Joe: "AAaaaaarghhhh! No we don't! WE default to the Church's dogmatic teachings - but it doesn't follow that the Church is monolithic and narrow on all of its teachings. ALL of the Church's teachings are not dogmatice, FK! In our discussion on grace and free will, I (Joe) told you that the Church ALLOWS several stances regarding predestination of the elect and so forth (Augustinianism, Thomism, Molinism, and so forth). I (Joe), as a Catholic, can decide for myself ANY of these stances. The Church is broad in its view on this question! We have discussed this and other things over and over again."
First, in this case, when I said "you" I was actually taking a good natured jab at Kosta only, and not Apostolics in general. :) So, on all those things we have discussed, I do remember and was not painting with a broad brush. While I haven't studied it yet, I have scanned Kosta's response and he appears to say that there are only three points of dogma in all of Orthodoxy. I know for a fact that there are plenty more than that in Catholicism. This is "new" to me, (although it shouldn't be because I knew there have been further councils after the last one that Orthodoxers recognize. I just never put it together before in this way).
Anyway, among the three that Kosta listed was NOT that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God. Assuming what Kosta said is true (and I do), then -- at the Dogma level -- he is totally off the hook concerning his opinions/beliefs concerning Paul and the Bible in general. I don't know, but I would assume that somewhere along the line a dogmatic belief on the Bible was pronounced by the Roman Catholic Church. Is that right?
Now, we move down to the doctrine level. My impression is that Kosta is saying that while he is bound to dogma, he is not to doctrine. While he may "defer" to the Church on doctrine "officially", he is still free to hold contrary opinions. This is the heart of the matter I've been trying to get to in this discussion. Here's why I'm interested:
Somewhere recently I read that the Pope (or a very high Church official) made a public statement warning that pro-abortion politicians potentially face excommunication. I didn't think it likely that opposition to abortion was dogmatic, so I figured it must be doctrine. If that's right, then you can understand my confusion on the grounds for excommunication. I know that Kosta would never put himself in any jeopardy on this subject because his faith is strong enough that he just wouldn't "go there". So, are the "practical" grounds for excommunication significantly different between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism?
I would venture to say there are more than that. I think he is defining by broad categories, such as the "sacraments" as one, where I would be more specific and look to the individual sacraments regarding Baptism, the Eucharist, and so forth. Since our dogmatic belief is nearly the same, I would say his categorizing is just different.
I don't know, but I would assume that somewhere along the line a dogmatic belief on the Bible was pronounced by the Roman Catholic Church. Is that right?
Oh boy. It has been the ordinary, constant teaching of the Church (Orthodox and Catholic) that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Now, whether you would define that as "dogmatic", I don't know. Something doesn't need to be officially defined at a Council to be considered a belief of the "entire Church, everywhere and in all times". However, it is not part of our faith, part of the Creed. The matters of our faith, dogmatic items, include:
The Unity and Trinity of God, God the Creator, God the Redeemer, God the Sanctifier. This theology can be broken down further:
God the Creator to include the work of Creation, the nature of man, the fall of man, and angels.
God the Redeemer to include the two natures of Christ, the work of man's salvation and the mother of the Redeemer.
God the Sanctifier to include teachings on grace, justification, the Church, and the sacraments.
You could add the Doctrine of "God the Consummator" which would discuss the next life.
This is all from the teachings given by the Apostles, the Rule of Faith. Regarding the Bible, we see it as part of the entire revelation given by God to men. Vatican 2 continued the teaching that Sacred Writ is from God and is inerrant. However, it is not PART of our faith, if you understand what I am saying by what I listed as those things that have been revealed by God to us.
I probably muddied the waters.
Somewhere recently I read that the Pope (or a very high Church official) made a public statement warning that pro-abortion politicians potentially face excommunication. I didn't think it likely that opposition to abortion was dogmatic, so I figured it must be doctrine.
The community (Church) is a voluntary organization. As such, its rules should be followed voluntarily to maintain membership. The authority of this organization has the right to cast our voluntary members who refuse to follow the rules. Thus, in 1 Cor 5, Paul saw that he had the right and DUTY to cast out the sexually deviant man out of the community. Throughout the latter books of the NT, the Church has realized a responsibility to guard its teachings and the flock from false teachers or those who are bad examples morally. This is the idea in mind when the Church warns pro-abortionist politicians that they tread on dangerous ground. They can no longer call themselves "Catholic" and flout something diametrically opposed to our beliefs. And the defense of life is very important to us. While it is not a dogmatic belief, it is an ordinary and constant teaching of the Church. As such, it is to be held with religious assent, as the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Obedience to the Church on such matters is obedience to God.
To those who disagree with these Catholic teachings, the question remains "why are you still Catholic"? It ignores the foundation of our faith - that Christ established a Church and has promised to guide it from all falsehood. As such, if we believe that, then we submit our wills when the Church has taught something for 2000 years as truth. Those who prefer a more democratic approach or "to follow my conscience" must look deep down at their committment to God and their dissent. One can hold dissent privately on issues that have not been defined. But politicians can bring scandal to the community. As such, the Church feels that their obstinate public dissent is grounds for excommunication.
Regards