Why does the Catholic Church and the Vatican have so many doctrines? .

[pismopal]

Why does the Catholic Church and the Vatican have so many doctrines? . .

The Catholic Church is the oldest institution in the western world. You can find the essence of the Church in the Nicene Creed but doctrine is necessary and desirable in a religion that is so intricately a part of our lives.
What is your objection…mon ami?

 

[Jehoshua]

The Catholic Church is the oldest institution in the western world. :

correction: it is the oldest institution in the world.

 

[FightingFat]

Looks like Wesley has left the building!

My answer to his question would be to say that the Church has doctrines because we have questions. If you don’t have definitive answers, what do you have?

 

[pismopal]

correction: it is the oldest institution in the world.

I think you must count Hinduism as an institution and it is far older than Christianity. I used the modifier “western world”, purposefully. I hope you don’t mind…

 

[dzheremi]

Nobody’s going to argue that the faith is simple? Really? Just me and the Coptic monk? Wow…am I fish out of water here? Not sure how to feel about that one.

Have any of you ever been to a monastery? If so, did it seem complex or simple (or something else, in between or otherwise)? I went to a Benedictine monastery once. Its simplicity and austerity were quite affecting to me, but I only have one set of eyes to see it through…

 

[Jehoshua]

I think you must count Hinduism as an institution and it is far older than Christianity. I used the modifier “western world”, purposefully. I hope you don’t mind…

Hinduism is not an institution like the Catholic Church, its not organised as such. Hinduism is basically a system of guru’s and many different inter-related sects founded by these guru’s so you have the aghori;s, naga sadhu’s, bishnoi, Swaminarayan and many others all within hinduism. However except for swaminarayan these groups arent organised either and are more of a group of people following related philosophies based on a particular guru (swaminarayan faith was founded in the british raj btw)

It is simply not organised into an institution like the Church and so although it is the oldest religion in the world (bar animism) it can not be said to be the oldest institution because its not a centralised organisational structure and because over time the various forms change. (the vedic religion at the time of early christianity and earlier is very different from todays hinduism)

And thus the Catholic Church remains as the oldest institution in the world.

 

[Protestant101]

because they have been revealed by God

why do you post a question about CAtholic doctrine on the non-Catholic forum? you have been around long enough to know the forum rules, and that specific questions on specific doctrines are discussed on the apologetics forum, so you will find it much more rewarding to ask your question there.

I would imagine that the stated purpose of “comparing & contrasting” beliefs would answer your question?

 

[pismopal]

Hinduism is not an institution like the Catholic Church, its not organised as such. Hinduism is basically a system of guru’s and many different inter-related sects founded by these guru’s so you have the aghori;s, naga sadhu’s, bishnoi, Swaminarayan and many others all within hinduism. However except for swaminarayan these groups arent organised either and are more of a group of people following related philosophies based on a particular guru (swaminarayan faith was founded in the british raj btw)

It is simply not organised into an institution like the Church and so although it is the oldest religion in the world (bar animism) it can not be said to be the oldest institution because its not a centralised organisational structure and because over time the various forms change. (the vedic religion at the time of early christianity and earlier is very different from todays hinduism)

And thus the Catholic Church remains as the oldest institution in the world.

You seen to be altering the definition to make your case. Whatever…we will agree to disagree. I am thankful to be a member of the oldest institution in the WESTERN WORLD.

 

[Jehoshua]

I can accept that we can agree to disagree, its not like our little discussion was on the topic of morals and faith, otherwise we would be guilty of the heresy of moral relativism.

I do not think i was altering the definition though.

 

[Augustus24]

Because there have been lots of enemies of the church who challenged orthodox Christian teaching with their heretical views forcing the church to define doctrine.

 

[Church_Militant]

Because there have been lots of enemies of the church who challenged orthodox Christian teaching with their heretical views forcing the church to define doctrine.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

let’s see. . .perhaps the faith seems simple at the Benedictine monastery because the monks are not ‘out in the world’ (as most of us have to be) and the monks are not living among a much larger group ‘over’ them (as we have to be) and not interacting on a regular basis with that larger group which is not Catholic (as we have to be). . .

I think you’ve just proved my earlier point --because of the Catholic faith having to be ‘defended’ against those who refuse to practice it in some way, it may ‘appear’ complex. . .but if you didn’t have to go out of your way explaining every single practice, or defending every single ‘jot and tittle’, it would not be so ‘complex’ when it is actually lived. . .

 

[dzheremi]

Hmm. I don’t really understand that explanation, or see how I’m helping to prove anything you’ve written. Because people aren’t Catholic, Catholics have to have a lot of doctrines? That doesn’t really make a lot of sense. Keeping with the Coptic example: Most people in Egypt aren’t Coptic, but the Coptic Orthodox Church didn’t react to losing its place as the majority faith of the society by formulating a lot of doctrines.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hmm. I don’t really understand that explanation, or see how I’m helping to prove anything you’ve written. Because people aren’t Catholic, Catholics have to have a lot of doctrines? That doesn’t really make a lot of sense. Keeping with the Coptic example: Most people in Egypt aren’t Coptic, but the Coptic Orthodox Church didn’t react to losing its place as the majority faith of the society by formulating a lot of doctrines.

When it comes to CATHOLICISM or the Catholic faith, here in the Western World, specifically in the U.S. which is heavily Protestant, and to a certain degree anti-Catholic, we can see that because of a history of Protestant ‘protests’ it was necessary for the Catholics to make ‘clear’ what Protestants had ‘misunderstood’. And because those misunderstandings tended to ‘mushroom’, and because we are dealing with Catholics not simply confined to one country but representing the entire world (meaning it wasn’t just nonCoptic Egyptians who questioned Catholic practices, but every nonCatholic individual or group you could imagine), it may APPEAR (I know I said earlier something about ‘appearances’) that the faith looks more ‘complex’.

Suppose you have a person who likes spaghetti with meatballs.

That person gets approached by a vegetarian who asks him how he can POSSIBLY eat ‘flesh’. He responds that in Italy this dish has existed for centuries, it’s part of his ‘cultural heritage’.

Another person comes on to respond that Italy never existed per se until the 19th century so claiming that spaghetti and meatballs is Italian culture is bogus.

Another comes on to claim that spaghetti is really a Chinese innovation brought by Marco Polo.

Another comes on to say that carbohydrates are bad for people.

Still others complain that this dish perpetuates ‘stereotypes’.

Or that it is ‘low class’

Etc. etc.

It should be a simple thing for a person to say he likes spaghetti and meatballs, but look at how MANY PETTY STUPID ARGUMENTS PEOPLE CAN BRING UP TO ATTACK THIS POOR MAN’S WANTING TO EAT IT.

And if he had to keep on responding to these arguments because every single DAY he would have dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of people arguing with him. . .he might write a book to explain himself, and I guess people would start to complain, “its ONLY spaghetti and meatballs, why is he making such an EFFORT to justify wanting to eat it?”

 

[KathleenGee]

The Catholic Church has alot of doctrines because there are alot of errors.

 

[dzheremi]

When it comes to CATHOLICISM or the Catholic faith, here in the Western World, specifically in the U.S. which is heavily Protestant, and to a certain degree anti-Catholic, we can see that because of a history of Protestant ‘protests’ it was necessary for the Catholics to make ‘clear’ what Protestants had ‘misunderstood’.

But the doctrines that separate the Catholic Church for the rest of the apostolic churches were formulated before the Protestant reformation, before the U.S.A. was ever around, etc. I don’t really see what Protestants have to do with anything; it’s not as though Protestants invented the idea that the Roman Pope is not infallible or any of the other things that could be argued are misunderstandings.

And because those misunderstandings tended to ‘mushroom’, and because we are dealing with Catholics not simply confined to one country but representing the entire world (meaning it wasn’t just nonCoptic Egyptians who questioned Catholic practices, but every nonCatholic individual or group you could imagine), it may APPEAR (I know I said earlier something about ‘appearances’) that the faith looks more ‘complex’.

Er…okay. I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say here. Coptic Egyptians questioned Catholic practices because of the mushrooming misunderstandings of European Protestants?

Suppose you have a person who likes spaghetti with meatballs.

That person gets approached by a vegetarian who asks him how he can POSSIBLY eat ‘flesh’. He responds that in Italy this dish has existed for centuries, it’s part of his ‘cultural heritage’.

Another person comes on to respond that Italy never existed per se until the 19th century so claiming that spaghetti and meatballs is Italian culture is bogus.

Another comes on to claim that spaghetti is really a Chinese innovation brought by Marco Polo.

Another comes on to say that carbohydrates are bad for people.

Still others complain that this dish perpetuates ‘stereotypes’.

Or that it is ‘low class’

Etc. etc.

It should be a simple thing for a person to say he likes spaghetti and meatballs, but look at how MANY PETTY STUPID ARGUMENTS PEOPLE CAN BRING UP TO ATTACK THIS POOR MAN’S WANTING TO EAT IT.

The man can eat spaghetti all he wants. I don’t see how this analogy is helpful or illustrative of any greater point.

And if he had to keep on responding to these arguments because every single DAY he would have dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of people arguing with him. . .he might write a book to explain himself, and I guess people would start to complain, “its ONLY spaghetti and meatballs, why is he making such an EFFORT to justify wanting to eat it?”

It seems that you are saying that these new doctrines are defined for apologetic purposes. OK. Apologetics is something that all churches engage in, and if that’s what the RCC views the development of doctrine as necessary for, that’s fine. So I won’t try to stop you from “eating the spaghetti”, but I will say that from a non-Catholic perspective, when you have to read through 500 pages of instructions before you can start boiling the water to cook the spaghetti (especially when the content of the instructions appears to be different depending on when you’re cooking the spaghetti…historically-speaking…), you can hardly blame the man for looking for something else to eat.

Now if you’ll excuse me, this post has made me hungry…!

 

[Augustus24]

The Catholic Church has alot of doctrines because there are alot of errors.

Indeed, even a cursory reading of Church history will show that heretics frequently force the Church’s hand, forcing them to define doctrine. For example, the Seventh Ecumenical Council was a response to the Iconoclast heresy, and the Council of Trent was a response to the protestant heresy.

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes, and heretics already were abandoning Christ…not persevering in Him…like those who abandoned Him right before the Last Supper.

 

[Jehoshua]

dzheremi:

I think what Tantum Ergo is trying to say is that the doctrines were further defined over the centuries sometimes because of the challenges of protestants, but generally they have been believed since the earliest days of the Church, long before protestants.

---

So you had the real presence and this was universally believed for example, and then some protestants showed up and said that it was merely symbolic, only then did the church define the process, before undefined that the presence came into being by transubstantiation. This was believed before hand that it became the body and blood of christ in its entirety, not alongside anything else but merely keeping accidents of bread and wine. But due to the denials of protestants the church defined in dogmatic terms how this came to be in an ecumenical council.

Others such as the annunciation were believed long before hand, and only recently did the church define it as dogma to be believed by all christians (note that it is not dogma whether Mary was taken into heaven already having died, or being still alive). This may be defined in the catholic church but it is still believed by the Orthodox for example despite them having never defined it as dogma. This one may not have been defined becauses of protestants and i cant say authoritatively why it was defined, but for me i think it was defined to re-affirm the Catholic faith in response to internal factors.

Others such as papal infallibility where believed long beforehand, and resulted from logical insights into previously existing beliefs (infallibility of the church) so that for example in this case it was defined that the pope is infallible when speaking authoritatively on faith and morals ex cathedra, because it is believed that the holy spirit will never lead the church into doctrinal error. So this is a logical extension of that. (he can still be wrong outside of this strict criteria)

---

So basically i think that the church has many more doctrines and beliefs defined as true by the church compared to the eastern churches, because it has decided to respond to errors promulgated in its backyard challenging beliefs already believed but not defined, due to challenges to orthodoxy within the church at times, and to reaffirm the Catholic Faith in the environment of surrounding protestantism, or perhaps simply because it has seen fit to define things already believed at a particular time.

 

[dzheremi]

So you had the real presence and this was universally believed for example, and then some protestants showed up and said that it was merely symbolic, only then did the church define the process, before undefined that the presence came into being by transubstantiation. This was believed before hand that it became the body and blood of christ in its entirety, not alongside anything else but merely keeping accidents of bread and wine. But due to the denials of protestants the church defined in dogmatic terms how this came to be in an ecumenical council.

The problem that I have with this is basically the same as the problem that I have with the rest of this school of defenses: Other apostolic communions have believed in these things in common with Rome (such as the real presence) without having to make some sort of doctrine to explain how they came about. For another example, the Orthodox churches also believe in the infallibility of the Church, but have not granted their individual patriarchs or any one particular person within any of them infallibility by any means. So I don’t understand why all these things were necessary pronouncements for the Roman church when the churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, etc. have also dealt with people who deny the truth of the Christian faith, but have managed to do so without consolidating ultimate responsibility and authority in one person, or adding any new doctrinal pronouncements to the faith.

Others such as papal infallibility where believed long beforehand, and resulted from logical insights into previously existing beliefs (infallibility of the church) so that for example in this case it was defined that the pope is infallible when speaking authoritatively on faith and morals ex cathedra, because it is believed that the holy spirit will never lead the church into doctrinal error. So this is a logical extension of that. (he can still be wrong outside of this strict criteria)

I’m going to say this despite the fact that I know in advance that it always results in an ECF quote-mining war, so if you would grant me the kindness of refraining from that (as I will here), I must say that Papal infallibility has never been a feature of church governance or authority outside of Rome’s relative recent dogmatic declaration that it is so. See the previous paragraph. Even the “Orthodox with a Pope” Copts find any such suggestion extremely strange (I’ve asked them, and boy did I get an earful!).

So basically i think that the church has many more doctrines and beliefs defined as true by the church compared to the eastern churches, because it has decided to respond to errors promulgated in its backyard challenging beliefs already believed but not defined, due to challenges to orthodoxy within the church at times, and to reaffirm the Catholic Faith in the environment of surrounding protestantism, or perhaps simply because it has seen fit to define things already believed at a particular time.

If these things were everywhere and always believed then how to do explain, for instance, Pope Leo III’s inscription of the Nicene Creed purposely without the filioque clause, placed out of love and defense as it was for protection of the orthodox faith? The Roman Church and her popes fought for several hundred years against the inclusion of that clause which the Roman Catholic Church now takes as normative.

I’m sorry…I understand that it is the heretics who cause doctrine to be written, and I have no problem with that system, but that is not what I see when looking at the particular doctrines that separate the Roman Catholic Church and its communion from the rest of apostolic Christianity.