Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

[PRmerger]

Perhaps. A lot of Catholics think this is impossible. Perhaps it is.

It does strain the boundaries of logic to think that a whole bunch of folks went to their death–brutal, horrifying deaths–without a single one of them ever re-canting and saying, “I did make it up! I did! Please let me live!”, were they lying.

I think the most likely case is that no living person on Earth truly knows the mental state of Jews living in 1st century Palestine. It appears to have been, to put it mildly, a hotbed for apocalyptic movements. Wild religious movements in modern times appear to attract witnesses willing to sacrifice for them, and of course they can’t all be true. The real problem is the use of ‘lie’. Human history is rife with people who, singly or in groups, went off on wild, idealistic crusades, even unto death, for ‘mistaken ideas’. The breadth of human psychology includes all kinds of self-deception, far more nuanced than ‘lying’ or ‘not lying’.

To what end did they all promote this lie? So they could die in horrible ways when all they had to do was recant their story?

 

[friardchips]

It does strain the boundaries of logic to think that a whole bunch of folks went to their death–brutal, horrifying deaths–without a single one of them ever re-canting and saying, “I did make it up! I did! Please let me live!”, were they lying.

To what end did they all promote this lie? So they could die in horrible ways when all they had to do was recant their story?

Very true! We wouldn’t have had martyrs as apostles if they had renounced their faith and later Nero wouldn’t have enjoyed himself so much if Christians had! Not to mention the other (hundreds of thousands/millions) of martyrs throughout history that died for the faith or gave up their life to serve God and neighbour in prayer and hard work in difficult and sometimes seemingly impossible circumstances.

This R.C Church is built upon the blood of martyrs and the lives of the saints.

Quite a testament!

 

[PRmerger]

The CC does not forbid the marriiage of anyone.

Indeed.

If the CC did, then how is it that I was married 25 years ago by a Catholic priest?

 

[jmcrae]

I quoted 1 Tim 4, go back a chapter to 1 Tin 3 where I think Paul’s talking about the guy who seeks the “priesthood”.

3 A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

Paul gives criteria for a bishop.

2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,

3 Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity.

5 But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

Paul’s bishops have a wife, kids and a well run household.

Paul’s Bishops had a maximum of one wife. Wives and children were not mandatory, or else both St. Paul and St. Timothy would have been disqualified - and obviously they were not.

I don’t know many Shakers, but I’ve shown you what Paul says about those who forbid marriage so how can they be considered part of “Bible-only Christianity”?

The same way all “Bible only” Christians are considered so - by basing their religion on a select few verses of the Bible and totally disregarding the rest of it, along with the entire Holy Tradition.

You will never meet a Shaker; they died out because of having no children.

It’s been a while since I was a kid but I’m pretty sure my Catholic friends believed they had been told by their church it was sin to eat meat on Friday. Those that would tell my friends such an awful lie are exactly the folks Paul is talking about.

4 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 1 Tim 4

These two things are completely unrelated. Abstaining from certain food one day of the week is not the same thing as Kosher law.

 

[PRmerger]

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Evidence for this, please!

I have evidence to the contrary: let’s say you were home on Aug 17, 2014. Today, the police come to your door to arrest you for a murder on Aug 17, which you know you did not do.

However, all the evidence asserts that you did it*: there are fingerprints on the gun. Witnesses testify they saw you. There is camera footage, albeit grainy, showing a man who looks remarkably like you going into the victim’s building at the right time.

But all you have is your subjective experience telling you that you did not do this.

Is it not possible for evidence to assert something that’s false, while one’s own subjective experience is actually true?

*Your enemies have framed you.

 

[Shiranui117]

Yes, but because of the succession of Popes in line with St. Peter, it is a divinely granted authority. I would say, that there is more than a human-respect-for-authority issue here, but one that is binding ‘supernaturally’ (depending on how we view that word). I would make a comparison to the trust one has, or faith we have, in the Sacraments, and in the Ordination of priests. We understand those spiritual realities to be holy and sacred, and binding. In the same light of trust and faith, (I believe) we should understand the position of the Holy Father, who stands in relationship to God and His Church.

Alright.

He is to give the example of Christ on earth as Holy Father and lead the Church towards being that more perfect example of Christ for others. And He is to lead the Church in the way Christ’s Spirit leads the Church by responding to the needs of the Church in the present time, accordingly.

I can see this.

I guess so, yes. I am guessing here: *Within reason! If a Pope did something, or said to do something, that was immoral and unfaithful then he would cease to be infallible because the Pope is infallible on matters of faith, morals and doctrine.

When speaking ex cathedra and meaning to define something to be held by the entire Church.

If he himself is mentally unable to act in accordance with good faith, morals and solid doctrine then he is not infallible on matters of etc… If He acts outside of what is good then Bishops could pick him up on it, I would imagine. But then he would probably be rushed to a Christian psycho-therapist before you could say “one lemon short of three”. As Christians, because of the binding nature of his Papacy to God, we know this is very unlikely. And we know that to be a Pope, let alone a religious, there is serious vetting that goes on* - end of guessing.

You mean, as in God has made the Papacy somehow binding on Christians?

The Bishops still have a personal relationship with God. Who knows, some may be closer to God than the Pope. But the point is, that those Bishops have chosen to serve the Church as a career, as well as being a Roman Catholic. And with any job, there is order and an order to follow - an authority, and there are rules and tasks to complete as in any job, and a need, a call, to trust that one’s superior knows what is wise to do etc…So Bishops are allowed to serve their own consciences as Christians, as any Christian can, but as part of their job role, are also called to respect the Pope’s wishes and follow orders and trust that this obedience is in accordance with God’s wishes, which will bear fruit in the long-term, even if if walking blind, initially. And this means accepting his declarations, which after being raised in debates, and after much prayer, invites God into the decision. I doubt anyone prays more than the Pope. To trust the Pope as one’s Holy Father is to obey Christ’s wishes. There is no contradiction because Jesus made this the case.

Fair enough.

Although Jesus won’t pop down to a diocese directly to take control, God does work in mysterious ways. Diocesan B’s can be challenged, or removed. If done so within charity, there’d be no reason why God may not have wanted this. Someone earlier said that even the Pope can be debated with.

I was more comparing Jesus’ not coming down and taking over a diocese to the idea that, if the Pope is supposed to be Christ’s Vicar on Earth, then the Pope would likewise not take over the diocese of another bishop. But on the other points, agreed.

(I think there is room for movement in each diocese but there are certainly do’s and don’ts which have to be adhered to. Diocesan B’s would be well aware of the sacredness of the position they hold and each Pope trusts his Bishops that they will not act out of accordance with what their role commands (of) them. Nowadays, there is quicker communication so it would be harder for a Bishop to ‘misbehave’. Maybe forty years ago there would have been more room for error. From this we could say that for much of the time a minister’s position is taken on trust, that they will fulfil what has been entrusted to them, to live as another Christ in that particular position.

Agreed here.

…to add:

Look at the Pope as a recognised and authorised Saint. This is close to the Truth. :heaven:

In some cases, not all.

In terms of the Church authority, all is done in trust, and the laity are not free from this. We are all part of God’s Body so we all have duties to fulfil as we are connected in brotherhood and sisterhood within the Holy Spirit. Which is why the Pope is our Holy Father (not our CEO. ).

And the Pope is the elder brother of all the other bishops, right?

In terms of Vat I, sorry I can’t be more help.

It’s alright, this itself has proven helpful.

In regards to ‘Polish monarchy’, sharing of info. would be welcome (if so, keep it brief for the sake of relevance to the Op’s thread).

I’m no expert on Polish history. I just know that the Polish king was elected by Parliament. And apparently he didn’t have much control after a while.

If he thought that something was wrong with a diocese, I don’t know if he couldn’t take full control directly. Maybe he could? But normally he has trusted people under him who would do this job instead, although they would have been appointed by him (?)

I imagine, if it was a problem within the Roman Church, that the Pope would appoint someone to be locum tenens. If it was an issue with one of the Eastern Catholic churches, then I imagine that the Synod (if the church in question was large enough to have a synod) would do the appointing. If not, then again, I imagine the Pope would appoint one.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Evidence for this, please!

I have evidence to the contrary: let’s say you were home on Aug 17, 2014. Today, the police come to your door to arrest you for a murder on Aug 17, which you know you did not do.

However, all the evidence asserts that you did it*: there are fingerprints on the gun. Witnesses testify they saw you. There is camera footage, albeit grainy, showing a man who looks remarkably like you going into the victim’s building at the right time.

But all you have is your subjective experience telling you that you did not do this.

Is it not possible for evidence to assert something that’s false, while one’s own subjective experience is actually true?

*Your enemies have framed you.

Actually pretty easy to demonstrate if he was at his house watching tv or surfing the internet. The device will show ownership and the IP address will show the history record. Therefore placing him outside the murder scene. Also if he used any tollways, his license plate or toll tag will place him at another place if the dates coincide. Phone calls, emails, etc.

Pretty easy. I’ll defend him for free as long as he cuts me 50% of the civil suit after he gets acquitted

 

[PRmerger]

Actually pretty easy to demonstrate if he was at his house watching tv or surfing the internet. The device will show ownership and the IP address will show the history record. Therefore placing him outside the murder scene. Also if he used any tollways, his license plate or toll tag will place him at another place if the dates coincide. Phone calls, emails, etc.

Pretty easy. I’ll defend him for free as long as he cuts me 50% of the civil suit after he gets acquitted

Nope. He didn’t watch TV or surf the 'net that night.

He read a book. Drank a beer. Turned in at 10PM and slept all night.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Nope. He didn’t watch TV or surf the 'net that night.

He read a book. Drank a beer. Turned in at 10PM and slept all night.

I have the video surveillance from the liquor store of him buying the beer at the time of the murder.

 

[PRmerger]

I have the video surveillance from the liquor store of him buying the beer at the time of the murder.

Nope. His friend brought it.

On August 11.

 

[friardchips]

Alright.

I can see this.

When speaking ex cathedra and meaning to define something to be held by the entire Church.

Yes. This is what I mean too. I don’t think on such serious matters, on views to be held by the whole Church, there is any doubt that the Pope will speak well inside the boundaries of Christian love. Maybe there is room for slight error with short-sightedness or whatever but I don’t think any issue would be so bad that it would end up as a big deal and not be righted eventually. I think they have things down slick and tidy in Vat City.

You mean, as in God has made the Papacy somehow binding on Christians?

Yes. Good way of putting it.

I was more comparing Jesus’ not coming down and taking over a diocese to the idea that, if the Pope is supposed to be Christ’s Vicar on Earth, then the Pope would likewise not take over the diocese of another bishop. But on the other points, agreed.

There has to be room for the Pope to be Pope and Jesus to be Jesus, if you see what I mean. If Jesus were literally walking in human form on the earth then He might go and have a few words with a Bish. And I would imagine that the Pope if he saw fit might be able to take command of a diocese but then if he did how would he run everything else?He would have to be omnipresent!

And the Pope is the elder brother of all the other bishops, right?

I thought of this when reading this line of your post: there is the unavoidable human element to being Pope too. He is younger by far than Benedict, I think. So how, apart from the holiness of the position, can Benedict and older Bishops see the Pope as their Holy ‘Father’? And I think the human character has a lot to do with it. Popes, as a rule, don’t come across as wimps (using an extreme to make a point). They have to have fervour, drive, motivation, fortitude, depths of wisdom, charisma, a strong character; in order to lead but also to serve with incredible compassion and humility. They have to be full of love but then smarter than a CEO (to use a past analogy) in many ways. Like an oracle and a Neo and Jesus all at the same time. Jesus was not timid. The Bishops know who the candidates are well before the election for a new Pope, (I reckon). So they know who has these attributes and who they can respect. To cut a very long story a tad bit shorter, I think they do respect him and love him as their Holy ‘Father’ not just older brother. Or maybe an older brother that they really look up to. Many of them are probably so close that they really are like close family, drinking tea and eating biscuits together, while watching the world news.

It’s alright, this itself has proven helpful.

I hope so. Nice to chat!

I’m no expert on Polish history. I just know that the Polish king was elected by Parliament. And apparently he didn’t have much control after a while.

I’ll have a read up.

I imagine, if it was a problem within the Roman Church, that the Pope would appoint someone to be locum tenens. If it was an issue with one of the Eastern Catholic churches, then I imagine that the Synod (if the church in question was large enough to have a synod) would do the appointing. If not, then again, I imagine the Pope would appoint one.

Yes. I think the Pope chooses. Sometimes other Bishops might inform him who might be a good candidate to fill a role if they know of one.

God bless.

 

[Joybearer]

Maybe the God that we Catholics worship to be all-loving really isn’t that loving after all. Most Catholics are self-righteous people anyway, how do you reconcile the people who worships the true God to be so full of themselves and so full of it.

If you bring out the argument that we shouldn’t judge a religion by its members, then what should we use to assess the validity of the said religion. Moreover, don’t we always say that we need to “test the spirit”? And a lot of how we do it is to assess it by the fruits that are produced. Many Catholics are ill-informed and adhere only to what they think is right, no matter what kind of evidence are brought up against what they think is right. What is the use of Tradition and Magisterium then? What kind of fruits are these? Rotten fruits I would say. And the Spirit, our Holy Spirit produces such rot? Highly unlikely. Protestantism and atheism is thriving. One of the main factors are these “Catholics”.

 

[friardchips]

Maybe the God that we Catholics worship to be all-loving really isn’t that loving after all. Most Catholics are self-righteous people anyway, how do you reconcile the people who worships the true God to be so full of themselves and so full of it.

If you bring out the argument that we shouldn’t judge a religion by its members, then what should we use to assess the validity of the said religion. Moreover, don’t we always say that we need to “test the spirit”? And a lot of how we do it is to assess it by the fruits that are produced. Many Catholics are ill-informed and adhere only to what they think is right, no matter what kind of evidence are brought up against what they think is right. What is the use of Tradition and Magisterium then? What kind of fruits are these? Rotten fruits I would say. And the Spirit, our Holy Spirit produces such rot? Highly unlikely. Protestantism and atheism is thriving. One of the main factors are these “Catholics”.

All of us can be self-righteous and I think there is always a need to challenge one’s own behaviour before the actions and words of others. This is hard to do on a forum but self-righteousness can be like hypocrisy in the form of talking a lot but not doing. As can being boastful (mentioned on here too earlier) which should be a wake up call for everyone.

Are Catholics uninformed? Well, I think this is what the New Evangelisation is for. And maybe if training centres didn’t charge so much initially for their extortionate catholic learning courses then the laity might be better educated already. I would like to see more courses and more things set up in the Church but then if we’re not allowed to set those things up then what can we do?..I don’t find many Catholics self-righteous but righteous, maybe in my area I am fortunate. I see saved sinners trying at least to do the right thing. Again, maybe in the U.K it is different.

Overall, I’d agree, in the sense that we need to try harder and the Church need to always keep itself going in God’s direction, and to try at least to behave with humility. I look at your post as challenging and I think it is good to be reminded of the need to look at one’s own plank first.

 

[eirene101]

Growing up in a Catholic Church, I found there are many teachings that are unbiblical. I am not trying to start any mess, there are certain things they teach like purgatory that is not biblical or taken out of context.

 

[PRmerger]

Growing up in a Catholic Church, I found there are many teachings that are unbiblical. I am not trying to start any mess, there are certain things they teach like purgatory that is not biblical or taken out of context.

When you say: “unbiblical”, do you mean it contradicts something in the Bible, or do you mean it’s not found in the Bible?

If it’s the latter, then where is the Bible verse that says that everything we believe about God must be found in the Bible?

If it’s the former, then what Bible verse does purgatory contradict?

 

[eirene101]

I would probably say both! I never understood the devotion to Mary, confessing to a priest, or intercession to saints when it stated in the bible to only talk to God and Jesus. With the bible study groups I go to now they even say Mary can’t hear your prayers because she is not God nor a holy person.

Again, I am not trying to make anyone angry. These things I just never understood even when I took catechism.

 

[PRmerger]

I would probably say both! I never understood the devotion to Mary, confessing to a priest, or intercession to saints when it stated in the bible to only talk to God and Jesus. With the bible study groups I go to now they even say Mary can’t hear your prayers because she is not God nor a holy person.

Again, I am not trying to make anyone angry. These things I just never understood even when I took catechism.

Firstly, welcome to the CAFs.

Secondly, you need not apologize for starting a discussion. That’s what a forum is. You post your opinions. Others respond. Sometimes there is agreement. Sometimes there is disagreement.

As long as it’s done in charity, it’s all good.

Now, what verse in the Bible states that everything we believe must be found in the Bible? Now, 'tis true that All Scripture is inspired by God, but that does NOT equate to: therefore everything that God has revealed is found ONLY in the Bible.

What verse states this?

 

[PRmerger]

I would probably say both! I never understood the devotion to Mary, confessing to a priest, or intercession to saints when it stated in the bible to only talk to God and Jesus. With the bible study groups I go to now they even say Mary can’t hear your prayers because she is not God nor a holy person.

Again, I am not trying to make anyone angry. These things I just never understood even when I took catechism.

And what verse in the Bible does the teaching on purgatory contradict?

Perhaps it might be a good idea if you explained what you understand the Catholic Church professes re: purgatory.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Nope. His friend brought it.

On August 11.

Forensic analysis revealed that the date/time settings on the surveillance software was off by one month. And that my client did in fact buy it himself at the time of the murder

 

[PRmerger]

When it stated in the bible to only talk to God and Jesus.

Where does the Bible say to talk ONLY to God and Jesus?

With the bible study groups I go to now they even say Mary can’t hear your prayers because she is not God nor a holy person.

You don’t believe Mary is a holy person?

And what verse in the Bible states that Mary can’t hear your prayers?