Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

[benhur]

Thanks for the reprint. Sounds partly ok, plausible. But death is still death, whether for a second or three days. She still dies. She still either died of illness or old age or both, but both are curses from the fall. So as you tie two together , IC and Assumption, I would tie together all the curses of sin,(old age, disease, death) not just one of them, bodily corruption. Now if she had been translated like Enoch, that would be another story.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Thanks for the reprint. Sounds partly ok, plausible. But death is still death, whether for a second or three days. She still dies. She still either died of illness or old age or both, but both are curses from the fall. So as you tie two together , IC and Assumption, I would tie together all the curses of sin,(old age, disease, death) not just one of them, bodily corruption. Now if she had been translated like Enoch, that would be another story.

If Mary is the perfect disciple of Christ, then she united herself fully to Jesus. This can explain her presence at the Crucifixion, but also her Immaculate Conception, Dormition and Assumption.

I’m just jumping in here, so maybe I’m off topic.

 

[benhur]

What is obedience? Can a person be a Christian without giving obedience to an ecclesial body?

For the literal linguists it is almost an oxymoron question but very insightful to our differences. It is like asking is there a body in the Body that is over us ? Christ is the Head for sure a catholic/universal teaching. Is there another body floating around and thru the Body that is next in the pecking order (pope ,cardinals,bishops , priests) ? We all agree we are all subject to obey the Head. We all agree we are also subject to one another in love . We also all have our roles in the Body. Do all the prayer warriors, supplicators form a sub-body ? Do all the evanagelists form another sub-body ? Do all the teachers, or helpers or healers each form their own bodies ? Then would the shepherds form another body ? So is there an ecclesail body or sub-body ? For sure we have presbyters, overseers , even spiritual fathers. But do they really form a “body”. Are you subject to the “father”, pastor, priest the Lord has given me and I to yours (besides the aforementioned that we are all subject to one another) ?

 

[SteveVH]

Thanks for the reprint. Sounds partly ok, plausible. But death is still death, whether for a second or three days. She still dies. She still either died of illness or old age or both, but both are curses from the fall. So as you tie two together , IC and Assumption, I would tie together all the curses of sin,(old age, disease, death) not just one of them, bodily corruption. Now if she had been translated like Enoch, that would be another story.

We don’t know that she died.

 

[Peter_J]

I am non Catholic because I don’t believe any of the Catholic distinctive dogmas are particularly true.

Uncanny, HH, because I am non Lutheran because I don’t believe any of the Lutheran distinctive dogmas are particularly true.

 

[benjohnson]

Uncanny, HH, because I am non Lutheran because I don’t believe any of the Lutheran distinctive dogmas are particularly true.

I’m really curious what we Lutherans are portraying as dogma!!

I know the Solas have the appearance of dogma, but I would counter that they’re more defining principal of our hermeneutical practices.

 

[benhur]

If Mary is the perfect disciple of Christ, then she united herself fully to Jesus. This can explain her presence at the Crucifixion, but also her Immaculate Conception, Dormition and Assumption.

I’m just jumping in here, so maybe I’m off topic.

Thanks. Was she perfectly united ? She was human and made mistakes. She left Jesus behind in Jerusalem once. She tried to bring him back home for “rest” and was with those that thought Jesus was" beside himself" during the early growing part of His ministry. Her presence at the Crucifixion is something most daughters of Eve probably would have probably done for their sons also. I would think there is a reason that past popes rejected or refused to declare the Assumption as inspired revelation for nearly two millennium. I think an “uninspired” even spurious gospel that speak of the Assumption was declared as heretical by one pope (5 or 6 hundreds ?). Please do not be offended as I try not to cast aspersions on Mary, but only on what I believe to be untrue doctrines about her. She is still blessed amongst women in Truth.

 

[clem456]

The Pope is infallible. He cannot err on matters of doctrine, faith and morals. Therefore, Catholics believe the R.C Church is always the authority over matters arising. Dogmas cannot be changed. Doctrines can develop - this is always led by the Pope when they do.

True, but authority is not fully defined by the infallible statements of the Pope. This is a huge source of confusion for many people. Many people want to be shown the proof of authority…in scripture, or in some specific statement of the Pope. The catechism indicates that authority does not require statements of infallibility. The magisterium -always in communion with the Pope- proposes the faith for our belief. The faith is hugely larger than the infallible statements of any Pope (not to downplay those).

The faith is not given to just one man, although one man has the charism of prime office, the faith is offered to Christ’s mystical body, in which there are many offices. And while the faith is given to Christ’s whole body, it is not given to each individual in an exclusively personal way to exercise out of communion with the papacy and the rest of the body. In Christ’s body we are beholden to each other, in unity with Him. Likewise when one Pope dies, the faith does not die with him. This would be to deny that Christ lives. The faith and all it’s gifts are passed on. The Church is organic. The Church grows and develops because God said “go forth and be fruitful”. It lives through time in the persons that are His body, because Christ himself has risen from the dead and lives.

If authority does not rest only on infallible statements but on the persons (or offices) involved, growing from the authority of Christ himself, it’s impossible to avoid the personal character of authority. By personal I mean the emphasis on the person of Christ and his interaction with his Church, composed of the persons he gifts with many gifts, one of which is authority.

874 **Christ is himself the source **of ministry in the Church. He instituted the Church. He gave her authority and mission, orientation and goal:
In order to shepherd the People of God and to increase its numbers without cease, Christ the Lord set up in his Church a variety of offices which aim at the good of the whole body. The holders of office, who are invested with a sacred power, are, in fact, dedicated to promoting the interests of their brethren, so that all who belong to the People of God . . . may attain to salvation.389

880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, “he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them.”

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, **Christ who is the Truth **willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility.

friardchips
Those lower than the Pope but who do have authority in the Church can err although they are to be trusted, unless we are told not to trust them by a higher authority. In other words, there is a hierarchy. Mentioning obedience in another context to the one you were using it in later on, it is a good thing to show trusting obedience to one’s religious superiors - priests, Bishops etc…as this shows humility and trust in Christ’s providential care.

I like the etymology of obedience: “to listen”. This is not the same as subservience. The two are really confused.
It seems to be an unpopular concept but we owe obedience to the Church because Christ “said so” (queue the eye rolling). If Christ really walked the earth and started something, his authority has to be somewhere. It’s easy to establish that authority is personal and not exclusively “of the book”. So who has it? Or is Christ dead…

 

[benhur]

I’m really curious what we Lutherans are portraying as dogma!!

I know the Solas have the appearance of dogma, but I would counter that they’re more defining principal of our hermeneutical practices.

Very good, for I keep hearing that Catholic doctrine does not change but only principles.

 

[benhur]

We don’t know that she died.

Yes, was it Jerome who said, “of her end no one knows” ? Like to see his whole text on it.

 

[clem456]

For the literal linguists it is almost an oxymoron question but very insightful to our differences. It is like asking is there a body in the Body that is over us ? Christ is the Head for sure a catholic/universal teaching. Is there another body floating around and thru the Body that is next in the pecking order (pope ,cardinals,bishops , priests) ? We all agree we are all subject to obey the Head. We all agree we are also subject to one another in love . We also all have our roles in the Body. Do all the prayer warriors, supplicators form a sub-body ? Do all the evanagelists form another sub-body ? Do all the teachers, or helpers or healers each form their own bodies ? Then would the shepherds form another body ? So is there an ecclesail body or sub-body ? For sure we have presbyters, overseers , even spiritual fathers. But do they really form a “body”. Are you subject to the “father”, pastor, priest the Lord has given me and I to yours (besides the aforementioned that we are all subject to one another) ?

Goes to the question of form.
We humans live in time and space with physical bodies. Christ assumed human nature to become one with us. So he gives dignity to the physical, the organized, to human endeavors that follow him.

Is his mystical Body real? Does it have a structure, or is it vague and formless?
Would he establish a body that tends toward chaos and dis-organization?
Did Christ establish a body that is durable or something that is destined to disintegrate into dis-united sub-bodies?

 

[friardchips]

Thanks. Was she perfectly united ? She was human and made mistakes. She left Jesus behind in Jerusalem once.

Our Lady did not have the inclination to sin. She did not make a mistake leaving Jesus behind. This has been discussed before in another thread. She did what a Mother was meant to do and be worried about her son. If Mary had not looked for Him she would not have been the perfect Mother but a bad Mother.

She tried to bring him back home for “rest” and was with those that thought Jesus was" beside himself" during the early growing part of His ministry

.

Please can you give the Bible Passage?

Her presence at the Crucifixion is something most daughters of Eve probably would have probably done for their sons also.

Many women would have not wanted to watch. And her manner of support would have differed than to other women. She utterly believed in her Son. And the intimate words by Jesus quite clearly shows this to be one of the holiest and most significant parts of John’s Gospel.

I would think there is a reason that past popes rejected or refused to declare the Assumption as inspired revelation for nearly two millennium.

Mary was recognised in all her glory far before the Church declared it. Most Popes, if not all Popes, had a special love for Our Lady.

I think an “uninspired” even spurious gospel that speak of the Assumption was declared as heretical by one pope (5 or 6 hundreds ?). Please do not be offended as I try not to cast aspersions on Mary, but only on what I believe to be untrue doctrines about her. She is still blessed amongst women in Truth.

Then please go by what is the case: Our Lady’s Assumption is a Dogma. And that is official.

 

[Peter_J]

Quote:
Originally Posted by House Harkonnen
I am non Catholic because I don’t believe any of the Catholic distinctive dogmas are particularly true.

I’m really curious what we Lutherans are portraying as dogma!!

I know the Solas have the appearance of dogma, but I would counter that they’re more defining principal of our hermeneutical practices.

Oh, all right, teachings then rather than “dogmas”.

 

[friardchips]

True, but authority is not fully defined by the infallible statements of the Pope. This is a huge source of confusion for many people. Many people want to be shown the proof of authority…in scripture, or in some specific statement of the Pope. The catechism indicates that authority does not require statements of infallibility. The magisterium -always in communion with the Pope- proposes the faith for our belief. The faith is hugely larger than the infallible statements of any Pope (not to downplay those).

The faith is not given to just one man, although one man has the charism of prime office, the faith is offered to Christ’s mystical body, in which there are many offices. And while the faith is given to Christ’s whole body, it is not given to each individual in an exclusively personal way to exercise out of communion with the papacy and the rest of the body. In Christ’s body we are beholden to each other, in unity with Him. Likewise when one Pope dies, the faith does not die with him. This would be to deny that Christ lives. The faith and all it’s gifts are passed on. The Church is organic. The Church grows and develops because God said “go forth and be fruitful”. It lives through time in the persons that are His body, because Christ himself has risen from the dead and lives.

If authority does not rest only on infallible statements but on the persons (or offices) involved, growing from the authority of Christ himself, it’s impossible to avoid the personal character of authority. By personal I mean the emphasis on the person of Christ and his interaction with his Church, composed of the persons he gifts with many gifts, one of which is authority.

I like the etymology of obedience: “to listen”. This is not the same as subservience. The two are really confused.
It seems to be an unpopular concept but we owe obedience to the Church because Christ “said so” (queue the eye rolling). If Christ really walked the earth and started something, his authority has to be somewhere. It’s easy to establish that authority is personal and not exclusively “of the book”. So who has it? Or is Christ dead…

The Pope, the Magisterium, is guided by the Holy Spirit, to guide the Church in every age. Scripture is for every age because it contains the eternal Word of God, and the Church guides us in the world of today, in the way of the Gospels.

People have a certain freedom of movement but try not to act contrary to Church teaching; yet, certainly individual discernment is key, to finding our path that, as you said, serves the other as a member of the Body of Christ making up the Bride of the Church.

 

[SteveVH]

Oh, all right, teachings then rather than “dogmas”.

Can we please distinguish between “Dogma”, which is revealed truth and “Doctrine” which is the teaching concerning that revealed truth. That Christ is truly present in the Eucharist is “Dogma”. That he is present through Transubstantiation is “Doctrine”. The faithful must submit to both.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks. Was she perfectly united ? She was human and made mistakes. She left Jesus behind in Jerusalem once.

Was this sinful?

She tried to bring him back home for “rest” and was with those that thought Jesus was" beside himself" during the early growing part of His ministry.

Was this sinful?

Her presence at the Crucifixion is something most daughters of Eve probably would have probably done for their sons also.

Was this sinful?

I would think there is a reason that past popes rejected or refused to declare the Assumption as inspired revelation for nearly two millennium. I think an “uninspired” even spurious gospel that speak of the Assumption was declared as heretical by one pope (5 or 6 hundreds ?). Please do not be offended as I try not to cast aspersions on Mary, but only on what I believe to be untrue doctrines about her. She is still blessed amongst women in Truth.

Ben-

Have you ever read Munificentissimus Deus, the document in which the Assumption is infallibly defined?

It’s not very long, it’s easy reading, and it might give you some historical perspective. Take a few moments…

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks for the reprint. Sounds partly ok, plausible. But death is still death, whether for a second or three days. She still dies. She still either died of illness or old age or both, but both are curses from the fall. So as you tie two together , IC and Assumption, I would tie together all the curses of sin,(old age, disease, death) not just one of them, bodily corruption. Now if she had been translated like Enoch, that would be another story.

What if Mary chose to die because she wanted to share in Her son’s suffering as fully as possible?

 

[Novocastrian]

What if Mary chose to die because she wanted to share in Her son’s suffering as fully as possible?

Do you have *any *evidence that this would be the case?

 

[CrossofChrist]

Do you have *any *evidence that this would be the case?

Luke 2:33-35, 51; Romans 8:29, rational deduction from other things we know…

 

[Novocastrian]

Luke 2:33-35, 51; Romans 8:29, rational deduction from other things we know…

This (hypothetical) argument seems to be spun out of little more than thin air. This is precisely the problem that lots of Protestants have with mariology in general.