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

[Jehoshua]

I think the difference between the west in the east in this case is that the west has had to deal with a persistent heresy that denies fundamentals like the real presence. Whereas in the east heresies of similar disbelief fell long ago with the remainder of the heresies still holding to these fundamentals, thus they didn;t require the further definitions that the west has put in place.

Ill try not to start a flame war on papal infallibility but its a logical step building on infallibility of the church. If the pope pronounces something on faith and morals this infallibility of the church kicks in because otherwise we would be led into doctrinal error. Now of course the pope pronounces things offically extremely rarely and everything else he says is perfectly fallible but I think what confuses people is that they think everything he says is fallible which is not true. (Not saying that most people here understand the actual doctrine) But it to me is not really a development of infallibility of the church but a defining of this same doctrine in a specific circumstance. It is understandable though too an eastern view how this may be troublesome considering the different organisational structures.

As to the filioque you must remember that the greek filioque in the Catholic Church does not have the filioque because due to differences in the precise meaning of words (omnipotens = all-powerful vs pantokrator = ruler of all: for example) it is considered to be heretical to put the filioque in the greek. Thus you can see that due to this linguistic confusion that its quite possible that the inclusion in latin was not normalised earlier precisely due to this confusion, even though it is maintained that in the latin the filioque is by no means heretical but due to the fact that in the greek it would be abject heresy.

No need to be sorry of course if you believe something your not going to say “oh but your beliefs are perfectly fine too” that would be the heresy of relativism. Of course to me the doctrines are the valid further defining of doctrine, but you can hold your view its my (and others) job to try and show you that it is a valid defining and deepening of the doctrine both east and west universally believes.

 

[Wesley7]

I have the Catechism which contains explanations of many doctrines.

 

[catharina]

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.

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!).

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.

Rome stands. It (its doctirnes) separate from no one. Others have separated from Rome.

 

[dzheremi]

That’s a nice declarative statement you’ve got there, but it’s rather unpersuasive and shallow. Sorry.

 

[catharina]

That’s a nice declarative statement you’ve got there, but it’s rather unpersuasive and shallow. Sorry.

If you are addressing me re my post, then what you have offered is your opinion. So be it.

 

[dzheremi]

Indeed, but with reasons. You may not like them, but they’re there.

 

[catharina]

Indeed, but with reasons. You may not like them, but they’re there.

Whatever your reasons, that’s your business, not mine.

 

[Wesley7]

Rome stands. It (its doctirnes) separate from no one. Others have separated from Rome.

. . That doesn’t help the state of Catholicism in America anyway.

 

[cruiseladytexas]

I think it would be good to read St Thomas Aquinas “Summa Theologica” Part I - Question I - “The Nature and Extent of Sacred Doctrine”.

 

[twosweetgirls]

the Church has doctrines because we have questions. If you don’t have definitive answers, what do you have?

Protestantism.

 

[Cruxis117]

. . That doesn’t help the state of Catholicism in America anyway.

What is meant by the above statement?

 

[Cat_Herder]

I think we need some clarification here:

Why does the Catholic Church and the Vatican have so many doctrines** as compared to what?**

 

[dzheremi]

As compared to other churches that don’t have as many, I’d assume…

 

[catharina]

As compared to other churches that don’t have as many, I’d assume…

Or as compared to religious groups that allow members to invent their own doctrines?

 

[Cat_Herder]

As compared to other churches that don’t have as many, I’d assume…

But which one? Methodism for example has plenty, as does Lutheranism, Anglicanism and so on.

 

[dzheremi]

Or as compared to religious groups that allow members to invent their own doctrines?

Such are not the only churches that have fewer doctrines than the Catholic Church.

 

[catharina]

Such are not the only churches that have fewer doctrines than the Catholic Church.

I would guess that most churches have far fewer doctrines that the Catholic Church.
For one one thing, such groups are relatively ‘young’ compared to the Catholic Church.

 

[roveau]

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

I know the conversation will have changed by now but in answer to the OP:

The Church has many doctrines because it is a means of preserving unity and the faith - a sure way of passing down the faith unaltered to the latest generations. It preserves the Church from error and heresy.

 

[UNITE_MY_WILL]

1Timothy 3:15 … the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

2Timothy 4:1-5 ** I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power: proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching.** For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths. But you, be self-possessed in all circumstances; put up with hardship; perform the work of an evangelist; fulfill your ministry.

Peace,
T

 

[Wesley7]

What is meant by the above statement?

I think the Vatican is a Theocratic state while America is mixed with democracy.