—
Bryan Short,

I think I’m going to concede. While its clear that Mormons have different shades of meaning in their understanding of the terms in the Apostles’ Creed, its also clear that the various Protestant and Orthodox and Catholic sects have different shades of meaning in their understanding. Baptists will probably have an understanding of “universal church” and “communion of the saints” that is further away from the Catholic understanding than the Mormon understanding is.

I should also clarify that in the grand scheme of things, rejecting belief in the Assumption of Mary is less bad than rejecting the belief that grave sin X is a grave sin. If I had to choose, I’d certainly prefer that someone not believe in the Assumption. But I’m always tilting at windmills and striving after ideals, so I’d really prefer everyone to believe the whole package. I guess I was subconsciously associating the “more important” question with “what can people get away with not believing?”

Again, with respect, I disagree. The gestalt–the sum total of what is believed–obviously changes if minor doctrines are changed, but I deny that disagreement on a minor point inevitably leads to disagreement on a major point. If we were to follow that logic to its conclusion, we would have to think that anything short of perfect agreement was the same as complete disagreement, but reason and experience show that isn’t so. I think the very fact that we can talk of minor and major doctrines suggests that some beliefs are, in fact, more important than others.

Regarding relative importance, and taking an analogy from Mark Shea, the faith is like an ecosystem – you can’t tear one thing out without affecting others, and eventually the entire faith.”

With respect, this sounds like a very un-Catholic idea. A Catholic friend and I were in a long, long argument with a very intelligent, very well-read, very well-meaning Baptist friend and the discussion just went in circles and circles. Finally, we discovered why. At the root of our disagreement was that I and my Catholic friend believed some sins were graver than others while the Baptist friend thought that minor disobedience to parents was the same as murder was the same as spitting on the sidewalk and was stunned to find that another view existed (he thought our viewpoint made a lot of sense and almost instantly switched to it). In the same way, while I agree that most truths cannot be wholly compartmentalized from others, in fact some truths are more important than others and disbelieving them is graver while believing them is more important. Ecosystems are robust: they don’t die, they change.

Why, you’re welcome.

In that spirit, thank you very much for your contributions to this discussion.

The Civilization series is among the best games ever, IMO.

Re #44: It didn’t strike me as confrontational, so don’t worry. :) I do agree that the Apostles’ Creed contains the basic, foundational elements of the Christian faith. But I wouldn’t paint with too broad a brush when it comes to the relative importance of doctrines or whether they were in debate during any given period.

Regarding relative importance, and taking an analogy from Mark Shea, the faith is like an ecosystem – you can’t tear one thing out without affecting others, and eventually the entire faith.

As far as things taking longer to be discussed or defined, the Church is a big ship with a small rudder. She reacts to the needs of the times, albeit sometimes very slowly. In the early Church, all kinds of things about Christ were disputed. His reality, His divinity, His humanity, and so on. That’s where the focus was. There were things that took hundreds or thousands of years to even be disputed – the perpetual virginity and immaculate conception of Mary and the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist come to mind – but I don’t think we can decide from that whether they’re more or less important to the Christian life. It just took longer for someone to challenge them (as Helvidius against Mary’s perpetual virginity or Berengarius against the Real Presence), or for the state of the world to necessitate further reflection or definition by the Church. For example, the definition of the Assumption of Mary was prompted in part by the attack on human dignity and destiny by the philosophers of the day, World War II, etc. As another example, we can see the Church currently considering the salvation of unbaptized infants, explicitly prompted by the killing of so many millions through abortion.

Now, as for the importance of whatever doctrine relative to whether one is considered Christian: people, Catholics or not, have a strong sense of what Catholics call “Tradition.” Some Protestants want to approach the Creeds with a “sola scriptura” kind of mindset – taking the Creeds by themselves, as they reject any idea that one Church formulated them or can authoritatively interpret them. In short, trying to go by the words alone. This works decently for the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, since the words were chosen pretty carefully. For most people, the only pointer is that “catholic” doesn’t refer to “the Roman Catholic Church,” and everything else is peachy.

But when it comes to the Apostles’ Creed, which is not formulated as precisely, it gets harder. I think we can all agree that Mormons and Catholics (and those with roots in the Catholic Church) often define theological terms differently. We both say we believe the points of the Apostles’ Creed, if we plumb the depths too far, our beliefs start to diverge. We can see a bit of it in the comments here – someone is careful to point out a possible difference in the “Creator of heaven and earth” clause. On the Catholic (or Protestant) side, someone might be compelled to clarify on “only Son.”

Rightly so, I think. The differences are real, and while we can find unity in very basic doctrines and practices, it doesn’t take much exploring on either side to find radically different and irreconcilable teachings. I know we all wish it weren’t so, but it is.

My point is, when someone says, “So what? You’re still not Christian,” I think if he’s a Catholic, then maybe he’s knowingly falling back on Tradition – the entire body of teaching passed on (Latin tradere, whence we get “tradition”) from Jesus through the Apostles through the bishops, whether it is explicitly present in Scripture, whether it has yet been solemnly and explicitly defined, or not. If the person is non-Catholic, I’d say he’s still falling back on Tradition, and he just doesn’t know it. In either case, “You’re not Christian” seems to mean “You don’t believe all that we do, even if it can’t be shown with enough precision by the Apostles’ Creed.”

Finally, sometimes people focus more on Christian doctrine than Christian living. Sometimes this comes from pride, especially intellectual pride. We’re sinners. I’ve done it, and I’m certain I’ll do it again. This may be the reason they emphasize right belief and right reason so much. On the other hand, it could come from an ardent desire that you should experience the beauty of this or that belief (or its effects in one’s life). I’m sure you’re familiar with this desire. I am, too – for example, what I wouldn’t give to help you believe what I do, that God is indeed physical, but moreover He is here for you to touch and receive! So whether one’s heart is pure or proud, sometimes it takes one too strongly in one direction.

Well, there’s my thought-dump. Did it answer any questions?

Re: #46 – Catholics, at least, do not believe (and never have) that Mary was born of a virgin. We honor as saints her parents, St. Anne and St. Joachim. The Virgin Birth refers to the birth of Jesus of the Virgin Mary. The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary’s state of grace starting with her conception; God preserved her from the beginning from the effect of Original Sin which is the privation of sanctifying grace.

Perhaps, the fact that this teaching is not widely known or understood might be where some of the misunderstanding in this area comes from.