Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

[CrossofChrist]

Next argument… On the forums, we share only words, written arguments, but at Councils, heretics were persuaded not only with words, but even with the fact that Orthodox bishops were looking like Saints. For example, at the First Ecumenical Council, there was an episode when one heretic said that he was persuaded with the fact that one bishop was looking like a Saint. So look at our former Orthodox Russian Patriarch Alexy II – and you will see that he looks like a Saint: youtube.com/watch?v=eaFtMK6VT4I

I think it is indisputable that the Catholic Church is the Church of the saints. Pope John Paul II, St. Francis, Maximilian Kolbe, Mother Teresa, Francis de Sales, Philip Neri, Therese of the Child Jesus, Thomas Aquinas, Bernard… The list goes on and on. Yes, there are many elements of sanctity found elsewhere, but the light shines the brightest and in its fullness in the Catholic Church.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The work of Christ – the work of His Body, the Church, is the salvation of all who desire God.

Let me give you an example: there were a variety of opinions on who or what Christ was.
Is He human?
Is He divine?
Does He have one nature, or two?
Does He have one will, or two?
etc., etc., etc.

Getting the answers wrong could lead to errors that would affect salvation.

So, at a ponderously slow rate, the Church answered those questions definitively.
Now, this didn’t end all theological speculation; it just kept them within boundaries intended to keep theologians from advocating heresy.

I obviously agree with all of what you are saying here. Maybe I’m not phrasing the question correctly.

What is the theological heresy of not believing the Assumption of Mary? And how does it change what the Church has already spoken about Christ?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Again my point. We took the [whatever] to its full extent… He did say “whatever” to the Apostles as well.

What happens when the whatevers collide?

Great question.

Notice that when Jesus said this to St. Peter (along with giving him the keys indicating that St. Peter was to be the “prime minister”), He used the second-person singular pronoun.

When giving authority to the Apostles together, He used the second-person plural pronoun, indicating that in a way, they had to act in unison, as a body. And this body included St. Peter who was among them.

So, as the Church teaches, when the Magisterium teaches (with other conditions for infallibility) in union with the office of Peter, it is infallible.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

This is getting wearisome.

In the example you cite, the Church has not decided between these two positions.

In the examples of the dogmas with which you seem to take issue, the Church HAS decided.

So we are still working on the fullness of truth thing? Are we there yet? Can you see HH’s point of view now?

Maybe I just need a nap. :yawn:

So you are probably and aggressive chess player… A long drawn slow defence will wear you out… note taken

 

[Vadim244]

This is also confusing the non-liturgical protestant (me) reading the thread. I thought God warned us about external appearance?

God said that we mustn’t show ourselves. But at someone else, we can look.

 

[Vadim244]

I think it is indisputable that the Catholic Church is the Church of the saints. Pope John Paul II, St. Francis, Maximilian Kolbe, Mother Teresa, Francis de Sales, Philip Neri, Therese of the Child Jesus, Thomas Aquinas, Bernard… The list goes on and on. Yes, there are many elements of sanctity found elsewhere, but the light shines the brightest and in its fullness in the Catholic Church.

How do you know that they are Saints? Just because Roman Catholic Church said so? I don’t find that they are, nor that they look like Saints – for example, what about the fact that John Pope II kissed a Quran? I cannot imagine that an Apostle, for example, would kiss a Quran.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Great question.

Notice that when Jesus said this to St. Peter (along with giving him the keys indicating that St. Peter was to be the “prime minister”), He used the second-person singular pronoun.

When giving authority to the Apostles together, He used the second-person plural pronoun, indicating that in a way, they had to act in unison, as a body. And this body included St. Peter who was among them.

I’m not arguing primacy. But there pillar and bulwark of the truth is the Church not Peter. On Peter, Christ builds His Church. Peter is as much part of the Church as the others are part of the Church. Feed and Tend, not Lord and Dominate. Papa Francisco is enforcing these commands to feed and to tend.

The union is a 2 way street. We have made it a one way.

So, as the Church teaches, when the Magisterium teaches (with other conditions for infallibility) in union with the office of Peter, it is infallible.

That’s how we (Catholics) solve things after the Great Schism. Before that it was the Apostolic Sees in Ecumenical Councils. We still do the Councils to a certain extent.

Again we developed something not seen in those first 1,000 years of Church history.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I obviously agree with all of what you are saying here. Maybe I’m not phrasing the question correctly.

What is the theological heresy of not believing the Assumption of Mary? And how does it change what the Church has already spoken about Christ?

Oh, it doesn’t change it. It reinforces it.

I’ll have to look for some references I can barely recall which discuss all the Marian dogmas and how they relate to Christ.

One, off the top of my head, is that it fulfills prophesy:
The Ark “ascends” into Heaven with the Messiah:

Ps 132:7 “Let us go to his dwelling place; let us worship at his footstool!”
8 Arise, O LORD, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might.

This predicts Jesus going to Heaven, and bringing with Him the Ark.

One could ask why the fulfillment of prophesy is important, but that would also bring up the question about why the Virgin Birth is an important belief.

She is the anticipation of the bodily resurrection of all Christians (CCC999).
Her assumption demonstrates the victory of Jesus over Satan (CCC2851).

“And just as the human race was put in chains by a virgin, so by the Virgin was it saved. The disobedience of a Virgin was balanced by the obedience of the Virgin. Moreover, the sin of the first parent (Adam) was set right by the correction of the Firstborn, and the cunning of the Serpent was overcome with the simplicity of the dove, and the chains by which we were bound to death have been broken”
(Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5, 19,1).

It demonstrates that Jesus is the Davidic King in that the Queen Mother is exulted.

etc., etc.

 

[NowHereThis]

*I don’t believe that Jesus was literally resurrected.
*I don’t believe that God would privilege a particular hierarchy.
*I disagree with the church’s teachings on sexual issues.
*I think women should be eligible for every religious office that men are.

The strengths of the Catholic church are in philosophy, mysticism, and social justice (economic issues).

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I’m not arguing primacy. But there pillar and bulwark of the truth is the Church not Peter.

And Peter spoke for the Church.

On Peter, Christ builds His Church. Peter is as much part of the Church as the others are part of the Church. Feed and Tend, not Lord and Dominate. Papa Francisco is enforcing these commands to feed and to tend.

Yes, feed and tend. But rule also.

The first time Jesus answers St. Peter, He says:
Feed my lambs.

The second time He says:
Feed my sheep.

… and the third:
Feed my sheep.

Interesting, isn’t it, how the subtlety of Jesus’ wording is lost in English.
He uses 2 different words for feed.
bosko means to pasture; by extension to, fodder; reflexively, to graze:–feed, keep

This is applied to both His lambs and His sheep.

However, the second time, He answers using poimaino, which means:
to tend as a shepherd of (figuratively, superviser):–feed (cattle), rule.

Part of the task given to St. Peter by Jesus is to RULE His sheep as a shepherd.

That’s how we (Catholics) solve things after the Great Schism. Before that it was the Apostolic Sees in Ecumenical Councils. We still do the Councils to a certain extent.

Again we developed something not seen in those first 1,000 years of Church history.

I don’t see it as much of a change.

 

[without]

For non-Catholics: Why are you non-Catholic and what, in your opinion, is the biggest strength of the Catholic Church?

1. I don’t believe… I did in my childhood but no longer… so I could not profess any faith.
2. The church has changed so much. I’m very traditional and many of the cafeteria Catholics (including a few priests) have driven me and my family away.

“biggest strength” … other than numbers, history was on your side but with all of the changes plus the proposed updates coming from the synod I don’t think many people buy into the tradition/historical reason to be Catholic.

 

[McCartney]

I think it is indisputable that the Catholic Church is the Church of the saints. Pope John Paul II, St. Francis, Maximilian Kolbe, Mother Teresa, Francis de Sales, Philip Neri, Therese of the Child Jesus, Thomas Aquinas, Bernard… The list goes on and on. Yes, there are many elements of sanctity found elsewhere, but the light shines the brightest and in its fullness in the Catholic Church.

Well said.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Oh, it doesn’t change it. It reinforces it.

I’ll have to look for some references I can barely recall which discuss all the Marian dogmas and how they relate to Christ.

One, off the top of my head, is that it fulfills prophesy:
The Ark “ascends” into Heaven with the Messiah:

Ps 132:7 “Let us go to his dwelling place; let us worship at his footstool!”
8 Arise, O LORD, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might.

This predicts Jesus going to Heaven, and bringing with Him the Ark.

One could ask why the fulfillment of prophesy is important, but that would also bring up the question about why the Virgin Birth is an important belief.

She is the anticipation of the bodily resurrection of all Christians (CCC999).
Her assumption demonstrates the victory of Jesus over Satan (CCC2851).

“And just as the human race was put in chains by a virgin, so by the Virgin was it saved. The disobedience of a Virgin was balanced by the obedience of the Virgin. Moreover, the sin of the first parent (Adam) was set right by the correction of the Firstborn, and the cunning of the Serpent was overcome with the simplicity of the dove, and the chains by which we were bound to death have been broken”
(Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5, 19,1).

It demonstrates that Jesus is the Davidic King in that the Queen Mother is exulted.

etc., etc.

Thanks, don’t get me wrong, I love Marian Theology. Death through Eve, Life through Mary. The Rosary is optional, but that doesn’t stop me from praying the Scriptural Rosary a la St. JPII, which I absolutely love. I love our Blessed Mother.

But the question remains unanswered.

Why is it a heresy to not believe in the Assumption?

Can a person remain honest and assent to something that person doesn’t truly believe?

And if it doesn’t change anything in the Salvific mystery of Christ, what’s the point of making it a dogma? Similar to Thomism and Molinism, among other things.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Is it so difficult to understand that someone want to understand something before judging said person as defying authority?

Can the person not have a legitimate problem to assent to something because they understand that will make them dishonest?

Are we not the ones that preach against Total Depravity?

Just saying…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Exactly my point. Let’s assume I don’t believe it or understand it. The Church says I have to believe it and I want to remain in communion, so what do I do? I say: Sure, I’ll believe it.

Do I really?

If you understand the nature of the Church and the promises of Him who built it, then yes.

Trinity, Scriptures, Liturgies, Nature of Christ.

And those things were formalized long after the apostolic era had ended. So, what is the cut-off date you would propose for when theological definitions would be called “additions” instead of “developments”? And why do you propose that specific date?

We took the [whatever] to its full extent…

Can you give me an example of something that is not included under the heading of “whatever”? IOW, what exactly could Peter and the Apostles NOT bind and loose?

What happens when the whatevers collide?

The first time, they met in a council in Jerusalem. However, there are no living apostles today, and Bishops are not individually infallible; only the apostles were. Consequently, while fallible Bishops may collide (and get straightened out by the Pope or a Church council, “whatevers” do not collide today. Ever.

If this has been a big hang-up for you, I think you can let it go now… :yup:

So far… Hmmmm

Even worked my way through NFP! :tiphat:

I do play chess

I know.

Augustine is wrong. Most heretics today don’t want to be called Catholic.

And some of these Anglicans and Lutherans are very Catholic indeed.

But they DO want to be called Catholic…just look at the descriptions they use in their Religion designator.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

And Peter spoke for the Church.

As did Paul, James and others throughout history.

Yes, feed and tend. But rule also.

The first time Jesus answers St. Peter, He says:
Feed my lambs.

The second time He says:
Feed my sheep.

… and the third:
Feed my sheep.

Interesting, isn’t it, how the subtlety of Jesus’ wording is lost in English.
He uses 2 different words for feed.
bosko means to pasture; by extension to, fodder; reflexively, to graze:–feed, keep

This is applied to both His lambs and His sheep.

However, the second time, He answers using poimaino, which means:
to tend as a shepherd of (figuratively, superviser):–feed (cattle), rule.

Part of the task given to St. Peter by Jesus is to RULE His sheep as a shepherd.

Again, I have no problem with Peter’s primacy and leadership. But the exercise of that leadership has drastically changed. (By the way, my first language is Spanish and we use the word: Apacienta in all three instances - apacienta means to lead and to care). I don’t think it was one Bishop to rule them all But one Bishop to lead them all.

There is a big difference between a leader and a ruler:

A ruler practically owns his subjects, as the subjects are accountable to their ruler, but the ruler isn’t necessarily accountable to them. Which is contrary to the “Who is the greatest” argument the Apostles had and Christ’s response.

A leader is someone that carries a collective, basically a prime navigator. This is much more in line with the NT and Early Church history. Peter leads the Council of Jerusalem and James reaches a decision based on Peter’s lead. That is nowhere near what is now practiced after Dictatus Papae and the documents and canon that follows.

I don’t see it as much of a change.

There are different types of ruling. Supreme Immediate Absolute Jurisdiction was much later developed and added. I do see a drastic change.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So we are still working on the fullness of truth thing? Are we there yet? Can you see HH’s point of view now?

No, I would view it this way; the fullness of truth has been revealed. But in our limited understanding we stand and stare at it not fully comprehending what we see.

Slowly, by God’s grace, we begin to get an inkling here and there as we turn these awesome things over in our hearts and minds.

So you are probably and aggressive chess player… A long drawn slow defence will wear you out… note taken

Open the board, sacrifice for position, trade down and win the King and pawn end game.

 

[Randy_Carson]

How do you know that they are Saints? Just because Roman Catholic Church said so? I don’t find that they are, nor that they look like Saints – for example, what about the fact that John Pope II kissed a Quran? I cannot imagine that an Apostle, for example, would kiss a Quran.

Well, there’s an oldie…haven’t heard that one for awhile.

Pope John Paul - Kissed the Koran

Many non-Catholic Christians objected when Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran during a visit to a mosque several years ago. However, in showing respect for Islam’s scriptures, the Holy Father was following the advice of one of the greatest evangelists of all time, the Apostle Paul, who described his own approach to inter-faith dialogue in these words:

1 Corinthians 9:19-23
19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. I don’t believe… I did in my childhood but no longer… so I could not profess any faith.
2. The church has changed so much. I’m very traditional and many of the cafeteria Catholics (including a few priests) have driven me and my family away.

So, if you met a traditional Catholic priest who was faithful to the teachings of the Church, would that encourage you to return?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If you understand the nature of the Church and the promises of Him who built it, then yes.

Indeed. I think Dominus Iesus does a magnificent job at explaining it.

And those things were formalized long after the apostolic era had ended. So, what is the cut-off date you would propose for when theological definitions would be called “additions” instead of “developments”? And why do you propose that specific date?

Because they clearly follow an Apostolic line of thinking and Church history. When compared to the Assumption, there is silence and an absence of it being a matter of The Way, The Faith necessary for Salvation.

The Papacy in its present form, for example, was born out of division. Without the Whole Church.

Can you give me an example of something that is not included under the heading of “whatever”? IOW, what exactly could Peter and the Apostles NOT bind and loose?

The whatever is later given to the whole and not a sole individual. Meaning the whatever is attached to the whole - not the divided whole.

The first time, they met in a council in Jerusalem. However, there are no living apostles today, and Bishops are not individually infallible; only the apostles were. Consequently, while fallible Bishops may collide (and get straightened out by the Pope or a Church council, “whatevers” do not collide today. Ever.

Really? Can I please have a list of infallible teaching declared by the Church? If there is none, then what’s the point?

If this has been a big hang-up for you, I think you can let it go now… :yup:

Hang up?

It’s a stone in my shoe!

Even worked my way through NFP! :tiphat:

:clapping:

Now go tackle Ott

But they DO want to be called Catholic…just look at the descriptions they use in their Religion designator.

:nope: If they are the ones I think you are talking about, they are not heretics