Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

[guanophore]

But to pick up on what you described. I agree. But the Church welcomes people to voice these concerns. Bishops receive letters, and groups within Churches can be started, and there are plenty of evangelical meetings in which Catholics can meet other Christians. There is room for ideas, change and growth within the Church. The problems which you describe are not obstacles placed in your way but challenges to overcome, the main one being that the Church has more old people than middle-aged, or any other age group. The young, below twenty-four, seem to be well catered for in the city areas, and the old have their conventions etc...but the middle-aged tend to be a bit side-lined. But why don't we be there for the old and the young and that way we get a look in - a bit more of a rounded view is sometimes needed. And if you have issues to bring up such as the ones you rightly mentioned then all the more reason to raise this topic at a Catholic Church get-together. No one is going to laugh you out of the room but probably listen and come up with helpful suggestions to steer you on your way.

I myself like the gentler approach to relationships because I think that people outside of Christianity tend to overly ‘need’ to be with a partner which doesn’t make for great discernment. Within Church circles people meet in a gentler way, simply to be acquainted, and to be honest I for one prefer it that way. But it would be nice to have more middle-aged prayer groups, for example.

I think we have such an attitude focused on what we need that it clouds our perceptions. One of the most valuable lessons I learned from Campus Crusade is not to be in fellowship to look for a partner, but rather, to find my role in the Body of Christ. If our eyes are on Him, rather than our own needs, He always leads us in triumph. If He has in mind a partner for us, it will come in the course of our seeking first the Kingdom.

I also think that not enough people consider a vocation in religious life. This should be something that is brought to the attention of all young adults and actually ruled out. Many who end up in married life have been very enriched by a period of time in discernment, seminary, or a trial of religious life.

 

[SteveVH]

Easy answer: Everything’s geared towards families (particularly those with small kids) and seniors. The single adults are second-class citizens who get treated like we have leprosy, Case in point: When will we see a synod about “welcoming” singles to church? And before anyone says, “It’s not the purpose of church to entertain you or match-make for you,” that’s a total non sequitur that always gets mentioned whenever it’s pointed single adults really aren’t appreciated at most Catholic parishes. And yes, I have scheduled Catholic-oriented events on social media sites like Meetup - however, to point out the obvious (for those who don’t realize this), the single male adult risks looking like he’s hitting on women (and what single male wants to be that creepy guy?) and single female adults…well, that’s basically advertising she’s vulnerable. Again, not many single women want to deal with that.

When will the Vatican acknowledge that single adults need to be welcomed home to Rome, too? Homosexuals and divorcees get preferential “welcome” VIP treatment before single Catholics? Really? When will singles get mentioned in a synod?

So, good luck disproving any of what I just said.

You mean can anyone disprove your opinion? Probably not, but that is all it is. I have never noticed any bias against adult singles in any parish I have attended. Ever.

 

[Shiranui117]

Well, I do have a different observation of the texts. And its certainly not a mere, “Yo, I really disagree with what you’ve been doing/teaching lately, so I don’t want to be in communion with you right now.”

"Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church."
Here we see the Pope allowing Eucharist administration in the Church of Polycarp, out of respect.

Ahh, that makes sense. I interpreted that part as, Anicetus and Polycarp were concelebrating a Liturgy together, and Anicetus let Polycarp be the primary celebrant. But your reading makes more sense in the context.

“Synods and conferences of bishops were convened, and without a dissenting voice, drew up a decree of the Church, in the form of letters addressed to Christians everywhere, that never on any day other than the Lord’s Day should the mystery of the Lord’s resurrection from the dead be celebrated, and on that day alone we should observe the end of the Paschal fast.”

“These synods were held in Palestine, Pontus and Osrhoene in the east, and in Rome and Gaul in the west.[4] The council in Rome, presided over by its bishop Victor, took place in 193 and sent a letter about the matter to Polycrates of Ephesus and the churches of the Roman province of Asia.[8] Within the same year, Polycrates presided over a council at Ephesus attended by several bishops throughout that province, which rejected Victor’s authority and kept the province’s paschal tradition.”

Here we see synods under the Bishop of Rome sending their decision to “Christians everywhere”. And Bishops rejecting Victor’s authority in favor of a lesser authority, namely the Tradition of St John the Evangelist.

On receiving the negative response of Polycrates, Victor attempted to cut off Polycrates and the others who took this stance from the common unity, **but reversed his decision **after bishops that included Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, interceded, recommending that Victor follow the more peaceful attitude of his predecessors.

Here we see the attempt of Pope Victor to cut off "from the common unity" those who were rejecting his authority. It was never rejected that he was unable to do this, but that it was strongly recommended that he did not resort to such extremes over the issue. And he reversed his decision.

After reading this and thinking it over, I will accept this as a plausible understanding.

 

[Shiranui117]

Vatican I did not say that. That is absurd.

May I ask how you would interpret this part of Vatican 1? Chapter 3, paragraph 8.

The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

I interpret that as, what Rome rules goes, and no one can challenge it or call it into question. Paragraphs 2 and 9 of chapter 3 have always proved baffling to me. It seems to make the Pope out to be an absolute monarch over the Church.

1. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
2. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

Maybe you can shed some light on this in a way that I would understand?

I certainly hope so! Unless there were some sort of drastic apostasy in Latin America that could warrant such a thing, and even if there were, it would come in the same form it did at Trent, where those who embraced heresy would self ex-communicate. Excommunication applies to persons, not countries!

Yeah, barring a complete mass apostasy, this would be true.

Exactly! Each has a responsibility to preserve what has been handed down by the Apostles without blemish.

Yup.

I think this is more a matter of method. The Apostles made these decisions collegially, rather than imperiously. Even when Peter was in the right about Cornelius, he was not imperious with the others about it.

Right, this has always been my understanding.

I think that hubris in Patriarchs, both East and West, has been the biggest impediment to unity. Next to that a lack of understanding and tolerance for differences of culture, language, etc.

I can agree with this. I honestly have no issue with the Filioque, for example, if it’s understood correctly. It can be understood in a perfectly Orthodox manner. I swear if the Orthodox would take a couple days to just sit down, learn the Latin theology and the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and of Purgatory (for example), and then put the dogmas in terms of their own theological tradition, they would see that there really isn’t a big disconnect if they understand things correctly. The sticky issue is settling the role of the Pope.

Personally I like the Eastern method better!

Same! It might get awkward with the Apostle’s Fast though… I know a lot of the time, the Orthodox who use the New Calendar don’t even have the Apostle’s Fast due to how Pentecost and the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul fall in relation to one another.

 

[PRmerger]

I interpret that as, what Rome rules goes, and no one can challenge it or call it into question.

If that were true, then there would be no synod which is currently challenging and calling into question the divorce and re-marriage issue.

If that were true, Catholic Answers would not be an entity.

 

[friardchips]

If that were true, then there would be no synod which is currently challenging and calling into question the divorce and re-marriage issue.

If that were true, Catholic Answers would not be an entity.

It is the Pope who calls these things into question.

 

[PRmerger]

It is the Pope who calls these things into question.

He calls the synod…then the bishops…challenge and question.

Right?

 

[friardchips]

He calls the synod…then the bishops…challenge and question.

Right?

The Pope calls the Synod which is made up of Bishops.

What I would like to know is whether a Synod itself can raise an initial objection without the Pope’s clearance to do so? (although I know the Pope has the last say).

 

[PRmerger]

The Pope calls the Synod which is made up of Bishops.

Ok…

But we are agreed that the Bishops question and challenge at synods, right?

 

[friardchips]

Ok…

But we are agreed that the Bishops question and challenge at synods, right?

I know that a Pope can call for an assembly of the synod, during which, the Bishops can obviously debate - the whole point of a Synod - but whether the Bishops themselves can challenge the Pope without the Pope first having called them together is something I don’t know. I would expect if there is any disagreement, for a disclosure to be written by the Bishops concerned, and this then get handed to the Pope, and the Pope knowing (probably already) that there is a need for debate would then call the synod together (?)

But yes, of course they can challenge, but where in the process of discussion is this freedom of expression allowed (?) - the Pope officially calls it first and after discussion puts his seal on the final outcome, whatever it may be, presumably?

 

[PRmerger]

I know that a Pope can call for an assembly of the synod, during which, the Bishops can obviously debate - the whole point of a Synod - but whether the Bishops themselves can challenge the Pope without the Pope first having called them together is something I don’t know

Whether the Pope calls for it or not is irrelevant.

The fact remains: the Bishops are permitted to challenge and question.

That refutes Shiranui117’s position that “no one can challenge” or “call into question” a ruling by Rome.

 

[friardchips]

Whether the Pope calls for it or not is irrelevant.

The fact remains: the Bishops are permitted to challenge and question.

That refutes Shiranui117’s position that “no one can challenge” or “call into question” a ruling by Rome.

To be specific, this depends on what Shiranui117 means by ‘Rome’, in terms of authority?!

 

[PRmerger]

To be specific, this depends on what Shiranui117 means by ‘Rome’, in terms of authority?!

It would change things, how?

 

[rcwitness]

I think we probably need to distinguish something here.

**“The sentence **of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon.”

The final and manifestly expressed decision is what is unable to be challenged. Not the mere issue, related issues, or interpretation of the issue which the pope and his deligates are addressing. This can and almost always is debated and challenged. Very seldom, if at all, does the pope single handedly just address a matter without consulting bishops, synods, councils and give a judgment.

Another thing is that this Teaching itself comes not from the pope alone, as if isolated from the whole Council, but from a Council itself.

FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL
Years: 1869-1870
Summary: The Vatican Council was summoned by Pius IX. It met 8 December, 1869, and lasted till 18 July, 1870, when it was adjourned; it is still (1908) unfinished. There were present 6 archbishop-princes, 49 cardinals, 11 patriarchs, 680 archbishops and bishops, 28 abbots, 29 generals of orders, in all 803. Besides important canons relating to the Faith and the constitution of the Church, the council decreed the infallibility of the pope when speaking ex cathedra, i.e. when as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.

 

[friardchips]

I interpret that as, what Rome rules goes, and no one can challenge it or call it into question

Whether the Pope calls for it or not is irrelevant.

The fact remains: the Bishops are permitted to challenge and question.

That refutes Shiranui117’s position that “no one can challenge” or “call into question” a ruling by Rome.

Well, depending on what Shiranui117 means by ‘Rome’ determines whether or not ‘Rome’ can be challenged. The reason is because if Shiranui117 means ‘Rome’ to constitute:

1. Just the Pope. Then ‘Rome’ can be seen as being challenged but only within certain constraints, and opposition can only be fielded to a point, but can outright be dissolved at the Pope’s say so. So, in actual fact, the reality is that all decisions are made by the Pope because he calls the synod initially, deciding if one needs to be convened, and it is he who decides if a change needs to be made, as a result. And the likelihood of any change occurring outside of the Pope’s own opinion is impossible. Hence, why the choice of Pope is so important, and sacred, in fact.
2. The Pope and the Synod. In which case there is no room to challenge because this is where discussion takes place. Outside of the synod there is this reality called *life * that is taken into account by the Bishops and the Pope. Otherwise, if every whim was seen as a challenge - which I don’t think they are, and any issues that are serious the Pope will know about, hence why he is Pope - would mean the Church would blow wherever the wind took it (the wind in this case being ‘popular opinion’). However, the Church of the faithful is listened and responded to.

Also, important: Dogma - they are undisputed and unchanging doctrines. On matters of doctrine, faith and morals - the Pope is infallible. He can be argued with but not overturned. I imagine ‘Rome’ in this sense works together, rather than the kind of scene you might imagine in the House of Commons (in London), to come to a conclusion at a synod of Bishops. The majority will favour the Pope because he was elected - in answer to the OP, this is exactly why ‘Rome’ is nothing like a monarchy - because Monarchs are not elected but are born into their status.

As Roman Catholics, we believe that the real Person who selects - via the Bishops, the prayers of the faithful, and the Saints in Heaven - a new Pope, is the Holy Spirit.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, depending on what Shiranui117 means by ‘Rome’ determines whether or not ‘Rome’ can be challenged. The reason is because if Shiranui117 means ‘Rome’ to constitute:

1. Just the Pope. Then ‘Rome’ can be seen as being challenged but only within certain constraints, and opposition can only be fielded to a point, but can outright be dissolved at the Pope’s say so. So, in actual fact, the reality is, that all decisions are made by the Pope because he calls the synod initially, deciding if one needs to be convened, and it is he who decides if a change needs to be made, as a result. And the likelihood of any change occurring outside of the Pope’s own opinion is impossible. Hence, why the choice of Pope is so important, and sacred, in fact.
2. The Pope and the Synod. In which case there is no room to challenge because this is where discussion takes place. Outside of the synod there is this reality called life that is taken into account by the Bishops and the Pope. Otherwise, if every whim was seen as a challenge - which I don’t think they are, and any issues that are serious the Pope will know about, hence why he is Pope - would mean the Church would blow wherever the wind took it (the wind in this case being ‘popular opinion’). However, the Church of the faithful is listened to.

Ah, I see, then.

Nothing changes, however, with either view. The Church can and does review, question, challenge, discern and re-profess the teachings of Christ.

To state that we cannot question or challenge Rome’s decisions is incorrect.

Also, important is: on matters of Dogma - they are undisputed and unchanging doctrines. On matters of doctrine, faith and morals - the Pope is infallible. He can be argued with but not overturned. I imagine Rome works together rather than it being the kind of scene you might imagine in the House of Commons (in London), to come to a conclusion. The majority will favour the Pope because he was elected - in answer to the OP, this is exactly why ‘Rome’ is nothing like a monarchy - because Monarchs are not elected but are born into their status.

As Roman Catholics we believe that the real Person who selects - via the Bishops, the prayers of the faithful, and the Saints in Heaven - a new Pope, is the Holy Spirit.

You are correct here.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ok…

But we are agreed that the Bishops question and challenge at synods, right?

I was under the impression that the primary purpose was to advise the Pope.

 

[PRmerger]

I was under the impression that the primary purpose was to advise the Pope.

Sure.

Question and challenge the teachings. Not the person.

 

[friardchips]

Ah, I see, then.

Nothing changes, however, with either view. The Church can and does review, question, challenge, discern and re-profess the teachings of Christ.

To state that we cannot question or challenge Rome’s decisions is incorrect.

You are correct here.

I was nit-picking for the sake of it but was enjoying the discussion! D) There has to be room for debate for the fruits of the Church to grow…nothing like in a monarchy. When the Pope said that he wanted to give room for debate (which he did ages ago, I think) he didn’t mean to give way to outside heresies, outside the processes set up to debate matters of importance, as some people think (which I have also read in the past) but to listen to the opinions within the synod (which I reckon is the truth?).

So I believe you to be right from the start.

 

[friardchips]

…although D)…the wording of your first paragraph, which is partly what I was picking up on, could possibly do with revision:

If that were true, then there would be no synod which is currently challenging and calling into question the divorce and re-marriage issue.

You see, the point I was making does challenge the idea that the synod is in opposition to the Pope. I would argue that it is not as clear cut as this for reasons I outlined from which we deduced that matters arising are debated (albeit in formal processes). If the Pope initiates a synod it is not to challenge himself, or maybe it is, but mainly to allow room for reinterpretation and growth.

Another point in hand is that if it is the Pope who initiates such a course of action, then despite who argues for or against, it could be argued that it is always the Pope who challenges - or re-establishes, or revitalises (better words) - with the Bishops, who are either for or against, but ultimately always for the good of the Church, and with the Pope.

If that were true, Catholic Answers would not be an entity.

Well, this depends on what we mean by ‘challenge’! If ‘challenge’ means simply to raise an objection then I don’t see that as a ‘challenge’ because no amount of *umming and ahhing *on here could make a difference in the slightest to what happens in the decision-making process in Rome! So ‘challenging’ does not really apply on here, but rather, ‘getting with the program’ does, and ‘helping others to…’, also applies!