Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

[PRmerger]

So I believe you to be right from the start.

My favorite words to read on the CAFs.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, this depends on what we mean by ‘challenge’! If ‘challenge’ means simply to raise an objection then I don’t see that as a ‘challenge’ because no amount of *umming and ahhing *on here could make a difference in the slightest to what happens in the decision-making process in Rome! So ‘challenging’ does not really apply on here, but rather, ‘getting with the program’ does, and ‘helping others to…’, also applies!

The fact that Catholic Answers exists at all is testament to the fact that we are permitted to question.

Admittedly,this culture of “permission to question” has evolved. From what I understand, in the days pre-Vatican 2 questioning was not encouraged. However, this came not from the Magisterium, but rather simply from the culture of the times–secular and Catholic.

Long story short: we can question. We can challenge (the teachings. Not the ordained.)

 

[friardchips]

The fact that Catholic Answers exists at all is testament to the fact that we are permitted to question.

Admittedly,this culture of “permission to question” has evolved. From what I understand, in the days pre-Vatican 2 questioning was not encouraged. However, this came not from the Magisterium, but rather simply from the culture of the times–secular and Catholic.

Long story short: we can question. We can challenge (the teachings. Not the ordained.)

Thank you for your responses Where I have underlined… :there must still be an acceptance, even if this acceptance is a thing of the mind, out of obedience to Rome. The challenge is to ourselves to learn why we believe what we believe or why Rome says we must think this way or why the CCC declares such and such a ‘truth’…(!?) At the very least, in matters of doctrine.

 

[guanophore]

The fact that Catholic Answers exists at all is testament to the fact that we are permitted to question.

Admittedly,this culture of “permission to question” has evolved. From what I understand, in the days pre-Vatican 2 questioning was not encouraged. However, this came not from the Magisterium, but rather simply from the culture of the times–secular and Catholic.

Long story short: we can question. We can challenge (the teachings. Not the ordained.)

I have two thoughts on this. One, that there are two different kinds of questions. One is seeking information, the other is to challenge/defy/rebel. I think the attitude makes all the difference. On the one hand, one can inquire about what one does not understand, but on the other, one is not really trying to understand or embrace but to maintain dissent (rejection).

The other thought is related, in response to what you are saying we can question. We can certainly question the behavior and teaching of the ordained, and we should, especially when it is wrong. We can question disciplines and pastoral decisions, but we cannot question doctrine in the defiant sense of the word. There are many levels of teaching authority in the Church, and dissent is permitted at some levels but not others. When one begins to dissent against the deposit of faith we received from the Apostles, they lose their Catholicity.

 

[PRmerger]

I have two thoughts on this. One, that there are two different kinds of questions. One is seeking information, the other is to challenge/defy/rebel. I think the attitude makes all the difference. On the one hand, one can inquire about what one does not understand, but on the other, one is not really trying to understand or embrace but to maintain dissent (rejection).

The other thought is related, in response to what you are saying we can question. We can certainly question the behavior and teaching of the ordained, and we should, especially when it is wrong. We can question disciplines and pastoral decisions, but we cannot question doctrine in the defiant sense of the word. There are many levels of teaching authority in the Church, and dissent is permitted at some levels but not others. When one begins to dissent against the deposit of faith we received from the Apostles, they lose their Catholicity.

I think the attitude must be like a student questioning the professor. Borrowing from Cardinal Newman: like the math student who cannot grasp the answer the professor has provided, she can grapple and wrangle and question the professor, without concluding that the professor is incorrect. Rather, she has already tacitly acknowledged that he is correct, but she just can’t come to the same answer as he did…yet.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Ahh, that makes sense. I interpreted that part as, Anicetus and Polycarp were concelebrating a Liturgy together, and Anicetus let Polycarp be the primary celebrant. But your reading makes more sense in the context.

After reading this and thinking it over, I will accept this as a plausible understanding.

I don’t think it is a very plausible reading. If pope Victor truly had the power to cut off the Asian Churches unilaterally, the text would not say that he attempted to cut them off, it would simply say that he cut them off.

 

[jmcrae]

You mean can anyone disprove your opinion? Probably not, but that is all it is. I have never noticed any bias against adult singles in any parish I have attended. Ever.

Neither have I, and as a matter of fact, most people my age do everything possible to provide them with opportunities to be active in the parish, take on leadership roles, and try to mentor them as much as possible.

 

[randomuser]

Neither have I, and as a matter of fact, most people my age do everything possible to provide them with opportunities to be active in the parish, take on leadership roles, and try to mentor them as much as possible.

Really? The only place I don’t get stared at is at a Newman Center on a college campus. Everywhere else, the entire congregation isn’t focused on the Eucharist, it’s the dirty looks and staring at me. I’m not asking for VIP treatment, I’m not asking for a social club (I don’t know where these straw man non sequiturs come from - it only proves what I’m saying that singles aren’t appreciated in most Catholic parishes). I simply would like to be WELCOMED. Is that too much to ask? To act like you’re happy to see me at church?

As for opportunities to be active…well, yeah, there are plenty of opportunities - for parents, children and teens, and seniors. If I’m not a parent, not a child or teen, and not a senior, however, I’m really hard-pressed to find these “opportunities” of which you speak.

The only “message” I get from Catholic is that being single is a vocation. That I should be grateful for being so isolated and so lonely and getting dirty looks from parishoners. Do Catholics ever tell gays and lesbians that they’re vocations, too? Ever? No. It’s always “singles” who get blessed with that drawing that short straw. I just don’t get it. The “message” I hear is: So it stinks being “single”? Too bad, so sad. That’s not a very productive or charitable message to be sending to other singles who really aren’t welcomed to the degree that gays and lesbians are. Serious double standard.

 

[Shiranui117]

I think the attitude must be like a student questioning the professor. Borrowing from Cardinal Newman: like the math student who cannot grasp the answer the professor has provided, she can grapple and wrangle and question the professor, without concluding that the professor is incorrect. Rather, she has already tacitly acknowledged that he is correct, but she just can’t come to the same answer as he did…yet.

Or sometimes the professor just makes a mistake in his math and the student points it out. That happens surprisingly often. I can testify, being in a calculus course.

 

[Shiranui117]

Well, depending on what Shiranui117 means by ‘Rome’ determines whether or not ‘Rome’ can be challenged. The reason is because if Shiranui117 means ‘Rome’ to constitute:

1. Just the Pope. Then ‘Rome’ can be seen as being challenged but only within certain constraints, and opposition can only be fielded to a point, but can outright be dissolved at the Pope’s say so. So, in actual fact, the reality is that all decisions are made by the Pope because he calls the synod initially, deciding if one needs to be convened, and it is he who decides if a change needs to be made, as a result. And the likelihood of any change occurring outside of the Pope’s own opinion is impossible. Hence, why the choice of Pope is so important, and sacred, in fact.

So pretty much, the Pope can be challenged, but he can deny a challenge at any time and simply insist on his own decision? And it is almost impossible for anything contrary to the Pope’s opinion to happen?

So in reality, you are essentially saying that the Pope cannot be challenged in any meaningful way?

This seems incredibly monarchical to me. Tyrannical, even.

1. The Pope and the Synod. In which case there is no room to challenge because this is where discussion takes place. Outside of the synod there is this reality called *life * that is taken into account by the Bishops and the Pope. Otherwise, if every whim was seen as a challenge - which I don’t think they are, and any issues that are serious the Pope will know about, hence why he is Pope - would mean the Church would blow wherever the wind took it (the wind in this case being ‘popular opinion’). However, the Church of the faithful is listened and responded to.

Also, important: Dogma - they are undisputed and unchanging doctrines. On matters of doctrine, faith and morals - the Pope is infallible. He can be argued with but not overturned. I imagine ‘Rome’ in this sense works together, rather than the kind of scene you might imagine in the House of Commons (in London), to come to a conclusion at a synod of Bishops.

I would say that the Pope can be argued with AND overturned if the Pope goes against the Tradition of the Church. The Pope would only be infallible if he’s acting in accordance with the Church’s Tradition–in other words, the Pope is infallible when he’s right.

The majority will favour the Pope because he was elected - in answer to the OP, this is exactly why ‘Rome’ is nothing like a monarchy - because Monarchs are not elected but are born into their status.

As Roman Catholics, we believe that the real Person who selects - via the Bishops, the prayers of the faithful, and the Saints in Heaven - a new Pope, is the Holy Spirit.

Monarchs can be elected. Back when the Kingdom of Poland was a thing, the King of Poland was elected. And Caesar was chosen by his people. We have many cases of dictators, tyrants and kings who were put on their thrones by the people.

What makes a monarchy isn’t the power being inherited, it simply means that one man rules, literally speaking.

 

[friardchips]

So pretty much, the Pope can be challenged, but he can deny a challenge at any time and simply insist on his own decision? And it is almost impossible for anything contrary to the Pope’s opinion to happen?

So in reality, you are essentially saying that the Pope cannot be challenged in any meaningful way?

No one said here that the things debated are not meaningful! Everything debated is meaningful. I don’t think you’ve read all the posts and how they progressed otherwise you would have understood that.

This seems incredibly monarchical to me. Tyrannical, even.

What?..

I would say that the Pope can be argued with AND overturned if the Pope goes against the Tradition of the Church. The Pope would only be infallible if he’s acting in accordance with the Church’s Tradition–in other words, the Pope is infallible when he’s right.

The point is, that was made quite clearly, if you had read all the posts, is that Catholics believe that the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Monarchs can be elected. Back when the Kingdom of Poland was a thing, the King of Poland was elected. And Caesar was chosen by his people. We have many cases of dictators, tyrants and kings who were put on their thrones by the people.

What makes a monarchy isn’t the power being inherited, it simply means that one man rules, literally speaking.

The Pope doesn’t rule anyone. He is the servant and Holy Father and Shepherd of the Church. Trust in one’s Pope has nothing to do with King and Queen set-ups. The Pope upholds and discusses, responds and prayerfully guides. Kings and Queens are about power and holding onto that power, or used to be, but Popes are not preaching power but about setting examples of how to love as Jesus loved in our times through the eyes of the Gospel or the Gospel being lived out in our times through our lives in the Holy Spirit. So I don’t see your comparison as legitimate. Any institution that survives on earth has to have a body with a hierarchy, but from one body to the next greatly changes how this hierarchy/authority sees itself - or in the Pope’s position, how he views where he stands in relation to the rest of the body and what his duty is and how best he is to serve. This is an argument that I have come across too many times by atheists, whose only wish is, as another poster in another thread put it so very eloquently, to: “set up straw dogs only to set them on fire”.

 

[rcwitness]

I would say that the Pope can be argued with AND overturned if the Pope goes against the Tradition of the Church.

Yes, I think you are correct. The Pope cannot contradict or change Sacred Tradition. Neither can he do the same with what has been infallibly declared through the Councils.

The Pope would only be infallible if he’s acting in accordance with the Church’s Tradition

Yes. and also with all of the Bishops.

–in other words, the Pope is infallible when he’s right.

But who determines that? I think there is a strong and healthy reliance on all the bishops. There is no need to step in and mocro manage diocese. Yet there is a need to unify and remain orthodox.

 

[friardchips]

I would say that the Pope can be argued with AND overturned if the Pope goes against the Tradition of the Church. The Pope would only be infallible if he’s acting in accordance with the Church’s Tradition–in other words, the Pope is infallible when he’s right.

Now needing to respond again to save further confusion: what you view the Pope’s position to be is not what the Pope really stands for and how Catholics view him! There seems to be the implication in your post that the Pope can and might well act out of accordance with the best interests of the R.C Church, so there is no point furthering discussion based on an erroneous point, a false premise.

 

[rcwitness]

I don’t think it is a very plausible reading. If pope Victor truly had the power to cut off the Asian Churches unilaterally, the text would not say that he attempted to cut them off, it would simply say that he cut them off.

I think the “attempted” term used is in context of “in retrospectiveness”. He made the attempt, with an issue of excommunication, yet was not carried out because he was convinced to take the more peacefull aproach of his predecessor, thus reversing his excommunication.

The fact is, is that the other terminologies used such as “from the common unity” and “conceding Eucharistic ministry” were not authoritative actions which were denied either Bishop from Rome. Rather, the “fruitfulness” or lack of, was the issue pleaded to Victor, in which he agreed, for the sake of unity, would be better to suffer seperate practices within the Whole Church. So the practice was tolerated by the second pope who tried to bring unity into the Church Catholic.

 

[PRmerger]

Or sometimes the professor just makes a mistake in his math and the student points it out. That happens surprisingly often. I can testify, being in a calculus course.

You are mistakenly applying the analogy too far.

It’s like an ancient Israelite child saying, “How can the Lord be my rock? I can kick a rock, can’t I? But how could I kick the Lord?”

The analogy is good for the point that was being made: even if the student doesn’t understand the answer completely, he knows that the answer is correct, and it is up to him to struggle with an understanding that makes sense to him.

 

[guanophore]

Now needing to respond again to save further confusion: what you view the Pope’s position to be is not what the Pope really stands for and how Catholics view him! There seems to be the implication in your post that the Pope can and might well act out of accordance with the best interests of the R.C Church, so there is no point furthering discussion based on an erroneous point, a false premise.

The perception is not without merit, since Pope Victor did go against the Eastern Practice of celebrating Easter around the Passover. This is what they received from their Apostles.

 

[rcwitness]

The perception is not without merit, since Pope Victor did go against the Eastern Practice of celebrating Easter around the Passover. This is what they received from their Apostles.

I don’t think Friard was speaking in context of St Victor…

But that’s looking at it in the negative. There were two Sacred Traditions. That was my point in defending Popes St. Anicetus and St. Victor. They were attempting to unify the Church into one practice, so it became a matter of which was the higher rule. To stand by their Tradition from John and reject the Bishop of Rome thus having seperate celebration times, or honor the Tradition of Peter and his successor and absorb the Tradition from Peter and Paul thus celebrating in unison the Lord’s resurrection?

In the end, both Popes agreed (Victor through stronger arguement) that peace and Communion was greater at the cost of two Easter dates, than schism. And while the Church eventually settled to honor what these Popes tried to accomplish, the Easter date has always had its development to degrees.

I personally find it a very interesting matter because it faces two Apostolic Traditions and Popes attempting to unify the Church under Peter’s Tradition. It’s a little like the Apostles arguing about things and authority, when the more obedient way to honor Christ’s authority in these matters should be heeding to the Chief Bishop whom He established as the only one among them all to hold the Keys. (even though they all use the keys, when they have issues among themselves, its Peter who uses the Keys.)

 

[friardchips]

I don’t think Friard was speaking in context of St Victor…

But that’s looking at it in the negative. There were two Sacred Traditions. That was my point in defending Popes St. Anicetus and St. Victor. They were attempting to unify the Church into one practice, so it became a matter of which was the higher rule. To stand by their Tradition from John and reject the Bishop of Rome thus having seperate celebration times, or honor the Tradition of Peter and his successor and absorb the Tradition from Peter and Paul thus celebrating in unison the Lord’s resurrection?

In the end, both Popes agreed (Victor through stronger arguement) that peace and Communion was greater at the cost of two Easter dates, than schism. And while the Church eventually settled to honor what these Popes tried to accomplish, the Easter date has always had its development to degrees.

I personally find it a very interesting matter because it faces two Apostolic Traditions and Popes attempting to unify the Church under Peter’s Tradition. It’s a little like the Apostles arguing about things and authority, when the more obedient way to honor Christ’s authority in these matters should be heeding to the Chief Bishop whom He established as the only one among them all to hold the Keys. (even though they all use the keys, when they have issues among themselves, its Peter who uses the Keys.)

Better not to judge but trust and pray - the fruits of which bring a righted and/or enlightened perception.

 

[Shiranui117]

Yes, I think you are correct. The Pope cannot contradict or change Sacred Tradition. Neither can he do the same with what has been infallibly declared through the Councils. Yes. and also with all of the Bishops.

Agreed on both these counts.

But who determines that?

The rest of the Magisterium and the entirety of the Church, I would imagine. Pope St. Leo’s Tome was deemed to be authoritative and in line with the Tradition of the Church by the Council of Chalcedon, for example.

I think there is a strong and healthy reliance on all the bishops. There is no need to step in and mocro manage diocese. Yet there is a need to unify and remain orthodox.

But do you think that the Pope CAN come in and micro-manage a diocese that is not his own whenever he likes? It’s one thing if the local (or ordinary, to use what I think is the Catholic term) bishop there goes into heresy and the Pope needs to do damage control before **** hits the fan if the head of that bishop’s synod can’t handle things, but can the Pope just say, “Hey guys, I’mma step in on the Diocese of Columbus and take charge for a while, sorry Bishop Fredrick”?

 

[Shiranui117]

Now needing to respond again to save further confusion: what you view the Pope’s position to be is not what the Pope really stands for and how Catholics view him! There seems to be the implication in your post that the Pope can and might well act out of accordance with the best interests of the R.C Church, so there is no point furthering discussion based on an erroneous point, a false premise.

Popes can and have made mistakes in the past. Papal Infallibility does not mean Papal impeccability. There’s a reason the Catholic Church has the entire synod of bishops, and not just the Pope running things. The Pope is a fallible human just like the lot of us, and correct me if I’m wrong, but according to Catholic teaching, the Pope is only infallible in very specific instances. Outside of those, of course it’s possible for the Pope to go off his rocker.