How much can one deviate from the doctrine of a church/religion?

Question

and still be considered to be a practicer/follower of that faith?

If you, for example, do NOT profess to believe that Mary is ever Immaculate, or that in Adam all have sinned, or in Transubstantiation, can you honestly call yourself a Catholic? WILL THE CHURCH recognize you as one?

The Catholic Church defines what being a Catholic is. The Methodist Church defines what being a Methodist is. The Mormon church defines what being a Mormon is. Orthodox Judaism defines what being an Orthodox Jew is. And so on.

I'm asking this to find out at what point, in whatever faith you follow, your deviation from accepted doctrine, liturgy, teaching and practice would require you to acknowledge that you are NOT, in fact, of that faith/practice.

How far can one stray from what these religious institutions define themselves to be, before one has to stop calling oneself a member/practitioner? At what point would you expect the religious tradition to no longer accept you as a member?

Today's Prophet - if you can not be bothered to answer the question that was asked, please at least stop spamming every question with that same tired old cut-and-paste job.

starfishltd - no, that is *not* the "main question".

The question, if you had bothered to read it, was about how religious bodies define themselves and their membership...and not about scripture at all. It wasn't even specific to Christianity.

Again, this question is not specific to any one religion or religious body. I'd like to hear from Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans of various types, etc.

Fireball226 - are you aware that there *are* articles of faith for the Methodist Church? Or are you the kind of "Methodist" who just attends church there and doesn't KNOW what that church's doctrine is? (i.e. a "Sunday Christian") If you don't know what the church's definition of Methodism IS, how can you call yourself one?

The maxim of "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity" among Methodists still indicates that there *are* essentials which all self-identified Methodists should agree with and profess to believe.

LOTS of good answers - And yes, Black Dragon, I agree - Wiccans (those trained in, and initiated into, a Wiccan Tradition, not the "it's anything I want to call it" crowd) define what it is to be Wiccan, just like any other religious body does.

I'm putting this to the vote.

Answer 1

dpends on the church...in methodism we dont police ppl...weve had a gay music minister before and women associates....i think we sleep when we die...many dont...we still worship together

Answer 2

It depends on the religion. For example, Catholicism has a magisterium (teaching office) that can clearly teach what the Catholic position is on any given matter. They are also able to define dogma, etc. (Essentially, dogma is what is believed, doctrine is the way it's explained, and discipline is the way it's put into practice.) So while you don't have to agree with some stuff (say, discipline), there are some things you have to believe or you are not, in fact, a Catholic.
Despite popular opinion, excommunications are quite rare.

Other religions do not tend to have their tenets of faith as clearly defined, so it's harder to say what constitutes a member of that religion (faith wise), and therefore it's harder to say when an individual is no longer a member of that faith.

Answer 3

*Is Catholic*

In Catholicism:

Baptism is what makes an individual an adopted child of God. In normal circumstances the minister of Baptism is a Catholic so the individual at the moment of Baptism is a Catholic. An individual who is Baptized by a non-Catholic has a much more complex situation, for while they are joined in the same family as Catholics, there is great deformity so that they are not joined to the body of believers as a matter of form.

HOWEVER, a Baptism is a permanent thing that can never be redone or undone. Thus it is not possible to stop being a Catholic/Christian because the designation of Catholic/Christian is not dependent on what you do alone but is dependent on what God has done. Unfortunately an individual might choose to reject being a part of the family of God and choose hell. There are plenty of Catholics in hell at this very moment, and they are in fact Catholics and have not ceased being Catholic by entering into hell.

When an individual deviates from the Catholic faith, they break the bonds of communion in varying degrees. Some breaks are so severe that they render the individual outside of the Church. They are still Catholic but no longer a Catholic in communion.

The degree to which one can have deviations from doctrine and yet remain in communion (even if imperfect) depends on the type of bond that is broken. An individual becomes SCHISMATIC if they practice the faith in a way that is not in accord with the Church or they deny communion with the Church on grounds other than heretical doctrine. For example the SSPX is schismatic because they have dissociated themselves from the Church over matters of discipline. An individual becomes HERETICAL if they choose to believe in a teaching of Faith that has been proclaimed fundamental to the Faith by the authority of the Church. An individual is a material heretic if the choice is theirs. An individual is a formal heretic if the Church declares officially that their position is outside the Faith.. An example of heresy is to believe that women should be made priests. Heretics and Schismatics can inure EXCOMMUNICATION. This may be automatic or imposed. Excommunication occurs as a punishment where by the Church severs communion with the individual in order that the Faith be preserved and in order to help the individual to seek to return to communion. An example of automatic excommunication is having an abortion. Formal excommunication is imposed by a Bishop and only that Bishop or the Holy See can lift it. An individual who rejects a fundamental tenant of the Faith can become and APOSTATE. The severing of communion in such cases is severe. Becoming an apostate involves such things as rejecting Jesus as Christ, rejecting the Trinity, rejecting the existence of God. Primarily Apostates are those individuals who reject all of Catholicism.

Catholicism is not a strict religion. The Catholic faith understands life as a process by which one is increasingly conformed to the life of Christ. That is the whole reason for the sacraments. As such, deviations from the norm of faith are expected. One can deviate greatly so long as they seek to ever more and more conform to the life of Christ.

Having problems with transubstantiation is not going to get you kicked out of the Church, so long as you seek to come to understand what the Church teaches by transubstantiation. On the other hand, if you disbelieve and try to get others to disbelieve, then the Church is going to severe communion with you. So you see, a great many things depend on the actions that you take with your beliefs, not just what you think in your head.

Answer 4

This is something that I've pondered long and hard. My answer is an arbitrary one. It is what I feel is right for me.
Your mileage may vary.....

I feel that in every religion there are a few key points. These must be believed/practiced. Examples would include which deity to worship, and belief in a sacred text. Then there are core tenets of that faith---a person should believe/practice at least 80% of these also. Examples would include views on an afterlife, views on creation, purpose of life, major goals and priorities, and basically that religions fundemental theology. Then there are minor issues--these are mostly optional. Examples of these would include things like personal behaviors like using alcohol in moderation or personal style of dress.

So unless I can say that I believe in all of the key tenets of a religion and at least 80% of their core values, I wouldn't say that I practice that religon. However I might say that my faith is based on that religion if I practiced over 50%. For example, Catholic-based practices or Methodist-based religion. I don't feel that would insult the religious groups yet would describe those paths. I strongly disagree with saying that I'm of a particular religion when what I believe and practice doesn't represent that religion. I feel that would be deceptive and rude to those who actually practice that religion.

Answer 5

If a spiritual path or religion has a set doctrine of belief and practices and a person wants to be considered part of that spiritual path or religion then they follow the rules of it, period.

example, to be a Christian is to believe in the teachings of Jesus. To be a Catholic Christian is to believe in the teachings of Jesus PLUS following the doctrines of the Catholic church. To be a Baptist Christian is to believe in the teachings of Jesus PLUS following the doctrines of the Baptist church. One cannot be a Christian without believing in the teachings of Jesus.

The same rules apply to Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Native American Shamanism, Native African religions, Asatru and so on.

I gotta tell ya if you were to walk over to a Rabbi and tell him you were a practicing Jew and believed that Jesus was the Messiah, I dare say that he might very politely tell you that you are mistaken at the very least.

I have seen to many people posting that "No one can define religion for you", yeah right.

By definition religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview.

A person can be spiritual and do their own thing, but when you identify yourself as being OF a particular religion or spritual path that has a set doctrine, then one should follow it's doctrine, anything else is dishonest.

Lutherism came about because Martine Luther found that he could not in clear concience call himself a Catholic, he protested and went a different way, thus showing the strength of his convictions.

I am a Pagan, so I walk that direction. I am a Witch so I walk that road. I have been trained as a Wiccan, as it was laid out by Alex Sanders. I do not practice Wicca at home, because my wife, a witch, is not and does not wish to be Wiccan and thus is not privy to those rituals, nor will I change this practice simply for her benifit, the oaths that I took as a priest are binding (As they are with any true priest). I choose instead to learn with her another Pagan path that we could share.

So while I have been trained as a Wiccan Priest, I do not call myself one because I no longer follow it as my practice. I'm still a Witch and a Priest however, baby blessings, house blessings, weddings and funerals can all be had for the asking (grin).

Answer 6

It would really depend upon the church. For instance, Bishop Spong served within the Episcopal Church and is a popular religious writer, despite the fact that he doesn't believe in the virgin birth, or even the resurrection of Christ. And there is a fair amount of theological liberty permitted among Unitarians. Other churches, though, are quick to excommunicate anyone who shows any sign of deviance. Personally, I have a lot of respect for someone who tries to reform their denomination from within, rather than just giving up and walking away. Reformation takes a lot of courage. This is true in any religion, not just Christianity.

Answer 7

I think first there is a question in ones mind. Then there is a realization that ideas must change to conform to the questions being asked. There is a point in time where the person questioning still considers themselves "being" of the religion that they are questioning. That period of time differs for each person. Once a person realizes that they have more differences with their faith than like ideas, they usually decide to no longer consider themselves by name of that faith. I think it is a question of balance. When the scale tips it is time to declare your freedom from the past, and if you are vocally disavowing your faith I would think that a good time for your fellow former members to consider you as having left the fold.

Answer 8

I think every religion has a set core and base of beliefs/practices that explicitly define itself from the group.

For example Roman Catholicism has the Cult of the Virgin and Cult of the Saints [those are the correct terms, go read the Code of Canon Law if you don't believe me], the trinity, and the belief/trust in the Pope as head of the Church.

Anglican Catholicism is nearly the same without the trust in the Pope, the Vatican, and all its branches.

Protestantism separates itself from the lump of Christianity with its non-inclusion of the Saints, Virgin Mary, and Angels as divine beings who can be venerated, only God and Jesus deserve that.

Eastern Orthodoxy has a belief and veneration of the Virgin Mary but not to the extent of Catholicism and does not have ties to the Vatican or Pope.

All of the above are Christian because they share the fundamental underlying base of what defines something as Christian: belief in God, Jesus, truth of the Bible, Death, Resurrection, Rapture, Apocalypse/End Times, salvation, etc...

However it is their minor differences that go to define them as specifically being Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Protestant for example.

If a person only shares those basic core fundamental beliefs of Christianity then they are a general Christian without denomination.

So I would say that if one loses those "extra" beliefs or practices than that is what would separate oneself from the specific denomination.

Answer 9

Of course, the main question is how far can someone deviate from the scriptures and still be apart of God's church? Our church family leadership looks at discipline from this standpoint and this standpoint alone. When it is obvious that the sin in someone's life is coming between them and God, it is the responsibility of fellow Christians to help them return to the flock. Matthew give the process of discipline...go to the brother alone, take 2 or 3 witnesses, etc. When the leadership feels, after praying about it for a long time, that the person is off the deep end, they are required to take action and (we call it disfellowship) seperate themselves from the person in question. But when a person is that consumed by the sin, they have usually already stopped coming to services already. No one should ever be barred from services. This would all but eliminate the person's chance of returning to the Lord.

Answer 10

A responsible church would revoke their membership. You shouldn't be allowed to be a member of a church and claim that their basic doctrine is wrong.

The Bible says that it is the job of the church to guard doctrine. If a person doesn't want to believe what a particular church believes, they should be free to go, but not mad because they simply disagree.

The person who leaves could describe themselves as a "former" Catholic, but I think that you shouldn't be claiming a particular denomination and disagree with their basic statement of faith.

Answer 11

I think when one starts to question the doctrine,or liturgy,and finds answers making more sense than those doctrines one might start to loose faith in their beliefs.
Questioning your belief is enough to have you ex-communicated from some religions.