So, just what are the basic doctrinal teachings of the Church?

[guanophore]

This material was moved from another thread where it was off topic.

ALLGIRLS:

So, just what are the basic doctrinal teachings of the Church? I would say certainly not Mary’s perpetual virginity, or the traditon of celibacy. And at this time I disagree with the tradition of priestly celibacy, and wonder how central or true Mary’s perpetual virginity is to our faith.

 Um, yeah, Mary's perpetual virginity IS a doctrinal teaching of the faith, that we are bound to believe.

Priestly celibacy, on the other hand, is a discipline, so it could one day be changed, so it’s fine if you disagree with it.

I think a good litmus test on what’s doctrine/dogma and what’s discpline or “small t” tradition, is asking “Has the Church always taught this, and/or could this be changed?” That may be too simplistic, so others can correct me or elaborate if they like. But everything about Mary that has to do w/ Jesus is doctrine.

In Christ,

Ellen

Mt_28_19_20:

Um, yeah, like don’t ya know Mary’s perpetual virginity IS a doctrinal teaching? You probably even recognize how important Against Helvidius is to that teaching, and who wrote that, and in what year (which was around the time that celibacy started to take on more importance in the opinion of some. Notice that didn’t “catch-on” in some other Catholic rites. Have you read Jerome’s defense? Not as convincing as those who refer to it would have led me to believe, leading me to wonder how many actually toke the time to read what they reference.

Anyway, back to my point, what are the basic teachings of the Church? I’m not talking about the trim, or upper rooms to the house, I’m talking about the foundations. Core, central. Is someone thinks perpetual virginity or celibacy are basic, foundational teachings, I would be concerned. Though not surprised. That would seem analogous to having a beautiful house, with nice trim and all, built on sandy ground in a flood zone. Better to build it on solid rocks, the basics.

Interestingly, some would say it is not permitted for me to disagree with a changeable "t"radition, and others would say it is permitted. Guess that’s similar to some thinking Dave is not allowed to disagree, and others like myself who think Dave can disagree if he does so after proper thought and consideration, and not about a truly central, basic tenet of our faith. Like something in the Apostle’s creed.

“But everything about Mary that has to do w/ Jesus is doctrine.” Perhaps it might be better viewed as everything about Jesus that has to do with Mary is doctrine. That may be word-picking, however, Jesus is God, and died for our sins. Jesus is central, Mary is a creature just as you and I, only God chose her for a unique role.

By the way, the litmus test you mention, might not give a passing grade for perpetual virginity. Isn’t it curious the Pope at the time asked Jerome to give a defense of perpetual virginity? Wouldn’t the Pope have known how to, if it was a central teaching through the years?

Michael

 

[guanophore]

This material was moved from another thread where it was off topic.

Mt_28_19_20:

The Apostle’s Creed? Exactly, as I’ve mentioned several times in this thread already, including post #66. I don’t see celibacy or perpetual virginity mentioned there, do you? So, yes indeed, the Creed tells us the basics of our faith.

If something was taught from the beginning, there would be a trail of documentation, such as in the Early Church Fathers, and Sacred Scripture, and other correspondance. If this was a basic teaching held from the beginning, I would hope the Pope wouldn’t have to ask someone else to explain it, and defend it. Do you really think it was taught as a basic truth of faith, and was not until 383 A.D. that it was documented/defended? Notice the three main points of the document:
“1st. That Joseph was only putatively, not really, the husband of Mary.
2d. That the “brethren” of the Lord were his cousins, not his own brethren.
3d. That virginity is better than the married state.”
Where do we read these in the Apostle’s creed?

Michael

The church does not teach that virginity is “better” than a married state. It is different, and the teaching we have from Jesus and the Apostles is that a person who is unmarried is more free to give themselves fully to the kingdom, because they are not immediately responsible for other people, specifically their spouse and children.

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. A devout man such as Joseph would be well acquainted with the consequences of putting one’s hand upon the Ark of God.

Mt_28_19_20:

How about this. “Michael, you obviously disagree with priestly celibacy.” If you want to call it a big problem, that speaks to your point of view. Still no comment on 1 Tim 3:2-5, 12? Figured.

And yes, I have started five threads related to celibacy, including this one: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=174326
So, the one thing I disagree with, I ask about. Funny how that works, isn’t it? Seeing if someone else can teach me or help me understand, or whether my questions are valid points.

So, go ahead, 1 Tim 3 (and don’t forget about what 1 Tim 4 says about forbidding marriage).

Michael

I think the notion that priestly celibacy is equal to “forbidding marriage” is a protestant misconception. The Catholic Church does not in any way “forbid marriage”. However, she strives to practice what Jesus taught about marriage. Jesus taught that those who could be eunuchs for God are blessed with a special gift, and if they were able to receive it, they should do so. the church recognizes that it is best if the priests should be those who have been blessed with this gift. It has nothing to do with forbidding marriage.