly a metric on the invalidity of what I say.

Therefore, let me present my case as I presented it to otjm above and you can explain to me, our of charity, as to what is wrong with my argument.

I argue that

1. Doctrine is necessary for love but not sufficient.

I further refute all your Scriptural statements that are presented against the statement that “Doctrine is necessary” as being misunderstood by you. I claim that all the Scriptural statements you present merely acknowledge that “Doctrine is not sufficient”.

So doctrine is not just a tool. It is necessary is what I contend.

Please do present to me your explanation as to what is wrong with the above.

 

[simple_soul]

I have a question, and I hope no one is offended if I intrude on this thread…but.was there doctrine when Adam and Eve were created?

 

[Jaberwocky]

I am sure no one will be offended and I think its a great question.

The answer to my mind is “yes”. These doctrine would be

1. God created the World
2. God created Adam
3. God created Eve
4. Adam must protect Eve and the Garden
5. Adam & Eve must never eat of the “Tree of Knowledge of good and evil” (As Dr. Scott Hahn explains, knowledge here does not mean “knowledge of morals but authority to dictate morals”)
6. Doctrine of Marriage and its indissolubility
7. God wants whats best for them.

I am sure a more careful reading of Genesis will present more but those are the Doctrines that Adam and Eve held.

It is also interesting to note that the sin of Adam and Eve was not an act of hate as we would usually consider it. It was of disobedience to a command of God (doctrine).

To add, as I quoted elsewhere in another thread (in which we are discussing the same question), St. John says

2 John 1:5-6

“But now, dear lady, I ask you, not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but one we have had from the beginning, let us love one another. And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment just as you have heard it from the beginning—you must walk in it.”

So it seems clear to me that one can never love if they do not know doctrine. Just to be clear though, I do not mean that one has to know this as “Doctrine” or “Catholic” or even learn it consciously. It is the case that one learns many of the commands of God simply by human nature. God has written the natural law in our hearts though we can fool ourselves and distort how we identify from it.

Therefore this discussions is not about how one comes to know “Doctrine” but rather on the necessity of knowing it nevertheless.

 

[simple_soul]

I am sure no one will be offended and I think its a great question.

The answer to my mind is “yes”. These doctrine would be

1. God created the World
2. God created Adam
3. God created Eve
4. Adam must protect Eve and the Garden
5. Adam & Eve must never eat of the “Tree of Knowledge of good and evil” (As Dr. Scott Hahn explains, knowledge here does not mean “knowledge of morals but authority to dictate morals”)
6. Doctrine of Marriage and its indissolubility
7. God wants whats best for them.

I am sure a more careful reading of Genesis will present more but those are the Doctrines that Adam and Eve held.

It is also interesting to note that the sin of Adam and Eve was not an act of hate as we would usually consider it. It was of disobedience to a command of God (doctrine).

To add, as I quoted elsewhere in another thread (in which we are discussing the same question), St. John says

2 John 1:5-6

“But now, dear lady, I ask you, not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but one we have had from the beginning, let us love one another. And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment just as you have heard it from the beginning—you must walk in it.”

So it seems clear to me that one can never love if they do not know doctrine. Just to be clear though, I do not mean that one has to know this as “Doctrine” or “Catholic” or even learn it consciously. It is the case that one learns many of the commands of God simply by human nature. God has written the natural law in our hearts though we can fool ourselves and distort how we identify from it.

Therefore this discussions is not about how one comes to know “Doctrine” but rather on the necessity of knowing it nevertheless.

Ok, but how does one learn that it is a necessity?

 

[Jaberwocky]

Ok, but how does one learn that it is a necessity?

Are you asking with respect to learning that it is a “necessity to know doctrine”?

The necessity is actually logical. St. Thomas points out for an example how it is logically impossible to love what we do not know.

Apart from that, I feel we can arrive at the same conclusion from Scripture and also the following line of reasoning based on first definitions.

1. Love is to will the good of another
2. What is good for another is dictated by God (we may come to know it through the Church or some other means)
3. Therefore, we cannot love if we do not have knowledge of what God commands of us

In such ways, one can become aware of the necessity of knowledge for love.

The only reasons I can think of as to why many sometimes do not see this truth is

1. because they subscribe to an incorrect definition of love, most likely based on emotions
2. they mistake the fact that sometimes non-Catholics can act in loving ways to be proof that knowledge is not necessary (when the correct conclusion is that the non-Catholics have simply come to know the same truths through true elements in their faith)
3. because they do not like Church doctrine and would like to use “love” as a way to bend the rules.

 

[simple_soul]

Are you asking with respect to learning that it is a “necessity to know doctrine”?

I am asking to try and understand how you come to not understand what others have been trying to help you understand. I thought if I could understand I could maybe help you with understanding what they are saying and maybe help them understand what it is you are saying and not getting from what they are saying but I believe from this responce of yours that I can not help in this matter. I will leave it to the Grace of God and bow out.

My prayers are with you, please keep me in yours too and maybe some day I will be able to understand you and what exactly you are trying to say…for now I have to leave you in God’s hands as I do not believe I can understand you as I thought I might have been able too.

 

[pnewton]

So it seems clear to me that one can never love if they do not know doctrine. Just to be clear though, I do not mean that one has to know this as “Doctrine” or “Catholic” or even learn it consciously.

I think the biggest argument against this are those who do not have the mental capacity to know doctrine, but who love the most purely: little children and the mental disabled.

 

[Jaberwocky]

I think the biggest argument against this are those who do not have the mental capacity to know doctrine, but who love the most purely: little children and the mental disabled.

But this is objection presumes that little children do not know anything. As I said before, the knowledge maybe infused, engraved in our hearts or other things. So someone who has learning disabilities or has not “learned” can still know doctrine. Indeed they must or they cannot truly love.

 

[pnewton]

So someone who has learning disabilities or has not “learned” can still know doctrine. Indeed they must or they cannot truly love.

So you believe, but you what you believe as evidence of what you believe.

 

[Jaberwocky]

So you believe, but you what you believe as evidence of what you believe.

Sorry, I am not sure what you are saying there.

 

[pnewton]

Sorry, I am not sure what you are saying there.

I gave an example of love without doctrinal knowledge, unless your definition is so broad as to be practically meaningless (i.e. to know “something”). You respond that they must have know doctrine because they can love. That is circular logic.

 

[Jaberwocky]

I gave an example of love without doctrinal knowledge, unless your definition is so broad as to be practically meaningless (i.e. to know “something”). You respond that they must have know doctrine because they can love. That is circular logic.

Ah, thanks for clarifying.

I should point out that as a matter of logic, I would only need to show how what you state does not contradict what I have proposed. To do so, I am only required to give an explanation of how to reconcile your example. I am not required to give a counter-argument.

So when you said the example of children or disabled, the point I brought forth was that they may still know doctrine though not as Catholic or not as something learned. This is not circular logic since it is not an argument. It is merely an explanation, among possibly many more, on how to reconcile the seeming inconsistency.

To present the argument once again for my position

1. To love is to will the good of another
2. The good of another is defined by doctrine
3. Therefore, one cannot will the good of another unless they know what is a good to will it
4. Therefore, one cannot love another without doctrine

In other words, I contend that if one lays down the definitions of love and other terms involved, it becomes clearer that there can be no love without knowledge of doctrine. In fact, to even claim that is a logical impossibility.

I should also point out that the fact that one has knowledge regarding good and evil (doctrinal knowledge) infused or engraved in their hearts does not make it “not-doctrine”. As long as we acknowledge that knowledge of good and evil is from God alone, then we can only consider that knowledge to be doctrinal knowledge.

 

[clem456]

ok.

 

[Jaberwocky]

If by the image you imply circularity, I should point out that I never made an argument against Pnewton’s example. I only offered an explanation. The argument I have made is not circular. But you are welcome to say why if you think so.

 

[pnewton]

I should also point out that the fact that one has knowledge regarding good and evil (doctrinal knowledge) infused or engraved in their hearts does not make it “not-doctrine”.

Then yes, someone does need some doctrinal knowledge to love (or exist as a sentient being).

 

[simple_soul]

Ah, thanks for clarifying.

I should point out that as a matter of logic, I would only need to show how what you state does not contradict what I have proposed. To do so, I am only required to give an explanation of how to reconcile your example. I am not required to give a counter-argument.

So when you said the example of children or disabled, the point I brought forth was that they may still know doctrine though not as Catholic or not as something learned. This is not circular logic since it is not an argument. It is merely an explanation, among possibly many more, on how to reconcile the seeming inconsistency.

To present the argument once again for my position

1. To love is to will the good of another
2. The good of another is defined by doctrine
3. Therefore, one cannot will the good of another unless they know what is a good to will it
4. Therefore, one cannot love another without doctrine

In other words, I contend that if one lays down the definitions of love and other terms involved, it becomes clearer that there can be no love without knowledge of doctrine. In fact, to even claim that is a logical impossibility.

Then we are all damned and there is no hope because non of us will ever be able to love God Fully?

 

[Jaberwocky]

Then we are all damned and there is no hope because non of us will ever be able to love God Fully?

Well you must do your best. All that I have written only shows that if we simply decide to live in ignorance of the truths revealed to us or disparage them as not being important, then we do risk facing God’s wrath. But as long as we try to know the truths and conform our lives to the truths, God will have mercy on our iniquities.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Then yes, someone does need some doctrinal knowledge to love (or exist as a sentient being).

Indeed. It is certainly true, as in times past, that there are many who have the wrong truths or distorted truths. That is why it is important, as always, to make sure good doctrine is taught (or the gospel preached).

For ignorance of doctrine does not lead to life or love but death!!!

 

[pnewton]

Indeed. It is certainly true, as in times past, that there are many who have the wrong truths or distorted truths. That is why it is important, as always, to make sure good doctrine is taught (or the gospel preached).

For ignorance of doctrine does not lead to life or love but death!!!

Yes, but by the broadness of your definition of doctrine, it is not possible to be a human being without some doctrine.

 

[simple_soul]

Well you must do your best. All that I have written only shows that if we simply decide to live in ignorance of the truths revealed to us or disparage them as not being important, then we do risk facing God’s wrath. But as long as we try to know the truths and conform our lives to the truths, God will have mercy on our iniquities.

Oh Jaberwocky…now you are saying that we can be saved without knowing or having knowledge/doctrine because God will have mercy on our iniquities?