Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

[Peter_J]

Hi Tommy999.

These are some of the same doctrinal obstacles I have, although I respect Catholicism and find many other areas admirable and appealing.

In my view, praying to Mary and the saints can detract from our relationship with God and I doubt I could ever do that because (in my view) it can lead to having multiple go-betweens between God and man instead of the one ordained intermediary, Jesus Christ. It has led to placing too much emphasis on Mary and the saints in some circles and not enough on Christ, who should be the primary focus of worship of all Christians.

To me, the Catholic belief, if I understand it correctly, is similar to believing that God is too busy or doesn’t care enough about you to listen to you directly so you have to invoke Mary and/or the saints in order to get His attention.

Don’t believe everything you read. (Quite honestly, I sometimes wonder if internet discussion forum do more harm than good.) This ^^ isn’t offical Catholic teaching.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m cold turkeing him, lol.

:sad_bye:

 

[Peter_J]

I’m cold turkeing

Hmmm … so it was an addiction rather than obsession?



(Not that I’m one to talk, since I appear to be addicted to CA Forums. )

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hmmm … so it was an addiction rather than obsession?



(Not that I’m one to talk, since I appear to be addicted to CA Forums. )

Forums are indeed addicting…

Will see if I can steer that addiction on the Prayer Intentions forums. Much more positive

 

[Isaiah45_9]

:sad_bye:

Peace be with you.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Read Dictatus Papae.

He did demand that all princes kiss his foot.

I am not making it up, I wish I was.

Read this about Dictatus Papae;

unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/79-history/215-revisiting-dictatus-papae.html

I wondered why I had never heard of it - from either Catholic or Protestant apologists.

It’s a relatively unimportant text of dubious authorship written for the purpose of freeing the papacy and the Church from Imperial interference.

If it were important, the usual crowd would have been beating us over the head with it.

If I’m wrong, please let me know, and I’ll do some more homework. But, and I stress, none of the big-name, professional, anti-Catholic apologists have made an issue of this document that I can find, and consequently, none of the big-name, professional, Catholic apologists have bothered to address it.

I think it’s a non-issue.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Peace be with you.

And with your spirit.

 

[Peter_J]

Forums are indeed addicting…

Will see if I can steer that addiction on the Prayer Intentions forums. Much more positive

In theory I try to balance time-on-forums (and blogs) with time-reading-Vatican-documents and the like … but in practice I don’t really try hard enough.

 

[benhur]

Right, so if his Incarnation is to be more than a theory it must permeate our lives.
This is not just about visible vs invisible, it’s about what is real. Gravity is invisible, but it is real. The Church’s unity is invisible, but it is real. Authority is invisible, but it is real. These invisible things affect our world in real ways.

Christ really, truly, substantially entered the human condition. We must admit, Christ became human, and we are humans. We can’t base our lives on the purely invisible, because Christ was not purely a spirit. We don’t live in a purely invisible world, at least not yet. Christ, in his life on earth, started something that is real. He did it in a specific way, with specific people, and gave them specific gifts. We are called to work with what he gave us, yes? What is the other option? To work with something of our own creation? That would be something truly invisible and disconnected from reality.

Right, that is why I posted, " We know Jesus holds all things together, in the universe, and how so much more in His Body, visibly and invisibly." Agreed it is not invisible vs visible, at least when we balance them properly in the reality of Truth.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Read this about Dictatus Papae;

unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/79-history/215-revisiting-dictatus-papae.html

I wondered why I had never heard of it - from either Catholic or Protestant apologists.

It’s a relatively unimportant text of dubious authorship written for the purpose of freeing the papacy and the Church from Imperial interference.

If it were important, the usual crowd would have been beating us over the head with it.

If I’m wrong, please let me know, and I’ll do some more homework. But, and I stress, none of the big-name, professional, anti-Catholic apologists have made an issue of this document that I can find, and consequently, none of the big-name, professional, Catholic apologists have bothered to address it.

I think it’s a non-issue.

Then you hold Dictatus Papae to be false teaching?

Whether or not old Greg authored it, did medieval popes for centuries agree with the sentiments contained in it? Or did they know it was false teaching?

 

[Shiranui117]

Papal supremacy and infallibility is two of the top tens i have…
I guess I could bring up other “issues” as well, but the Roman understanding of the Papacy is problematic.

^These are two of mine as well.

I can reconcile basically everything about Catholicism with what I am increasingly identifying as my Orthodox faith. I detest how watered-down the Novus Ordo is, but I still feel that it yields a legit Eucharist. A lot of the devotions in the Latin tradition I strike me as odd, but I can make sense of them and roll with them, perhaps with the help of a good explanation or two.

But 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.

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.

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, and an Ecumenical Council has both condemned a Pope and forced another one to do an about-face on his position (I’m thinking Pope Vigilius and the Three Chapters controversy). And we also see Pope Victor changing his mind about excommunicating the Quartodecimians after a bunch of people reprimanded him for his actions. 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.

So no, I see neither evidence nor support for the ideas of Papal Supremacy or Papal Universal Jurisdiction–at least not how Vatican 1 explains them. If only what later Popes say on the matter was the dogmatic definition of these, and not the decrees of Vatican 1. If it wasn’t for the overly monarchical sense I get from these two dogmas, I might still be Catholic today. As it is now, everything’s in flux about whether or not I find my way back into communion with the Pope.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

I spent weeks arguing about this with a bunch of Orthodox in the Eastern Catholicism forum. I’m not going through it again. Just go read the threads if you’re interested. You’ll love them…all the Orthodox took your position. So, why aren’t you Orthodox? At least you’d have valid sacraments…

I have valid sacraments now. But that is a different subject. I am not Orthodox for a lot of reasons. I would be happy to discuss them if you like.

Honorius did not formally teach error, and infallibility has not been disproven by any condemnation of his failure to stop others from doing so.

Any heretical papal teaching magically doesn’t fall under the criteria for infallibility. And Catholic apologists cannot even seem to know exactly which papal statements are infallible and which are not. All I have heard is estimations. It’s a nebulous and bewildering doctrine IMO on purpose. Infallible teaching is whatever it needs to be at the moment.

 

[benjohnson]

Read this about Dictatus Papae;

unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/79-history/215-revisiting-dictatus-papae.html

I wondered why I had never heard of it - from either Catholic or Protestant apologists.

I know I’m pretty familiar with it - it’s real. It’s used to show that the Pope claimed ‘both swords’ in Lutheran circles when we begin to wonder if the Confessions were a bit hard on the office.

Ubi Primum by Pope Benedict XIV is pretty problematic, though reading it, it’s not as bombastic as the quote by itself would read: “Though unworthy, We take the place of God on earth.”

papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14ubipr.htm

That said… we’ve come a long way, when the Pope now washes the feet of those that society has cast off.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

I agree with the ‘problematic’, but speaking for myself from the Lutherans side of the riverbank - all churches have their problems and would trading one set of problems for another should be done with much prayer, council, and diplomacy.

Indeed. It’s not about finding a problem free denomination. It’s about finding a denomination whose problems you can abide.

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed. It’s not about finding a problem free denomination. It’s about finding a denomination whose problems you can abide.

Rather, it’s about find a denomination which conforms to one’s own personal tastes.

And that transforms to: creating a god in one’s own image.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Rather, it’s about find a denomination which conforms to one’s own personal tastes.

And that transforms to: creating a god in one’s own image.

If the RC denomiantion conformed to my personal tastes and I went ahead and joined it, would that be creating a god in my own image?

 

[benjohnson]

Rather, it’s about find a denomination which conforms to one’s own personal tastes.

From what I can see, HH isn’t afraid of being in a difficult or challenging situation at all, and therefor probably made his decisions based on serious matters.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

From what I can see, HH isn’t afraid of being in a difficult or challenging situation at all, and therefor probably made his decisions based on serious matters.

Thanks.

 

[PRmerger]

If the RC denomiantion conformed to my personal tastes and I went ahead and joined it, would that be creating a god in my own image?

I think you should find the Church that Christ established, join it, and then conform your views to Christ’s.

No other Church, save for the CC or the Orthodox, can trace its origins to Christ and HIs Apostles.

Right now, you’re just finding a church which conforms to your own personal views.

 

[PRmerger]

From what I can see, HH isn’t afraid of being in a difficult or challenging situation at all, and therefor probably made his decisions based on serious matters.

No doubt it was serious. Personal.

That doesn’t change the fact that searching for a church that is palatable is the exact wrong way to find a church.