The crux of church doctrine is the essentiality of faith. In the general understanding, the opposite of the required faith is doubt. If anyone doubts the historical reality of the various aspects of the story of Jesus or by extension the truthfulness of church teachings about Jesus, then that person supposedly does not have saving faith. In this context it becomes a forbidden thing to question anything the church teaches. Such questions are automatically seen as evidence of deficient faith.
I would question the assumption that doubts and questions condemn our faith. Instead doubts and questions are a sign of an evolving, personal faith. To have doubts and questions about church doctrine does not mean that one lacks faith; instead it may simply mean that one has faith in something else besides what the church teaches. The acceptance of church doctrine as the basis for faith, without serious evaluation and questioning, is a poor substitute for a personally derived faith basis.
The mindless acceptance of traditional church teachings is a spiritual "cop out', allowing others who claim a divine calling to dictate our understanding of and relation to God. This unquestioning acceptance of second hand doctrines is more a measure of spiritual paralysis than true spiritual transformation.