Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

[Shiranui117]

No one said here that the things debated are not meaningful! Everything debated is meaningful. I don’t think you’ve read all the posts and how they progressed otherwise you would have understood that.

I’m not sayng that debate is not meaningful. I’m saying that, if the Pope can disband any challenges or debates to his decision at his own discretion, then for all practical purposes, debating can’t actually get the Pope to change his mind unless he feels like changing his mind in the first place. If he wants his decision to stand, he could just simply dissolve all opposition and end all debate, if what you say is true.

What?..

If the Pope can override anyone, then in reality, he is the supreme authority in the Church, and nobody can challenge him in any way that could really have an impact, unless the Pope decides that your challenge is going to change anything.

The point is, that was made quite clearly, if you had read all the posts, is that Catholics believe that the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit.

I understand that.

The Pope doesn’t rule anyone. He is the servant and Holy Father and Shepherd of the Church. Trust in one’s Pope has nothing to do with King and Queen set-ups. The Pope upholds and discusses, responds and prayerfully guides. Kings and Queens are about power and holding onto that power, or used to be, but Popes are not preaching power but about setting examples of how to love as Jesus loved in our times through the eyes of the Gospel or the Gospel being lived out in our times through our lives in the Holy Spirit. So I don’t see your comparison as legitimate. Any institution that survives on earth has to have a body with a hierarchy, but from one body to the next greatly changes how this hierarchy/authority sees itself - or in the Pope’s position, how he views where he stands in relation to the rest of the body and what his duty is and how best he is to serve. This is an argument that I have come across too many times by atheists, whose only wish is, as another poster in another thread put it so very eloquently, to: “set up straw dogs only to set them on fire”.

I guess what I’ve been trying to do is see how Vatican 1 doesn’t make the Pope a monarch over the Church. I know the Popes themselves have said that their role is one of service, humility, brotherhood and love, but I’m having trouble seeing how Vatican 1 says the same thing.

 

[rcwitness]

But do you think that the Pope CAN come in and micro-manage a diocese that is not his own whenever he likes? It’s one thing if the local (or ordinary, to use what I think is the Catholic term) bishop there goes into heresy and the Pope needs to do damage control before **** hits the fan if the head of that bishop’s synod can’t handle things, but can the Pope just say, “Hey guys, I’mma step in on the Diocese of Columbus and take charge for a while, sorry Bishop Fredrick”?

Hmmm… I suppose he could, hypothetically. That is probably a strange scenerio, no? I would think Bishop Fredrick would feel honored. Would that be considered a paid vacation? I would invision more of the way that things do happen, where the Pope makes visits all over the world and absorbs as much of what going on, while encouraging leaders and laity alike.

I think I’m gonna safe some of my thoughts (or better yet, prepare my thoughts) regarding this topic for an upcoming thread. Not from myself, but one that is going to spring up from this recent number of concerns regarding “Supreme, immediate and Universal Jurisdiction”.

 

[jmcrae]

Really? The only place I don’t get stared at is at a Newman Center on a college campus. Everywhere else, the entire congregation isn’t focused on the Eucharist, it’s the dirty looks and staring at me. I’m not asking for VIP treatment, I’m not asking for a social club (I don’t know where these straw man non sequiturs come from - it only proves what I’m saying that singles aren’t appreciated in most Catholic parishes). I simply would like to be WELCOMED. Is that too much to ask? To act like you’re happy to see me at church?

That sounds very disconcerting - I’m not in favour of that.

As for opportunities to be active…well, yeah, there are plenty of opportunities - for parents, children and teens, and seniors. If I’m not a parent, not a child or teen, and not a senior, however, I’m really hard-pressed to find these “opportunities” of which you speak.

Think carefully. Is it true that they are forbidding you from handing out bulletins after Mass, serving and waiting tables at Church suppers,or other ordinary service activities, or is it that you want to be made special in some way? That ordinary involvement isn’t good enough for you? Because I seriously doubt that you are being forbidden to serve in ordinary ways.

 

[friardchips]

Popes can and have made mistakes in the past. Papal Infallibility does not mean Papal impeccability. There’s a reason the Catholic Church has the entire synod of bishops, and not just the Pope running things. The Pope is a fallible human just like the lot of us, and correct me if I’m wrong, but according to Catholic teaching, the Pope is only infallible in very specific instances. Outside of those, of course it’s possible for the Pope to go off his rocker.

Okay, points noted. But not that specific. The Pope is infallible on matter of doctrine, faith and morals. This pretty much covers most things except maybe not his personal health!

He might fall of his rocker but I think things would be handled very gently and he wouldn’t just be shoved over or bludgeoned to death like medieval kings and queens were.

Sure, he has many a Bish to bash things out with but all for the same good end - Heaven on earth.

 

[friardchips]

I’m not sayng that debate is not meaningful. I’m saying that, if the Pope can disband any challenges or debates to his decision at his own discretion, then for all practical purposes, debating can’t actually get the Pope to change his mind unless he feels like changing his mind in the first place. If he wants his decision to stand, he could just simply dissolve all opposition and end all debate, if what you say is true.

I was guessing. If so, maybe. But this is what a Pope is for, to be a great Saint and to guide us as such. Fortunately, especially in this and the last century particularly, God has been very kind to us.

If the Pope can override anyone, then in reality, he is the supreme authority in the Church, and nobody can challenge him in any way that could really have an impact, unless the Pope decides that your challenge is going to change anything.

The difference between the Pope and a King or Queen (or some of them at least) is that the Pope spends a lot of time in prayer. The reason is that he Himself is then guided by God and whoever he is praying to for intercession. Bishops, and the whole Church understand and trust in God, and have, out of piety, a faithful trust in the Pope (and his band of holy men), and a trust in the initial choice that it was by God’s finger that the newly selected Pope has been appointed. If we remember that Jesus Himself chose Peter and from Peter is the succession of Popes we can begin to see how deep-rooted this obedient trust goes, and is needed, and is asked for, from all the faithful.

I understand that.

I guess what I’ve been trying to do is see how Vatican 1 doesn’t make the Pope a monarch over the Church. I know the Popes themselves have said that their role is one of service, humility, brotherhood and love, but I’m having trouble seeing how Vatican 1 says the same thing.

Okay. Well, a Pope responds to the needs of the day. And understanding grows as time passes. Scripture doesn’t change, but adherence to it does, due to our understanding of it developing, and so the Church grows. The Church learns how Truths develop by responding to the needs of the day, in accordance with the Scriptures. In a sense, although Revelation has been completed by the end of the New Testament, the knowledge of Christ’s teaching - or, knowledge of Christ - deepens more and more as we live life with Him, in Him, in our day and time. The Popes know this and always, I think as a matter of course, have a duty to revise what is already understood, even if they decide to keep things gently ticking along as they are. What is it about Vat I that bothers you, specifically, please?

 

[guanophore]

Think carefully. Is it true that they are forbidding you from handing out bulletins after Mass, serving and waiting tables at Church suppers,or other ordinary service activities, or is it that you want to be made special in some way? That ordinary involvement isn’t good enough for you? Because I seriously doubt that you are being forbidden to serve in ordinary ways.

I think it is important to acknowledge that human beings have a natural tendency to want to be special, and to be the apple of someone’s eye. We tend to seek to have this need met by others, ,since we are not consious of being the apple of HIS eye.

When I read yoru post I also thought how imporant is to BE the change we want to see, for example, if I don’t feel welcome at Mass, I would have to put myself out to welcome others. I am not really into that, in fact, I would prefer to arrive early and for all the meet and greet to happen outside the sanctuary so that I can kneel and pray before Mass.

But I notice that doing for others what I want them to do for me does meet some of my need, if not all.

 

[Shiranui117]

Okay, points noted. But not that specific. The Pope is infallible on matter of doctrine, faith and morals. This pretty much covers most things except maybe not his personal health!

Actually, it is rather specific. The Pope is only infallible…

“when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.”

I was guessing. If so, maybe. But this is what a Pope is for, to be a great Saint and to guide us as such. Fortunately, especially in this and the last century particularly, God has been very kind to us.

The difference between the Pope and a King or Queen (or some of them at least) is that the Pope spends a lot of time in prayer. The reason is that he Himself is then guided by God and whoever he is praying to for intercession. Bishops, and the whole Church understand and trust in God, and have, out of piety, a faithful trust in the Pope (and his band of holy men), and a trust in the initial choice that it was by God’s finger that the newly selected Pope has been appointed. If we remember that Jesus Himself chose Peter and from Peter is the succession of Popes we can begin to see how deep-rooted this obedient trust goes, and is needed, and is asked for, from all the faithful.

Okay. Well, a Pope responds to the needs of the day. And understanding grows as time passes. Scripture doesn’t change, but adherence to it does, due to our understanding of it developing, and so the Church grows. The Church learns how Truths develop by responding to the needs of the day, in accordance with the Scriptures. In a sense, although Revelation has been completed by the end of the New Testament, the knowledge of Christ’s teaching - or, knowledge of Christ - deepens more and more as we live life with Him, in Him, in our day and time. The Popes know this and always, I think as a matter of course, have a duty to revise what is already understood, even if they decide to keep things gently ticking along as they are. What is it about Vat I that bothers you, specifically, please?

It’s partially the idea that the role of the Pope within the Church has been made a dogmatic thing. I wouldn’t actually have a problem with Papal supremacy if it wasn’t a dogma, but if it was rather something that simply evolved to where it is now as a result of the Catholic Church having to adapt to various historical circumstances.

But because the role of the Pope is viewed as dogmatic, we need to interpret the Vatican 1 documents in a way that is consistent with the history of the Church. And a monarchical Pope that is supreme and can override every other bishop in the world and is not beholden to the decrees of an Ecumenical Council does not fit history. Vatican 1 to me doesn’t make it sound like the Pope is the servus servorum dei, but rather, when I read Vatican 1, it sounds like the Pope is being made into a rex servorum dei. And obviously many Popes have asserted that yes, they are truly the servus servorum dei. So how can Vatican 1, with all its talk of the Pope’s authority being supreme, immediate, ordinary and universal, extending to every diocese (and apparently with the ability to interfere with the local bishops’ authority for no reason) possibly be interpreted as the Pope being a servant of the Church, rather than the ruler of it?

Again, the paragraphs that really give me trouble are these three from chapter 3:

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. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. 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.
3. 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.

 

[guanophore]

Actually, it is rather specific. The Pope is only infallible...

“when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.”

Thank you for posting this. In reading the thread, I was watching it get wider and wider, to an unrealistic extent.

it was rather something that simply evolved to where it is now as a result of the Catholic Church having to adapt to various historical circumstances.

This is how it seems to me too.

But because the role of the Pope is viewed as dogmatic, we need to interpret the Vatican 1 documents in a way that is consistent with the history of the Church.

This task has produced what appears to be an eisegesis into Sacred Tradition.

So how can Vatican 1, with all its talk of the Pope’s authority being supreme, immediate, ordinary and universal, extending to every diocese (and apparently with the ability to interfere with the local bishops’ authority for no reason) possibly be interpreted as the Pope being a servant of the Church, rather than the ruler of it?[/qoute]

I don’t see anything of the kind in the documents, and such behavior would certainly be contradictory to Sacred Tradition, as well as scripture.

As far as your query, it is a good one. Yet we have in Christ the perfect model for this. He, though being in the form of God, emptied Himself, and became humble. As the ruler of all creation, He is the servant of the Church, as well as her Head.

 

[friardchips]

Actually, it is rather specific. The Pope is only infallible…

“when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.”

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930317en.html

**'The Successor of Peter Teaches Infallibly

General Audience — March 17, 1993

The Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, which we explained in the preceding catechesis, belongs to and marks the high point of the mission to preach the Gospel that Jesus entrusted to the apostles and their successors. We read in Vatican II’s Constitution Lumen Gentium:

“Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice… Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent” (LG 25).

The magisterial function of bishops, then, is strictly tied to that of the Roman Pontiff. Therefore, the conciliar text goes on aptly to say:

“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking” (LG 25).

This supreme authority of the papal Magisterium, to which the term apostolic has been traditionally reserved, even in its ordinary exercise derives from the institutional fact that the Roman Pontiff is the Successor of Peter in the mission of teaching, strengthening his brothers, and guaranteeing that the Church’s preaching conforms to the “deposit of faith” of the apostles and of Christ’s teaching. However, it also stems from the conviction, developed in Christian tradition, that the Bishop of Rome is also the heir to Peter in the charism of special assistance that Jesus promised him when he said: “I have prayed for you” (Lk 22:32). This signifies the Holy Spirit’s continual help in the whole exercise of the teaching mission, meant to explain revealed truth and its consequences in human life.’**

etc…

This covers it.

 

[friardchips]

It’s partially the idea that the role of the Pope within the Church has been made a dogmatic thing. I wouldn’t actually have a problem with Papal supremacy if it wasn’t a dogma, but if it was rather something that simply evolved to where it is now as a result of the Catholic Church having to adapt to various historical circumstances.

But because the role of the Pope is viewed as dogmatic, we need to interpret the Vatican 1 documents in a way that is consistent with the history of the Church. And a monarchical Pope that is supreme and can override every other bishop in the world and is not beholden to the decrees of an Ecumenical Council does not fit history. Vatican 1 to me doesn’t make it sound like the Pope is the servus servorum dei, but rather, when I read Vatican 1, it sounds like the Pope is being made into a rex servorum dei. And obviously many Popes have asserted that yes, they are truly the servus servorum dei. So how can Vatican 1, with all its talk of the Pope’s authority being supreme, immediate, ordinary and universal, extending to every diocese (and apparently with the ability to interfere with the local bishops’ authority for no reason) possibly be interpreted as the Pope being a servant of the Church, rather than the ruler of it?

Again, the paragraphs that really give me trouble are these three from chapter 3:

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. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. 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.
3. 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.

Please read my above post and the link provided.

 

[friardchips]

(Just to note)…if a Pope were to forever exclude a member of the Church God would right this and so would not necessarily exclude this person’s chance of salvation (had they wished to go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation before they died but because of being anathematized weren’t able to). This is one of the issues I had - Popes being able to hand out verdicts of eternal condemnation in previous centuries. But this has been corrected and we must be grateful for this. Councils were set up in various ages in order to combat the sometimes aggressive tactics from outside forces which threatened the continuing existence of the Church or at the least threatened to weaken its understanding or position in each of those times. So while the ‘excluding forever’ part of previous papacies was a seeming ‘wrong’, because God is the Head of the Church and we must forgive, this error in the greater reality of things obviously did not stand forever. And these Popes were not supposedly acting out of accordance with their consciences although their consciences may not have been open as much to the guidance of the Holy Sprit as their consciences could have been. St. Bridgette slammed one of the Popes so it is not as if God would not have tried to steer them the right way when they went off course. Although this sounds like an excuse, to a degree, but life IS subjective to its times - and as we know God is the judge of history - as revelation of Christ - the Word of God, although He has been Spoken and has lived, is still being realized fully, or discovered, through the learning and the living of the faithful today and in each day and age. This is one of the reasons we have a duty to learn and go forth, not just for those today, but also for future generations. So the Pope’s position is sacred and any errors in the past points to the continuing need to be as open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit as one can possibly be. We see this today and in the Popes of the last century before. We must also not dismiss any previous Popes because where their short-sightedness may have prevailed in one sense they may have done great things in another way. We only know from history the main facts but what we don’t know are all the things history does not tell us. We don’t know if they regretted their actions and tried to correct their wrongs, apologised to God about them, prayed for the people they anathematized, or if they even spoke with the people whom they anathematized after the event, off-record. We have to trust that God sees and heals, which we know He did, long term, concerning this particular problem, from the attitudes of forgiveness displayed in the Councils existing after.

 

[Shiranui117]

This task has produced what appears to be an eisegesis into Sacred Tradition.

So then, what would be the best way to interpret Vatican 1, keeping in mind that if Vatican 1 is an Ecumenical Council, then it must be in line with Sacred Tradition?

I don’t see anything of the kind in the documents, and such behavior would certainly be contradictory to Sacred Tradition, as well as scripture.

I can definitely agree with the latter part. How would you read the documents?

As far as your query, it is a good one. Yet we have in Christ the perfect model for this. He, though being in the form of God, emptied Himself, and became humble. As the ruler of all creation, He is the servant of the Church, as well as her Head.

So then, let’s suppose this. Jesus is our model for what we would expect of any Christian, most especially what we should expect of the Pope. If the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth in some unique way, then how he manages the affairs of the Church (for lack of better phrasing) should be the same way that Christ would do so. If this premise is both valid and sound (i.e. correct), then let this be our main premise.

If the bishops’ relationship to Christ is to receive their guidance from Him in the Holy Spirit, and to be in union with Him and in submission to Him, then would the bishops’ relationship to the Pope be to receive guidance from him in the form of encyclicals and personal communications, and to be in union with him and submission to him? Do bishops therefore submit to the Pope’s authority in the same way that they would to Christ’s, excepting the fact that Christ’s authority comes directly from Him being God, whereas the Pope’s authority is conferred upon him by Christ?

And let’s suppose that each bishop (including the Pope) shepherds his own diocese under the guidance of Christ in the Holy Spirit. Now, Jesus does not rule over any diocese directly, nor would He pop down onto earth to essentially take control of a diocese from that bishop. And as long as what is being done in the diocese is in accordance with the Apostolic Tradition, Jesus would let that stand. So if the Pope is the Vicar of Christ in some unique way, he would similarly not take control of a diocese from any other bishop or infringe on their ability to shepherd their own diocese. He would also let the businesses of a diocese go untouched as long as they adhere to the Apostolic Tradition and nothing goes way out of what the local bishop and the bishops of the surrounding dioceses can handle. Is this correct?

But then we come to the idea that the Pope has full and supreme authority over the Church, that is both ordinary and immediate. We have already noted that the Pope can submit encyclicals that guide the Church at large, and he could potentially issue encyclicals that are targeted at certain regions (Exsurge Domine may be one example of this, as the Protestant phenomenon was primarily concentrated north of the Alps and west of Poland). He would also be able to hear appeals from cases originating in any diocese around the world and judge whether a retrial needs to be commenced. And within his own Roman Church, he can, as its primate, make a church-wide tribunal to judge far-reaching cases within the Roman Church. So the authority of the Pope, as derived from the second paragraph in this post, does not consist in the Pope directly going to a diocese and usurping control from a bishop or a local synod. Therefore, the supreme, ordinary and immediate authority of the Pope must be expressed in such acts as making rulings and issuing statements on important matters concerning an area, or even concerning the entire Church. And since the other bishops are bound to submit to the Pope’s authority in a similar fashion as they would submit to Christ’s, this authority is truly supreme. Is this correct?

I was going to do a logical proof of how the Pope and the synod of bishops harmonize and collaborate on things to make the Pope’s rulings on various matters collegial and not monarchical, but I don’t think I need to run that gambit. How’s my logic looking so far? Is this essentially what Vatican I was saying?

 

[NoMondays]

(playing devil’s advocate here) To the OP’s original question, a good argument against becoming Catholic:

1. Sexual Guilt - Feeling, acting upon, viewing, or thinking about anything remotely sexual is a sin. Unless you’re married and having sex only for procreation.

This seems to be an argument I here from many younger coworkers, family and friends against becoming Catholic.

 

[SanguineRose]

To answer the OP:

I can only really give you my argument, which is that my experience with Catholicism was sort of scary. There are a lot of interesting features to Catholicism, and it may be a really good religion once you’ve sort of gotten properly acculturated, but getting to that point seems pretty harrowing if you’re going into it completely unfamiliar with how Christians do things. I’ll grant you that there are some pretty good arguments for the existence of God and what-not, but there was really nothing in my experience with Catholicism - and I feel like I gave it a fair and open-minded shot - that lead me to believe in it. So, simply not believing in the Catholic idea of God and so on strikes me as a good reason not to be Catholic.

 

[Peter_J]

I gave my reason for why I’m no longer a Catholic, and only one poster gave any sort of response to it (thank you Peter J ).

shaw:

But with all the extra criteria that get added in, a lot of people say that the Pope has only spoken twice in recorded history, whereas others make up a way more massive list.

Those others are either crazy or they’ve never read

Of ex cathedra statements there are two. Two is the number of ex cathedra statements, and the number of ex cathedra statements is two. Three shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count one, excepting that thou shalt then proceed to two.

 

[Peter_J]

crazy

Okay, maybe I exaggerated a little ^^ there.

 

[Peter_J]

Okay, points noted. But not that specific. The Pope is infallible on matter of doctrine, faith and morals. This pretty much covers most things except maybe not his personal health!

I quite agree with you that “The Pope is infallible on matters of doctrine, faith and morals” is not very specific – on the contrary, it is very, very broad – but that is what a lot of Catholics think Vatican I taught. I think it’s a serious problem.

 

[guanophore]

(playing devil’s advocate here) To the OP’s original question, a good argument against becoming Catholic:

1. Sexual Guilt - Feeling, acting upon, viewing, or thinking about anything remotely sexual is a sin. Unless you’re married and having sex only for procreation.

This seems to be an argument I here from many younger coworkers, family and friends against becoming Catholic.

Gosh! It is a good thing this is not true.

God created us as sexual beings, and it is a natural function of our humanity to feel and think about sex and sexuality.

That being said, I do think we live in a culture that contradicts self control and continence,whether in marriage, or out.

Improper management of sexual thoughts and feelings are as much a problem inside of marriage as they are outside.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I don’t see what you are getting at.

You are “attaching” the IC with doctrines like the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus that were spoken of by the Prophets. These 2 dogmas are present with the Apostles and declared by the Church before the 6th century.

On the other hand, the IC did not become a dogma until 1854, where Pope Pius IX declared: “is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore must be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful of the Roman Catholic Church."

Before I address anymore of your straw men we need to solve this:

How was the IC revealed by God?

Also, if Mary was not subject to the same conditions as other humans because she was “from the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God,” like it was declared by Pope Pius IX.

Then, BVM was not fully human. That would make her stand different than any other human from the seed of Adam. In which case we take away from Christ’s being fully human.

 

[guanophore]

You are “attaching” the IC with doctrines like the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus that were spoken of by the Prophets. These 2 dogmas are present with the Apostles and declared by the Church before the 6th century.

On the other hand, the IC did not become a dogma until 1854, where Pope Pius IX declared: “is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore must be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful of the Roman Catholic Church."

You sound like those who deny that the canon was solid before Trent. The dogma of the canon did not change anything about the belief of the Church. It was declared to fight the heresies that were rampant about the nature of the canon.

How was the IC revealed by God?

We see that the angel greeted Mary with a title, “Full of Grace”, rather than her name. Her state of being filled with grace existed prior to the angel’s greeting.

Jesus was to be fully human and fully God. He took his humanity from Mary, yet was untainted by original sin.

She is the Ark of the New Covenant, as the story in Luke portrays, her journey exactly follows the parallel given in the OT.

And from the time of the earliest Christians, recourse was made to her for the needs of the Church. We find the beliefs about her woven into the prayers and liturgies that have come down to us from teh Early Church.

Then, of course, God allowed her to appear and introduce herself as the IC.

Also, if Mary was not subject to the same conditions as other humans because she was “from the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God,” like it was declared by Pope Pius IX.

Then, BVM was not fully human. That would make her stand different than any other human from the seed of Adam. In which case we take away from Christ’s being fully human.

No, sin is not part of our humanity. Adam and Eve were created without sin. Sin entered through disobedience, and was never intended to be part of our human existence.

Mary does, though, as you say, stand out differently from any other seed of Adam. She is the new Eve, the one created without sin that did not give in to sin.