Surely no one is upset if I view pornography after my wife has gone to sleep in the privacy of my own home. is THAT a part of Christian liberty? I think it isn't.
Surely something of this import would not have taken 1800 odd years to promulgate as a doctrine.
THis is not so clear to me. I think the Trinity is of some importance and yet it took 3 centuries and change to get settled -- if the following chaos can be called "settled."
I think this is a non-Catholic misconception. WHY, they say, does a canon of Scripture not laid down until Trent have any importance? And the answer is that there was no serious conflict about it until then.
Similarly with the Marian Dogmata. There was no pressure to decide. No harm was seen if some believed Mary to be immaculately conceived, and no harm was seen if some didn't.
But then there were apparitions. People developed theological consequences and "penumbra and emanations," and there was, (so I hear, I don't know) a lot of enthusiasm for the Holy See or a council or SOMEbody to make it official.
The Vatican doesn't go looking for trouble, you know. Arius says this, Athanasius says that, and pretty soon the Emperor's peace is being disturbed. (Not his own personal peace, but the peace of the empire) and so he kicks some reluctant ecclesiastical behinds and they make a decision. That's how I view it.
Paul wasn't WRONG about the Gentiles before Jerusalem, but the issue hadn't come to the point where somebody needed to do something.
But then, when they DID do something, they said,"It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us...."
I'm not asking you to agree. I'm asking if you grant any force to the opinion. I see in the Council of Jerusalem (complete with Peter's waffling) a pattern for the horrible inefficient and frustrating way what we think of as The Catholic Church has done business ever since. They wait until there's a critical Mass and then some of irritated people, and they say, "Okay, okay> You want me/us to decide? Well, you won't like it, but here it is: ..."
I wouldn't be, but you would have to tell me you were watching it. I think the view would change if your wife woke up quietly and caught you at it. If it didn't matter, you would watch when she was awake. Perhaps a better analogy would be if you had a bunch of pornographers over for lunch, would they be upset? Probably not. Again I don't think the dietary restriction and porn are equivalent. At the risk of mind-reading, I'd guess you don't either. As for the Catholic church waiting so long to formalize IC, as big on Tradition as Catholics are, was there no Tradition from the Apostolic times that mirrored that pronouncement? Was Marian veneration not practiced in the Church during the period covered by or subsequent to Acts?
Paul wrote about eating and judging others in their eating. To avoid inconsequential issues if someone of weaker faith might stumble. Peter received a vision about eating, that applied as well to him meeting with people that weren't 'approved'. I think the dietary restriction issue and circumcision 'crisis' were to avoid upsetting the Judaizers. Which makes them an example of bad doctrine.