Are Religious Doctrine and Dogma in need of an overhaul?

Are Religious Doctrine and Dogma in need of an overhaul?

Could it be that the time has come for the Catholic Church and all Christian religions to take a fresh new look at some of the teachings, doctrine and dogma that is based on the work of the Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, meeting in ancient Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey). It was called by the emperor Constantine I, an unbaptized catechumen, or neophyte, who presided over the opening session and took part in the discussions.

The result of the Council was the adoption of the earliest Bible and founding principles of Christianity.  A series of subsequent Councils, initiatives, Papal pronouncements and revelations has allowed the Church doctrine and dogma to be updated over the centuries including the clarification in Vatican II on the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope.

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively.

This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

 
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals.

Therefore, his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter." 

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . "). 

What is the difference between Church doctrine and dogma?

In general, doctrine is all Church teaching in matters of faith and morals. Dogma is more narrowly defined as that part of doctrine which has been divinely revealed and which the Church has formally defined and declared to be believed as revealed.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains,

The Church’s magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these. (CCC 88)

Dogma

According to the Cambridge Dictionary “dogma” is;

Dogma noun [U]

us /ˈdɔɡ·mə, ˈdɑɡ-/

​

A fixed belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts: [U] liberal/conservative dogma.

What a novel way to control one’s belief system. 

Dogma in ancient Greek was something that “seems true.”  Another Greek meaning literally is "that which one thinks is true."

Religious dogma concerns religions, which may or may not include the following: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahá'í Faith, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Slavic neopaganism, Celtic polytheism, Heathenism (Germanic paganism), Semitic neopaganism, Wicca, Kemetism (Egyptian paganism), Hellenism (Greek paganism), Italo-Roman neopaganism.

Why would such a review be necessary?

For one, the world has changed dramatically since the founding of the Church.  We have advanced in many scientific and technological areas where things are possible that did not exist 2,000 years ago.  Some even have resulted in positive contributions to the message of Jesus and the Bible, while others have given us insights into Creation and evolution, both spiritual and physical, of mankind.

Just one example, the dating of Creation, was maybe 6,000 years based on Genesis but modern physics has estimated it to be at least 13.4 billion years old, with some estimates 16 billion years.

The dating of humans remains a difficult task because the physical body deteriorates and disappears in time, while the surface of the Earth is in a constant state of change through natural events.

Homo Sapiens, which carry the human DNA, have been recently discovered that are over 315,000 years old.  Previously, the oldest was 195,000 years old.  Yet we know the human body would not survive much beyond because of natural decomposition.

The truth is, we have no idea when homo sapiens first appeared on Earth.  What we do know is the Earth is at least 3.4 billion years old and the galaxies of which we are a part are 13.4 billion years old.

That would seem to be the moment of Creation as far as we know but we are constantly revising the date based on new scientific measurements and archeological findings.

I find it inconceivable that God created our galaxies 13.4 billion years ago then waited 13 billion years to create humans.  We have yet to explore the depths of the Earth for evidence of human activity so it is entirely possible God created humans 13.4 billion years ago, or more, and we have simply not discovered a way to document it, yet.

In the world I envision humans were indeed a part of the Big Bang of Creation as suggested by the Creation story, and our failure to document it is simply a matter of not having developed the technology to document it.

It also would mean there may very likely have been numerous civilizations that evolved and then disappeared in the course of human history, that we are yet to discover.

In the evolution of our galaxy and very own Earth there have been many natural cataclysmic events that might have substantially wiped out much of civilization, thus causing the human race to start over many times.

Science has proven there were four Ice Ages that made much of the Earth uninhabitable in those times.  We know super volcanoes such as Yellowstone have erupted and blocked off the healing energy of the Sun for years.  Meteors striking such as the one forming the Gulf of Mexico might have wiped out the mighty dinosaurs that once ruled the Earth and may have reduced human life.

History, as we know and prove it, has radically changed all we know about Creation and the evolution of humans, and if current trends continue we will continue to rewrite history as we seek out the moment of Creation.

Could Reincarnation be a viable Concept to explain Spiritual Evolution?

Our Bible details 6,000 years, we must unveil the truth about the remaining 13 billion years of time since Creation.  Until we do, reincarnation may be one of the best and most logical ways to explain human spiritual evolution available.

First, when I say reincarnation, I am not talking about coming back as an animal or rock, nor am I talking about coming back as or in the same human body.  What I understand it means is the soul finds a new body (fetus) to form a union with and be born.    

In spite of our bias, understanding, or convictions, reincarnation is not prohibited by either Catholic Church doctrine or dogma.  Over the years the Church has attempted to address it without much success.

Theological arguments against it seem hollow, especially in light of the potential that God created humans billions of years earlier than we think and the Bible said.  It only makes sense that an all-powerful God did not wait 13 billion years to add humans to his creation, but created them at the same time. Nothing can prove He did not.

Only Church dogma and doctrine not directly related to reincarnation but used to condemn the idea stands in the way of accepting the plausibility.  The union of body and soul when God breathed life into humans, accounts for the first humans, who were not even born but created.

Since all succeeding generations were conceived and born on Earth, there is a clear distinction between the original humans created and all others to come being born.  Yet it is clear the soul representing the spiritual side of the union could have come to Earth in many bodies over time without changing any concept in Church dogma or doctrine.

If each soul is unique as we are taught, and was created by God initially, that means there might have been many Adam and Eves seeding the Earth in order to have 7.6 billion souls walking the Earth today.

Bear in mind that as late as the time Jesus walked the Earth there were only 300 million inhabitants of Earth, fewer than in the United States alone today.  Where did all the new souls come from?

If you believe God took a personal interest in every unique soul and that all souls were created during the Creation process, the Big Bang, then the same God, all powerful and all knowing, might very well have made a sacred compact with the soul covering as many lifetimes as needed for the soul to complete or fail, the physical mission on Earth.

Such a scenario does not preclude or prohibit the concept of Heaven and Hell nor does it conflict with any other doctrine or dogma of the Church.  It simply makes sense that God would give all souls the chance to use their free will on earth and earn their place in the Kingdom.

Physical death is not a bad thing but a necessary step toward spiritual evolution.  Yet babies that die in childbirth or from abortion never have an opportunity to experience or evolve in their one lifetime on Earth.  Why would God deny them the chance to experience life when the soul, which is forever, could come back?

The same is true of the many souls that do experience life on Earth.  They have no control over their death, and often times can be a victim of others (a car wreck or terrorist explosion), or lured into drugs and death by Satan.  Surely God knows His creations and if his intent is love and good, he would give them a chance to live life in order to redeem themselves.