Is doctrinology a heresy?
Very often attitudes and practices slip into our life and times unnoticed. I reading many of the theological blogs here I find that about 70% of them relate to doctrines and the justification of differences. The pronouncements from the Vatican seem to be the same way. Is this the way it is supposed to be? Do we di'sect' the words of Christ or do we follow them? This kind of thinking goes on any time we get into discussing 'vatii', the litturgy, abortion,the hierarchy etc. We never seem to get nearly so involved when we discuss the environment or charity. Is the entire church too much into doctrine or is that the way it is supposed to be?
There may be new ideas in Christianity that need to be cultivated and explored and there may be old ideas that need to be garbaged.
Isaiah's teaching against
Isaiah's teaching against "human commandment learned by rote" and Jesus' prohibition against "teaching human precepts as doctrines" both point to the need for a discernment that distinguishes authentic and presumptuous doctrine. Religious institutions sometimes mistake the latter for the raison de coeur of faith and thereby preempt this necessary discernment.
I agree that doctrine(s) center communities of faith but I think we make a very serious mistake if we think they ground our faith. The "organic" reality of our communions, as you speak of them, mon petit ourson, is what grounds us, as you so eloquently write. Therein lies a dynamic, shared discovery of faith that, I believe, is primarily a holy praxis as well as a ground.
I like placing the perspective of communion(s) at the fore when we consider doctrine. Doctrine should stimulate community as much as 'bind' it; should enliven community with questions as much as establish preemptive answers. Conciliar piety, depending on the date, seems to be a mixed bag depending on what heresy looms large. And, yes indeed, the struggle to find and honor a faith-centre is so important. I think this is only accomplished within diverse faith communities seeking the best way to serve the Kingdom of God within their discrete contexts, AND BY TALKING TO EACH OTHER ABOUT THE LITTLE EPIPHANIES and MYSTERIES ENCOUNTERED IN EACH UNIQUE CONTEXT. Alas, we seem not as yet to have devised a way to share that conversation.
I still think that "if God where a Number She'd be random ..."
Shalom+
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." (John 20:21)
In 2088 will we look back at
In 2088 will we look back at the years 1545 to 2020 as the age of the heresy of doctrinology. Will it be a current or past heresy?
There are three types of doctrine: 1] that what we must believe because of the realities that surround the creator-created relationship.
2] The doctrines that came from the reality of the life of Christ and what he advised
and 3] the doctrines that are invented and imagined by the overzealous in opposition to other Christian denominations or other religious orders for the purpose of self agrandisment.
These may not be the way we were taught but if we look at doctrine from this point of view We might get back to the reality of a harmonious relationship with God
You look back. Me, I plan
You look back. Me, I plan to be busy elsewhere.
As I said in the Mother
As I said in the Mother Jones topic'the church does not get it', when it talks to working men and women. It does great talking to theologians but it lost the majority of plumbers,electricians,sheetrock hangers and painters. It divorced itself from the 'uneducated' a long time ago. I think the next visit for the pope, to wherever it will be he should spend his time listening to the alledged lowest common denominator [the priests who are not craving red and kissing butt,the laity who don't even own a suit,The divorced and abandoned mothers,the young people who are not hanging out at the church and the students who can only afford a two year certificate before being under employed.] The pope can still learn but only if he listens more and talks less
Doctrinology is the Bumper
Doctrinology is the Bumper sticker approach to faith: if I paste it on my rear end, I can be relieved of the bother of actually trying to find God and live in God's Presence.
Jesus addresses the matter of doctrine-dependence in both Matthew (15:4-20) and Mark (7:2ff) and I think His teaching is very instructive to your questions, seven. The famous teaching found in the gospel of Matthew is against hypocrites who defile with doctrine. In quoting Isaiah 29:13, Jesus says:
"You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied rightly about you when he said: “This people honours me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.� ’(13:7-9)
And then Jesus goes on to explain how that which truly defiles comes not from "unclean" practices (prohibited in the Levitical codes) but from the heart.:
"‘Listen and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles.’ ... Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach, and goes out into the sewer? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.’"
How much easier to judge another impure or defiled than to undertake to examine one's own heart! How much easier to spew vitriol against the love of people of the same sex than to seek to understand the deficit of my own heart; to 'defend' an abstract 'right to life' than to take a homeless family into my real life; to judge another's apostasy than to measure the gap between my pietistic rhetoric and my conduct (is that a log in my eye? Mt 7 and Luke 6).
I always find it so striking on this site that the defenders-of-the-faith people recite catechism at the drop of a hat (or beret) but very rarely every EXPLORE (as opposed to weaponize) scripture to discern God's presence in the midst of our common life together.
We, who are the Body of Christ have hearts, indeed, but are they inscribed with God’s Word or tattooed with easy doctrine (got it, Annie O)? I'm not against catechesis or even catechisms, but I understand it to be merely one tool upon which we all rely for the purpose of discernment in dialogue. To give doctrine "loyalty status" is more often than not just the clatter of unexamined 'belief'... very easy; very risk-free.
[By the way, this is NOT an argument for sola scriptura. In my tradition we rely on Hooker's three-legged stool of scripture, reason, and tradition. We want to employ an intelligent and intentional examination of scripture within our faith tradition (catechesis) for the purpose of a discernment that is at once a piety and a prayer. But, of course, all of this depends upon a joyful belief in the CONTINUING REVELATION of GOD that can never be closed off by " human precepts as doctrine." I'm with Jesus on this one.]
So, here's Isaiah's last word (29:13-14)
"The Lord said:
Because these people draw near with their mouths
and honour me with their lips,
while their hearts are far from me,
and their worship of me is a human commandment learned by rote;
so I will again do
amazing things with this people,
shocking and amazing.
The wisdom of their wise shall perish,
and the discernment of the discerning shall be hidden."
Thanks for the wake-up, seven ...
God's peace to you.
e+
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." (John 20:21)
The Deposit of Faith which
The Deposit of Faith which Christ Has entrusted to His Church is Divine Law NOT human precepts.
When I compare what comes
When I compare what comes out of Rome in the way of doctrine with what comes from Jesus there is an obvious credability gap. I still maintain that the gems of art are in the Vatican but the gems of the teaching of Jesus are Saint Vincent dePaul, Catholic Charities, Oxfam,adoptions and other down to earth expressions of caring.
The Holy Spirit would breathe a sigh of relief if half of the offices in the Vatican were to close up.
Sevenup, In 40 years, the
Sevenup, In 40 years, the anti-abortion sign wavers shouting hate rhetoric in front of the newcams has done NOTHING to stem the tide of abortions. Yet, they keep doing the same thing hoping that they will get a better result??? Why?
They keep doing the same thing because their hearts are full of hate, and this is a convenient target that in most cases does not fight back. They dont care about the issue. The care only about having a way to vent their hate and animosity on other people in a way that assuages the self righteousness of the insignificant egos. Take away abortion and they would find another cause.
You very astutely identified the real way to make a difference. Support these and other organizations that are committed to assisting girls and women. What kind of a difference could be made if the abortion protesters gave the money they spent on the advertising, protests, fines and legal expenses to appropriate charities that were dedicated to helping young women? What would be possible if the massive numbers of protesters had chosen to donate the same amount of their time and talents to assist these organizations instead of wasting it waving signs?
The answer .... abortion would not be an issue right now.
The problem ... the anti-abortionists do not want a solution. They only want a safe convenient scapegoat to vent their hatred on. They act the way they do to keep the issue alive so they can continue to be hateful. Look at the faces in the videos, read the rhetoric from the "enlightened" who post on NCR. Look at what they write on their posters. Look at the way they treat God's children. HATE, HATE and more HATE is all you will find. There is no love in their faces or in their hearts.
If the anti-abortion groups were demonstrating love, they would be working and assisting those organizations that are working to make a difference, NOT acting like terrorists. But then, that would require love and compassion, and as has been so often demonstrated, the anti-abortion caucus has neither of these.
While I don't think that
While I don't think that formulating or discussiing doctrine should be "garbaged," I certainly think that the cuurent emphasis on identity and doctrine is the easy way, not the narrow way. It's easier to say you 'think like the church' when that is the trend and go about the rest of life living on the laurels of that group identity than to think things through for yourself and live the virtues--loving others as self and forgiving them as we want to be forgiven.
The narrow way is that of practice, the living of love, charity, and social justice.
I think if people started
I think if people started calling others polluters while pretending that they have no negative impact on the environment, then we might see an uproar over environmental technicalities.
a) Yes and b)no. Actually
a) Yes and b)no.
Actually this is an extremely valuable and interesting topic. Why did Jesus become human and not just write a text book (i.e, catechism?)? Does the TV repairman insist that we understand the theories and applications of electronics before he will fix our TV? When we see a lawyer regarding the purchase/sale of a property, do a will, seek redress for whatever, are we expected to pass a bar exam? True, the more knowledge we have the more our consciences are informed (?) the more human we are. However, reflect on those of us who are regular contributors to this cafe, even those who read and opine silently. These represents a miniscule proportion of those of good faith. Most of those now and over history whom Jesus came to save were illiterate or barely so, a smaller minority were reasonably educated. These are not the theologians, the TV repairpersons, nor the lawyers. Jesus came for the you and I. Jesus came where we all meet, not where only the elite, or any select few convene and that includes the theologians.
The church seems to think that we should all be dogmatists, the creed is pushed down our throats with little compassionate, earthy explanations or stories with which to appreciate as ordinary people; the scripture readings are more often than not 'homilized' as 'theses' than as stories about personal love and compassion and right living. Dogma is for the specialists, the 'scientists'. I sometimes think to myself that the right-wing fundamentalist rapturists are the ultimate misguided ones who are really frustrated (or not making the standard for club admission) specialists and see the universe through the cloud of platitude rather than in the light of context. They are in a sense, victims of a disjointed church, of the platonic model no longer sustainable since we hoi polio became somewhat educated to respect both our bodies and our minds. The piously rightious, of good faith and the manipulators, have been left behind (unfortunately the magisterium is there too).
On the other hand - the church has an almost insurmountable challenge and awesome responsibility in this regard. No, there is in essence no intrinsic contradiction between truth and love, but there is in human terms. In the fifth century or so the church decided that love could only be taught within a context of truth, and truth only within control - in other words, "shut up, sit down, and listen; I have something important to tell you". They made a choice and it seems that they were never satified that unough of us sat quitely enough or paid sufficient attention to get around to the "something" part. The "sit down, shut up and listen" is the dogma, I am stll waiting for the "something" (Thomas)- I corinthians 13.
In conclusion, it is somewhat like the distinction between and intimicy of "classic" and "folk". If one listens carefully and whithout bias one can hear the folk in the classic and the classic in the folk but they are so different. One focuses on the mind just where it touches body; the other zeros in on the body just where it touches soul. Jesus was more folk than classical. That is why the masses loved him and the elites hated or feared Him. Benedict wants classic, seems to have a problem with the folk. Bit of truth?
Dennis, so true! "If one
Dennis, so true! "If one listens carefully and without bias one can hear the folk in the classic and the classic in the folk but they are so different."
I think there is truth to what you are saying here, and Benedict not only wants classics, he loves it, prefers it, finds it perhaps as an equal to his demanding intellect. But the foundation and the elements of the classics are in the folk. Beethoven was often inspired by folk music and would turn folk into classical. The folk is the simple demonstration of connection of body to heart, mind and soul and the classic demonstrates a dramatic intellectual embellishment and/or development of that which is essentially rooted in folk. Make sense?
Butterfly~ "Make sense?"
Butterfly~ "Make sense?" Yes, very much so. I should have added though that 'folk' is essentially community as well. It is where body and soul meet within community of others with shared experiences, values, humanity. Whether they can articulate it or not, the community is felt and inherently known, celebrated and expressed in song. While the attempt to reach soul in church music again in the folk rather than the classical sense failed it should be kept. Maybe it failed because church has no soul to be touched and to touch. Does one reach back and seek what once had resonance- classic chant, rubric, ritual, latin etc? Only for museum, for reference, for retention in the tradition as as one, I emphasize one, element of the experience. Classic is abstraction.
For those who prefer the classic, be patient, have faith, the new classic will spring from the folk, the soul. Nourish the soul and the music will follow.
Regarding Benedict, I think that because he has abandoned folk and soul for classic and intellect his brilliance has wandered from truth that is grounded. He seeks truth in the 'idea', the abstraction. It is not there. He has found 'system' in abstractions. It does not work; too much has to be chipped away to make everything fit. This too is the platonic model, like the computer geek who has spent too much time at the office.
Reflecting about music and
Reflecting about music and composers, in particular from the period of the Enlightenment with composers such as Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven, I've discovered that Wolfgang Mozart and Joseph Haydn were friends and Free Masons and members of the "rationalist" faction of the Illuminati founded by the Johann Adam Weishaupt of Bavaria, according to Wikipedia.
Here is a quote by Thomas Jefferson regarding his thoughts of Weishaupt:
An enthusiastic philanthropist.
--Thomas Jefferson[16]
Wishaupt believes that to promote this perfection of the human character was the object of Jesus Christ. That his intention was simply to reinstate natural religion, & by diffusing the light of his morality, to teach us to govern ourselves. His precepts are the love of God & love of our neighbor. And by teaching innocence of conduct, he expected to place men in their natural state of liberty & equality. He says, no one ever laid a surer foundation for liberty than our grand master, Jesus of Nazareth. He believes the Free masons were originally possessed of the true principles & objects of Christianity, & have still preserved some of them by tradition, but much disfigured. The means he proposes to effect this improvement of human nature are "to enlighten men, to correct their morals & inspire them with benevolence. Secure of our success, sais he, we abstain from violent commotions. To have foreseen, the happiness of posterity & to have prepared it by irreproachable means, suffices for our felicity. The tranquility of our consciences is not troubled by the reproach of aiming at the ruin or overthrow of states or thrones." As Wishaupt lived under the tyranny of a despot & priests, he knew that caution was necessary even in spreading information, & the principles of pure morality. He proposed therefore to lead the Free masons to adopt this object & to make the objects of their institution the diffusion of science & virtue. He proposed to initiate new members into his body by gradations proportioned to his fears of the thunderbolts of tyranny. This has given an air of mystery to his views, was the foundation of his banishment, the subversion of the masonic order, & is the colour for the ravings against him of Robinson, Barruel & Morse, whose real fears are that the craft would be endangered by the spreading of information, reason, & natural morality among men. This subject being new to me, I have imagined that if it be so to you also, you may receive the same satisfaction in seeing, which I have had in forming the analysis of it: & I believe you will think with me that if Wishaupt had written here, where no secrecy is necessary in our endeavors to render men wise & virtuous, he would not have thought of any secret machinery for that purpose.--Thomas Jefferson. (Source: Wikipedia)
Another quote about music of the Freemasons: "The Freemasons used music in their ceremonies, and adopted Rousseau's humanist views on the meaning of music. "The purpose of music in the {Masonic} ceremonies is to spread good thoughts and unity among the members" so that they may "united in the idea of innocence and joy," wrote L.F. Lenz in a contemporary edition of Masonic songs. Music should "inculcate feelings of humanity, wisdom and patience, virtue and honesty, loyalty to friends, and finally an understanding of freedom."
In a real way I think that the discussion and the battle of the Enlightenment is still going on in politics today and the forces that are in the world are essentially the same _ the rulers and the ruled, the powerful elites against the poor. The American Revolution continues, Vatican I and II continues, the understanding of Jesus Christ continues, the maturity of mankind continues. Music is a reflection of our inner consciousness and part of the battle to understand and convey that understanding. Music has joined in the enlightenment, freedom, liberty, joy, or to reflecting despair, power or control over consciousness and freedom of conscience as reflected by the consciousness of VI. Methinks I am on the quest for more enlightenment.
Sorry if this is a bit too long. I have much more to say, but will offer at another time.
"Despot of priests" and
"Despot of priests" and "natural religion" ~ There is much about the masonic order that is bigoted and secretive, there is also much about 'us', the RC Church that is bigoted, secretive and...and worse, antagonistic toward 'natural religion' becuause they/we claimed and demanded absolute supremacy and monopoly over ethics, the good life, right ordering which is 'humanity'. Maybe, just maybe there is more historic validity to 'the other side' of the issue than we have been prepared to admit.
It has been my view that the church, our church has taken the best of our 'humanity' from us and left the residue, the weak, sinful, disorder part claiming that to be the whole. The better part and ITS passion is identified with Jesus and much more, the teaching authority of the church. Shrouded in 'sacrament', symbol, ritual and liturgy as well as pulpit and 'collar' in the community they have over the centuries evdeavored and succeded in convincing us that what they 'returned' in that shroud is their gift, their prerogative, our salvation our bread and butter for which we should grovel and render obiesence. The fact that we have historically responded positively is that we saw, felt, such a kinship with it all and rather than identify most of it as ours and out right, simply responded 'thank you Lord, and gave the church (as distinct from us) credit where no credit was due.
But what Christ came to save was not just that residue, it was the whole frikken bit. Just read Aristotle, what 500 years before Jesus? That didn't scare Jesus, why does it scare the Church. I will tell you what I think, it is because by taking control of our humanity in its fullness we not only have some power but we have the right to be part of the sacramental element of what Christ really did add to humanity and hold the hierarchy accountable for the administraton. If we perceive and acknowledge the real extent of the goodness and power of goodness in humanity we cannot but also recognize and begin to acknowledge our inherent responsibility to be it, to share it, to demand and expect it in others, our institutions, our neighbours, our politicians, other nations, Brothers and sisters it is time....
I sort of got off the
I sort of got off the subject of doctrinology in a way, but in a way I didn't. Doctrine by its very nature is confining, limited and one-sided, my way or the highway type of thinking. Doctrine that enforces one to believe and perform exactly as someone else is preposterous and unreasonable and tyrannical. It creates not only dissonance but it creates separatism and argumentation with no consideration for any other. Doctrine that says it is infallible is contrary to the notion of creativity, love and the freedom of the Holy Spirit that comes and goes where it will.
Music is just such an example of the evolution of consciousness in thought and understanding, freedom of the Holy Spirit in inspiration. While there is music theory that we might call music doctrine, universal truths, there are varieties of music that come from that theoretical doctrine that never considers itself infallible and we can hear how it has developed over the centuries. Doctrine without the element of freedom disallows creativity and disallows for the infinite presence to enter into the dynamics and interplay of body, soul and mind, blocks creativity/freedom and causes cultural stagnation. Doctrine that is tyrannical in a real sense denies the infinite dimensions and the actions of the Holy Spirt, and that is the heresy.
Doctrine that says we can only play in C Major and in 4/4 time is to create religious and cultural auto-monotony.
In trying to refer to
In trying to refer to Sevenup's initial question, 'Is Doctrinology a Heresy?'I would venture to say--it could very well become not only heresy, but idolatry--meaning an immoderate attachment or devotion to something.
Please allow me to back up a bit---we do need doctrine in the Church--which centers our belief system. But the Church is so much more than a system of beliefs--we are a people who are united in many 'communions'{in union with} that it is easy to get 'tripped up' with how we are to look at ourselves.
We are in communion with God, in communion with all the baptized faithful, in communion with the saints, we are in communion with the Word of God and the sacraments, we receive Holy Communion--the Body and Blood of Christ, we are in communion with churches in our arch/dioceses and in the universal church, we are in ecumenical communion, we are in hierarchical communion, we are in human communion, and we are in communion with all living things. This is not some vague concept, but an organic reality of much beauty and grace which requires some form and at the same time, much charity (love)in order to be balanced---the old definition of virtue.
Having said that, we need to walk a virtuous path between what is doctrine, what is the rule of the church, and how does the Church respond in all cases and degrees within the bounds of moderation, justice, self-control and the love that binds us all as sons/daughters of God. Remembering Jesus' command, "Do not lord it over those who are assigned to you, but be examples to the flock," the hierarchy, must particularly examine its proclamations and examples to the baptized and to all peoples of the world. But all of us as well, must be on guard so as to foster whatever is true, good and just in our words and actions toward everyone with whom we come in contact.
If one states that there is no place for doctrine or rule (canon law) in a community of faith and love, then that person must deal with the clear evidence of the early regulations of the Christian Communities as found in the Acts of the Apostles and in the letters of Paul. It was certainly needed then---as it is today.
But if, on the other hand the church (or elements within it), become so enamored with doctrine and law---that it slips into an idolatrous mind-set with doctrine, and law (canon), the Church then slides back into the "perfect society" mind-set of the pre-conciliar days---a community of doctrines and laws---where proposed ideas either fit in the narrow confines of doctrine or law---or they are condemned. In this legalistic mind-set, people either balance upon the 'scales of doctrinology" or they are condemned as 'out of communion'.
Although the Council Fathers condemned such thinking as "triumphalism" and
"clericalism" and "legalism"---there is, as some of the posters have pointed out on this forum topic and in others on the Cafe--and indeed in Catholic forums across the world, that there is a 'creeping infallibilism' going on in the Church that is striving to restrict the diverse flavor that has existed in the Church up to and including the papacy of John Paul I.
Sevenup---I don't know if this has helped in anyway or not. I hope so.
And in a personal note---I'd like to thank so many of you for the support you have given me on this 'Cafe of Catholic (meaning universal) conversation'. I can honestly state that I have learned much good from you---you are great teachers!