Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

[SteveVH]

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.

Who is saying it is even an argument? I think Randy’s point is that even if Mary did die, it doesn’t have to be because she was suffering the consequences of sin. That seems to be what was being proffered. It is possible that, again, if she died, she could have chosen to in order to be more closely joined to her Son’s passion and death.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Can you give examples of other Marian doctrines that are “spun out of little more than thin air”?

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Who is saying it is even an argument? I think Randy’s point is that even if Mary did die, it doesn’t have to be because she was suffering the consequences of sin. That seems to be what was being proffered. It is possible that, again, if she died, she could have chosen to in order to be more closely joined to her Son’s passion and death.

Mary did not die because of sin, but rather in her desire to be conformed to Christ in all things – to be the speculum justitiae, mirror of justice. Her death gave her dominion over Purgatory as prophesied in Ecclesiasticus 24 and gave her more meritorious prayers for those in the hour of death.

If you would like a detailed defense of the death of the Immaculate Virgin, see the Glories of Mary by Saint Alphonsus Ligouri, a doctor of the Church.

 

[CrossofChrist]

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.

No argument was made. Just some evidence that Mary would want to be conformed to her Son. Do you agree with that?

Would you say that it’s also plausible that Mary would want to be conformed to her Son so much that her life would mirror his? And that God would grant that prayer?

And if Mary is the perfect realization of the Church, doesn’t it make sense that she is as the Church will be? Fully united to Christ with a glorified soul and body?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

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

Which Lutheran distinctive dogmas do you find to be false?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Why do you keep saying this when it has been proven to you time and again that it isn’t true?

Name a doctrine and tell us, specifically, how it has changed, or name a theological speculation that has turned into doctrine “over time”, or refrain from making this false charge against the Church.

Sure. Take for example the Immaculate Conception of Mary. It was medieval speculation evidenced by Thomas Aquinas NOT believing it. Then it was added as doctrine in 1854. There is no way this doctrine was “apostolic” in nature, unless Thomas Aquinas and many other theologians where simply very grossly misinformed about what was apostolic and what was not.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

It was understood previously but not formally defined.

I’d like to ask: are you trolling or genuinely ignorant?

If the latter, we’re happy to clear things up for you. If the former, you won’t get very far with this line of reasoning.

It may have been believed for a time before but certainly not as early as the 2nd century when Irenaeus opposed Victor to his face. Irenaeus must not have heard that Victor was actually infallible and had universal authority which he can excercise at any time in the care of souls. Irenaues didn’t know about that because that doctrine didn’t exist yet. It would centuries before it was added on.

 

[friardchips]

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.

So you have studied a course in Mariology?

 

[Novocastrian]

No argument was made. Just some evidence that Mary would want to be conformed to her Son. Do you agree with that?

Would you say that it’s also plausible that Mary would want to be conformed to her Son so much that her life would mirror his? And that God would grant that prayer?

And if Mary is the perfect realization of the Church, doesn’t it make sense that she is as the Church will be? Fully united to Christ with a glorified soul and body?

Not so much evidence as conjecture.

I’m not saying it’s untrue. It may well be. There are plenty of Protestants who will say that the Assumption/Immaculate Conception/whatever are perfectly orthodox pious beliefs which the faithful might hold. I’m saying that the conjecture offered comes with little reason to accept it as compelling, in the sense of a dogma to be held de fide.

This is the problem. Rome often seems not to distinguish between the plausible and the proven. Mariology often seems this way.

 

[Novocastrian]

So you have studied a course in Mariology?

I’m reasonably well informed when it comes to Theology.

 

[Peter_J]

Which Lutheran distinctive dogmas do you find to be false?

The ones that disagree with Rome.

 

[Vadim244]

It was a discipline intended to make the worship run smoother. In a mixed community of Jews and Gentiles, it was entirely too provacative to have the Gentiles eating blood. … These disciplines were there to promote good order and unity. They are not doctrines, and therefore, can be changed, cancelled, or implemented in some places while not in others.
There is no “contradiction with the Bible”.

guanophore, Jews are those whose father was Abraham. But in the Bible, the prohibition of eating blood was given earlier – to Noah.

Moreover, by a similar logic, – that is, by saying, that it is not a doctrine, but a matter of discipline, Protestants say that prohibition of ordination of women – is also not a doctrine, but a discipline, and, therefore, can be changed. But Pope John Paul II in the quotation below says that it is not a “merely disciplinary” question.

"Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful."
( APOSTOLIC LETTER ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS OF JOHN PAUL II )

 

[Peter_J]

Protestants say that prohibition of ordination of women – is also not a doctrine, but a discipline, and, therefore, can be changed. But Pope John Paul II in the quotation below says that it is not a “merely disciplinary” question.

Exactly.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It may have been believed for a time before but certainly not as early as the 2nd century when Irenaeus opposed Victor to his face. Irenaeus must not have heard that Victor was actually infallible and had universal authority which he can excercise at any time in the care of souls. Irenaues didn’t know about that because that doctrine didn’t exist yet. It would centuries before it was added on.

And Paul opposed Peter. So what?

Popes are not perfect, but they cannot teach error.

You don’t seem to make this distinction…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not so much evidence as conjecture.

I’m not saying it’s untrue. It may well be. There are plenty of Protestants who will say that the Assumption/Immaculate Conception/whatever are perfectly orthodox pious beliefs which the faithful might hold. I’m saying that the conjecture offered comes with little reason to accept it as compelling, in the sense of a dogma to be held de fide.

This is the problem. Rome often seems not to distinguish between the plausible and the proven. Mariology often seems this way.

Thank you for your personal opinion.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

And Paul opposed Peter. So what?

Popes are not perfect, but they cannot teach error.

You don’t seem to make this distinction…

Indeed Paul opposed Peter. Paul must not have heard that Peter was actually the infallible universal bishop who had universal authority over the care of souls.

That’s because that doctrine didn’t exist yet.

Thankfully Irenaeus didn’t know of that doctrine either.

 

[Peter_J]

Popes are not perfect, but they cannot teach error.

Paul must not have heard that Peter was actually the infallible universal bishop who had universal authority over the care of souls.

Not to sound like a crazy radical, but hopefully sometime you guys will read what Vatican I actually said.

Man, I tried not to sound like a crazy radical. :sigh:

 

[rcwitness]

Indeed Paul opposed Peter. Paul must not have heard that Peter was actually the infallible universal bishop who had universal authority over the care of souls.

That’s because that doctrine didn’t exist yet.

Thankfully Irenaeus didn’t know of that doctrine either.

Are you suggesting that Saints Paul and Irenaeus accused Peter and Victor of teaching error to the Church?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Are you suggesting that Saints Paul and Irenaeus accused Peter and Victor of teaching error to the Church?

Definitely. Other popes have taught error too and have been condemned as heretics by ecumenical councils.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Not so much evidence as conjecture.

I’m not saying it’s untrue. It may well be. There are plenty of Protestants who will say that the Assumption/Immaculate Conception/whatever are perfectly orthodox pious beliefs which the faithful might hold. I’m saying that the conjecture offered comes with little reason to accept it as compelling, in the sense of a dogma to be held de fide.

This is the problem. Rome often seems not to distinguish between the plausible and the proven. Mariology often seems this way.

Here’s the difference: Catholics view the plausible as certain when the Church defines them as so. The obscurity is made clear when she says, “This is part of divine revelation.” Because the Church is the pillar and foundation of all truth per St. Paul.

Protestants will perennially view the plausible as only plausible. And the proven as at best proven, or if the path is taken toward a more subjective POV, up for grabs.

The Church is the image of Christ and Christ’s presence among us. As such we can expect a growth (because Christ grew up). Our own viewpoint as individuals may be limited by the times, but the Revelation is there (just as Christ had the beatific vision from the moment of his conception). How it is revealed to us may mean what was once obscure or unseen is made clear and certain, just as Christ was only gradually understood by others throughout his own life.