I'm not going to jump on any anti-Catholic bandwagon. I haven't thus far in my life and my neural pathways are far too set to probably even allow it at this point. However, I would like to quote my New Testament Greek professor who was simply maddened by the glut of "Practical Theology" courses being offered at the seminary I attended. He slammed his thin fist on the desk and said "Theology is, by nature, practical." The point is, of course, that if your doctrine cannot inform your action, right doctrine is no good at all. And as the case is in many of today's churches (not singling out the RCC), the laity is not the only group who is having difficulty grasping this.
We can say that sinners in the church is not evidence of wrong doctrine. And this is very true. But at what point, does a system wracked with grave problems become not only evidence of bad praxis but evidence of bad theology. For if the praxis does not reflect the theology, what good is the theology?
I may be confused here :), but does doctrine always come from an infallible statement from the pope? Is say for instanse the celibate vows that a priest takes doctrine? Is "theology" doctrine? If not what difference does it make? Wouldn't that just be prefrences, and if the pope states his preference and some catholic doesn't like it would that make the catholic not a catholic? LOL, told I was confused:)
If the grave problems are doctrine, and doctrine is from an infallible pope then the grave problem becomes even more grave, IMO.
If the celebate vows are not doctrine, not from an infallible source, does that call them into question
Becky
The point is, of course, that if your doctrine cannot inform your action, right doctrine is no good at all. And as the case is in many of today's churches (not singling out the RCC), the laity is not the only group who is having difficulty grasping this. We can say that sinners in the church is not evidence of wrong doctrine. And this is very true. But at what point, does a system wracked with grave problems become not only evidence of bad praxis but evidence of bad theology. For if the praxis does not reflect the theology, what good is the theology?
Um, of coruse good theology should be put into practice. And it should lead people to want to put it into practice.
But the point remains that theology as a science of truth exists apart from the sinful people who are supposed to uphold and live it.
If a theology properly applied leads to bad fruit, then the theology is suspect. But if a theology is merely given lip service, it indicts the lipserver, not the theology.
SD