Doctrine is important.
I agree.
What you believe about theology is more important than your behavior and works.
I disagree – your behavior and works are the homework Jesus is giving you to work out the sanctification of your heart, which is the only thing that truly matters. The Pharisees had a perfect understanding of doctrine and it retarded the sanctification of their hearts – Jesus criticized them for this reason.
I mean.. a person could be living a good moral life.. yet believe Satan is their God. Jehovah's Witnesses are very good with business in general, live clean lives and are good stewards a lot of the time.. but if they reject the deity of Jesus.. their behavior isn't very important.
A good moral life is not going to help you either, unless you are allowing Jesus to work in your heart, regardless of doctrine. I could also make the claim that a person could be living a good moral life and have a theologians understanding of Christianity, but if he is not letting his heart be sanctified by Jesus (learning to love fully), his life is merely a clanging cymbal. Being a Satanist provides no room for sanctification of the heart – it teaches the opposite principle -narcissism.
Behavior is important only when it is the result of relying on the Holy Spirit.. this is intertwined with what you believe theologically anyway. Actions reflecting what you believe.
The idea that good works only proceed from faith is a strictly Protestant doctrine, which reinforces the Protestant habit of being over-focused on the cognitive. I disagree that your thoughts are the sole source of your emotions and behavior, instead all three can act as the source for each other.
So you know I see many Christians post on here about getting on with each other and unifying, but unifying under what teaching? Ecumenicalism? Syncretism truth?
It is interesting that you see things this way. Do you realize the only teaching that truly unifies Catholics is the Eucharist? It is true. The Catholic Church teaches the doctrine outlined in the Catholic Catechism, but when it comes right down to it, people can remain Catholic even if they reject everything, but the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Enforcing the idea that our group is different from every other church – we aren’t catholic we teach the BIBLE, we aren’t catholic, we worship the Lord, not follow traditions of men – is a Protestant ideal. Protestants are terminally other – they define themselves in relation to how effective they have been separating from Catholicism. Every church that is more Catholic then the church you attend is viewed as farther away from the Bible and the teachings of Jesus.
So, to answer your question – Catholicism is extremely diverse, already (a fact that is often criticized by outsiders), however it is also one of the only churches that has remained dynamic, yet true to its teachings. Due to the Protestant tendency of valuing being ‘other’ – ecumenicalism will always be viewed as an attempt to water down doctrine, rather than introducing new ideas – therefore it will always be viewed though suspicious eyes. Although, I think it is a great idea and I do not subscribe to the overblown, fears of doctrinal compromise; I think it will never happen within Protestantism. Asking a Protestant to unite is like asking the US to join the European Union.
But as far as hypocrisy goes, non-Christians are often hypocrites themselves. They ask us to hold to moral integrity, yet not upholding it themselves a lot of the time. So it goes both ways.
But isn’t that like saying, “Homeless people judge us for having houses, yet they aren’t even willing to work!”; not recognizing that those who live in houses are privileged to have homes and are blessed that their hard work actually pays off. The same is true concerning Christians – we are privileged to have Christ in our lives and to have a moral standard and to know that Jesus is working to sanctify our hearts. We should expect non-Christians to hold us to a different standard then themselves.
.