Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

[josie_L]

Papal supremacy wasn’t just challenged during the first thousand years of the Church. It wasn’t just violated. It was routinely shown to not even exist. I also discuss this in my post below.

Just because it was challenged does not mean that it did not exist, moreover, there is more than enough evidence for papal supremacy in Tradition as well as Scripture (or do you think these inconsequential) and history to prove that it was indeed a doctrine of the church (and was put to practice by the popes themselves). I can think off the top of my head, three or four cases that uphold this teaching, i.e., Pope St. Victor with the Quatradecimans (we differ on its outcome), Pope St. Stephen on the issue of rebaptism, Pope St. Hormisdas and the Acacian schism, Pope St. Leo and his tome. . . etc.

I find it interesting that saints during that time also attested to the fact that the pope had the highest authority in the church, one such saint is St. Vincent Lerins (his letters attest to the fact that the issue of rebaptism had been solved and put to rest by the authority of Pope St. Stephen as the successor to Peter):

"Pope St. Stephen of blessed memory, Prelate of the Apostolic See, in conjunction indeed with colleagues but yet himself the foremost, withstood it [rebaptism], thinking it right, I doubt not, that as he exceeded all others in the authority of his place, so he should also in the devotion of his faith"

As for Papal Infallibility, it seems murky at best as to when it’s actually been applied. My understanding of it is, “The Pope’s speaking infallibly when he talks all official-like and says something in line with the Tradition of the Church.” 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. The lack of agreement among Catholics as to when the Pope is infallibly speaking is pretty damning in my view.

I see no one denying papal infallibility, i.e., to deny that it exists is an entirely different argument, and one that is not upheld by Tradition, Scripture or history.

And Papal Supremacy and Papal Universal Jurisdiction seem in my eyes to be completely against what everyone knows to be the history of the Church. The way Vatican 1 words those two things is impossible to get around. I understand that subsequent Popes have explained that their supremacy and universal jurisdiction are in terms of love, encouragement, advisement and checking in on how things are going, but that is not at all what I see Vatican 1 saying. As a disclaimer,I do not in any way dispute Papal primacy. What I DO dispute, are the Vatican 1 dogmas of Papal Supremacy and Papal Universal Jurisdiction.

Marduk, a poster that was banned had the best responses concerning this, if you seek out his posts you will be able to discern that the language being used in Vatican I does not mean that the bishops are underlings of the pope (there is collegiality alongside supremacy), i.e., Vatican I in essence cannot be understood without reading the documents of Vatican II (which essentially concluded Vatican I).

The idea that a Pope can’t be contradicted or overruled by an Ecumenical Council flies in the face of history, so I cannot possibly accept that. We’ve seen Popes being reviewed by Ecumenical Councils (the Council of Chalcedon thoroughly read and discussed Pope St. Leo’s Tome before accepting it as orthodox; it was by no means automatically accepted as authoritative just because Pope Leo issued it), and an Ecumenical Council has both condemned a Pope (i.e. Honorius, but I don’t feel like re-opening that can of worms).

Actually, the tome was read by bishops of the Church prior to the council, and it was affirmed by them, in other words a council was not necessary to confirm its orthodoxy (that was a formality). Pope St. Leo respected the collegiality of the church (which is why he requested to have the council in the first place) despite having already issued a tome that was readily accepted by the Church prior to the Council. Moreover, you seem to think that just because a pope has papal supremacy we must assume he must always use it exclusively, i.e., he would not allow for a more collegial approach to a heresy alongside his prerogatives as head of the earthly church, which is not what supremacy is about. Another thing I might add is that Pope St. Agatho presided via his legates over the 6th council which condemned Honorius, and if you read the acts of that council you will find a very convincing argument for papal supremacy.

And an Ecumenical Council forced another Pope to do an about-face on his position (I’m thinking Pope Vigilius being forced by the Fifth Ecumenical Council to change his position and condemn the Three Chapters, when he had previously accepted them as orthodox).

No, it was not an ecumenical council that forced the pope into anything (it could not even be considered ecumenical if the only patriarch of the west and the head of the church had not affirmed it), in fact the pope was imprisoned for a little over 10 years by Emperor Justinian before he affirmed that the Three Chapters were indeed heretical. He was held this long because Emperor Justinian understood the position that the pope held, i.e., he knew the only way that the decisions made by the council could be universally accepted was if the pope affirmed it (which is why even after the council concluded, the pope was still held under arrest until he affirmed its orthodoxy).

to be continued. . . . .

 

[josie_L]

And we also see Pope Victor changing his mind about excommunicating the Quartodecimians after a bunch of people reprimanded him for his actions, including people within his own church.

Reprimanding a pope (like St. Paul did with St. Peter) or challenging him does not mean he did not have the power to excommunicate the Quatrodecimans (they were considered heretical as according to the second ecumenical council), moreover, please note that thereafter, the date upon which Easter was celebrated was the same for all the Church, so guess who won that debate!!!

And let’s not forget Pope Damasus’ track record in going against St. Meletius of Antioch, backing his opponents and breaking off communion with the rest of Antioch. Even though the Pope had clearly shown he didn’t like Meletius, St. Meletius still presided over the First Council of Constantinople, and indeed, it was the episcopal line of St. Meletius that won out (and is now the line of Antiochene Patriarchs in the Eastern Churches, including the Eastern Catholic churches might I add) whereas the Rome-backed Paulinian line died out.

Heresy and persecution reigned in those times so I think it was hardly the fault of the Pope that things were so chaotic in Antioch, different orthodox factions were vying for the seat of Antioch, moreover, what this has to do with papal supremacy I fail to see, are you claiming that supremacy hinges on never being wrong?

p.s. The first council of Constantinople was not considered ecumenical until Chalcedon, hence St. Meletius presided over a local council not an ecumenical one.

 

[josie_L]

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.

Forgive me for asking Jose, but what are you discerning (I am sorry to hear you are doubting Catholic teaching)?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

Doesn’t compare either guano. There has been a common consensus (Take a book here and add a book there, but the usual suspects have been present) by the Whole Church on the canon since the 4th century.

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.

That is a big assumption. There is no concept of time in the angel’s declaration. That God preordains and predestines is understandable.

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

Because Jesus is not from the seed of Adam. He shares Mary’s [full] humanity. Because Jesus is fully God and fully human.

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 that is a beautiful typology. How was this revealed in the 19th century without being revealed privately?

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 the Early Church.

As there are other pious theological prayers and liturgies. It was not dogma. IOW - it wasn’t necessary for salvation.

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.

That is another beautiful analogy: Death through Eve and Life through Mary.

But the jump to IC does present us with a person who was not conditioned to full humanity.

Guano, this is not directly to you but…

Can someone please have the courtesy to answer my questions!?

It’s starting to aggravate me and take the form of disrespect. I try to answer all questions posed to me. I expect the same in return. Thank you.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Forgive me for asking Jose, but what are you discerning

My place in the Faith.

(I am sorry to hear you are doubting Catholic teaching)?

Yes.

 

[Apostolic_Truth]

Because there are contrasts with what i read in the bible versus what i have seen in the catholic church.
My wife is catholic and we were married in a catholic church and her family has tried on many occasions to talk to me about converting. I haven’t because my foundation is based on biblical text ONLY. If it cant be found in scripture I dont practice it…why because the scripture said to “shut the book” meaning i cant add nor take away from it. I cant manipulate it to fit church practices. Prime example, the other day my mother in law introduces me to a priest as Father Paul and she became offended when i called him by Paul and not Father Paul. The scripture says i can not call any man Father except my holy father referring to God. Being a priest i have to assume he has read the bible and has come across that scripture and decided it was ok to continue to allow people to call him what God has directly said not to. I advised her to read Matthew 23:9 but it wont change anything. Even though God gave a direct order of what not to do they will continue to do it and doing so is a sin! The scripture says that when we know to do right and we do wrong to us it is a sin.

 

[guanophore]

That is a big assumption. There is no concept of time in the angel’s declaration. That God preordains and predestines is understandable.

In angels, certainly being outside the space/time continuum, there is no concept of time, but the inspired author uses the term kecharitomene. The ‘perfect’ action of the participle is considered to have been completed before the time of the speaker.

Because Jesus is not from the seed of Adam. He shares Mary’s [full] humanity. Because Jesus is fully God and fully human.

True. Technically he is from the seed of Eve.

And that is a beautiful typology. How was this revealed in the 19th century without being revealed privately?

It was revealed to the Early Church, which is why it is documented in the Gospel of Luke. Personally I always thought Luke got it from Paul’s preachings.

As there are other pious theological prayers and liturgies. It was not dogma. IOW - it wasn’t necessary for salvation.

Dogmatic pronouncements are made to combat heresies. They are not needed until heresies are rampant, and are made to protect the faithful. It is not up to us to determine what is necessary for salvation. The Gospel is One. THe faith is One. She is part of the Gospel message. We don’t have the authority to dissect it and decide on our own which parts are “neccessary to salvation” and which are not.

That is another beautiful analogy: Death through Eve and Life through Mary.

But the jump to IC does present us with a person who was not conditioned to full humanity.

To take this position, you must deny the Scriptures and the teachings of the Apostles. Eve was fully human - immaculately conceived by God - no sin! You are saying she was not “fully human”.

Guano, this is not directly to you but…

Can someone please have the courtesy to answer my questions!?

It’s starting to aggravate me and take the form of disrespect. I try to answer all questions posed to me. I expect the same in return. Thank you.

Sorry if I missed something. Maybe the link above will help?

 

[Peter_J]

Because there are contrasts with what i read in the bible versus what i have seen in the catholic church.

Alright, but we see contrasts between what we read in the bible and what we see in Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Calvinist, Baptist … well, I could continue but essentially all of the “non-Catholic religions”.

 

[Peter_J]

Can someone please have the courtesy to answer my questions!?

I’ll try harder.

Possibly your posts have been a bit lost-in-the-shuffle, what with the number of posts on this forum.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Actually, the tome was read by bishops of the Church prior to the council, and it was affirmed by them, in other words a council was not necessary to confirm its orthodoxy (that was a formality). Pope St. Leo respected the collegiality of the church (which is why he requested to have the council in the first place) despite having already issued a tome that was readily accepted by the Church prior to the Council.

I disagree. An entire session of the Council of Chalcedon was devoted to debating the Orthodoxy of the tome. It is true that some bishops had read the tome beforehand, but they were probably the small minority who were working behind the scenes to ensure that the council would establish the new imperial policy under Marcian and Pulcheria, which happened to be aligned doctrinally with the local diophysite party in Constantinople, the party which itself likely knew that Pope Leo’s tome endorsed its diophysite views (i.e., they were reading the tome not for instruction but as evidence to support their position). We know that the council fathers as a whole were not privy to the tome until its being read at the council because the acts noted that the bishops of certain regions interrupted the reading of the tome to object to Nestorian-like language in the tome, and that blessed Theodoret attempted to calm their misgivings by quoting St. Cyril as an authoritative figure to defend the orthodoxy of the tome. Furthermore, we know from the acts that even after the tome had been read, many bishops remained dissatisfied with its doctrinal formulations, so much so that time was taken outside of the sessions of the council to try to convince these dissenters to accept the orthodoxy of the tome. In the end, it seems that dissatisfaction with the tome as an acceptable grounds for a stable doctrinal formula must have been rather high, because the bishops themselves drew up a new Christological definition from scratch.

Moreover, you seem to think that just because a pope has papal supremacy we must assume he must always use it exclusively, i.e., he would not allow for a more collegial approach to a heresy alongside his prerogatives as head of the earthly church, which is not what supremacy is about. Another thing I might add is that Pope St. Agatho presided via his legates over the 6th council which condemned Honorius, and if you read the acts of that council you will find a very convincing argument for papal supremacy.

One might find great evidence for a primacy of mediate jurisdiction, but evidence of a primacy of immediate jurisdiction in every diocese on earth in my opinion is lacking.

No, it was not an ecumenical council that forced the pope into anything (it could not even be considered ecumenical if the only patriarch of the west and the head of the church had not affirmed it), in fact the pope was imprisoned for a little over 10 years by Emperor Justinian before he affirmed that the Three Chapters were indeed heretical. He was held this long because Emperor Justinian understood the position that the pope held, i.e., he knew the only way that the decisions made by the council could be universally accepted was if the pope affirmed it (which is why even after the council concluded, the pope was still held under arrest until he affirmed its orthodoxy).

Yet the last session of the council clearly indicates that the council felt itself to be authoritative, even without the participation of the Pope. Furthermore, Justinian knew no such thing, because what you propose he knew is a theory of papal magisterium which was developed in the High Middle Ages. In fact, the idea that Pope Vigilius’ approval would secure universal approval for the council is demonstrably false. After the council, several major North Italian sees, including Milan and Aquileia, went into schism with those who condemned the three chapters.

 

[rcwitness]

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."

This topic of Marian doctrines and their “necessary belief” among Catholics deserves carefull attention. Does the Church actually Teach that belief in the doctrines of Mary as a requirement of salvation?

I think, as the Church has defined ‘dogmas’, that their relation to the foundation of the gospel is very relative. This may mean that one can definitely not “accept” as infallible the dogmas of Mary, yet still remain in God’s grace. It would become a matter of the heart and to what degree the person is merely “not accepting” as infallibly the Teaching from the Church.

No doubt the Church has made it authorative to a degree, but whether or not everyones ultimate salvation is dependent on believing these Marian doctrines, I would lean strongly in the direction that they are NOT.

 

[Shiranui117]

Because there are contrasts with what i read in the bible versus what i have seen in the catholic church.
My wife is catholic and we were married in a catholic church and her family has tried on many occasions to talk to me about converting. I haven’t because my foundation is based on biblical text ONLY. If it cant be found in scripture I dont practice it…why because the scripture said to “shut the book” meaning i cant add nor take away from it. I cant manipulate it to fit church practices. Prime example, the other day my mother in law introduces me to a priest as Father Paul and she became offended when i called him by Paul and not Father Paul. The scripture says i can not call any man Father except my holy father referring to God. Being a priest i have to assume he has read the bible and has come across that scripture and decided it was ok to continue to allow people to call him what God has directly said not to. I advised her to read Matthew 23:9 but it wont change anything. Even though God gave a direct order of what not to do they will continue to do it and doing so is a sin! The scripture says that when we know to do right and we do wrong to us it is a sin.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd....1aec0566bbe988d5aa57dda9854c5e62&oe=54B4F306&gda=1425030779_c485250642232427ea574e8bf19b186b

 

[friardchips]

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.

Indeed.

Certainly something to be addressed.

 

[friardchips]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd....1aec0566bbe988d5aa57dda9854c5e62&oe=54B4F306&gda=1425030779_c485250642232427ea574e8bf19b186b

Kind of pointless.

 

[Shiranui117]

Kind of pointless.

Much like relying entirely on a Biblical canon which wasn’t in any sort of definite form until the late 300’s at the earliest.

 

[Peter_J]

Kind of pointless.

How so?

 

[PRmerger]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd....1aec0566bbe988d5aa57dda9854c5e62&oe=54B4F306&gda=1425030779_c485250642232427ea574e8bf19b186b

Love it! If this were Facebook I’d click “Like!”

 

[friardchips]

Much like relying entirely on a Biblical canon which wasn’t in any sort of definite form until the late 300’s at the earliest.

Ah! I’ve gained your attention again! Did you read my link…?

(I think the blurred typographic design effect in the poster went out of date in the 300s. ).

 

[friardchips]

Love it! If this were Facebook I’d click “Like!”

Shame. It’s quite sacrilegious and it misinforms. But I suppose bad education can’t be worse than no education! Or can it…

 

[friardchips]

How so?

You serious?