If you stopped being catholic....

  • Thread starter Thread starter VARC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mickey said:
Oh please! Look at the captain of a hockey team. He is chosen as captain for his motivational talks or inspiring play or leadership. But he is a player–equal to every other player on that team. He cannot win games solo. 😉
Click to expand...
More so than any other player on the team, the chances of a team winning a game diminshes when the captain is not suited up. (Why do you think that is so?)

What if there develops a quarrel among teammates during the game? If the captain is not there, doesn’t the likelihood of that quarrel negativley impacting the outcome of the game increase?

Also consider: Which is more likely to occur: A regular player on the team getting into an argument with the captain of the team or another player?

Finally, yes, captains are “chosen.” But this is misleading in the sense that one’s background guarantees the position of leadership on the team as well, and the selection process becomes nothing more than a mere formality. (Ex. Messier, when he was traded to the Rangers, automatically became captain. No questions asked.)

By the way, thanks for the hockey analogy. Despite living in Ranger country, I’m a huge Islanders fan.
 
steve_b said:
True, but Rome was the one who held the presidency (Ignatius of Antioch, letter to the Romans)
Click to expand...
Hmmm? Does St Ignatius talk about the supreme infallible Roman pontiff?
steve_b said:
And Antioch never held higher than 4th place among the patriarchates. So Antioch being the “true see” of Peter is not warranted.
Click to expand...
Why not? He was there first.
 
ChristianRoots said:
the chances of a team winning a game diminshes when the captain is not suited up.
Click to expand...
Not true.
ChristianRoots said:
What if there develops a quarrel among teammates during the game? If the captain is not there, doesn’t the likelihood of that quarrel negativley impacting the outcome of the game increase?
Click to expand...
Amen brother. I could go with mediation (for serious situations) as part of the primacy. But not supreme infallibility. 😉
ChristianRoots said:
Finally, yes, captains are “chosen.” But this is misleading in the sense that one’s background guarantees the position of leadership on the team as well, and the selection process becomes nothing more than a mere formality. (Ex. Messier, when he was traded to the Rangers, automatically became captain. No questions asked.) .
Click to expand...
You just reminded me of the popes who passed the papal thrown to family members through nepotism. :eek:
ChristianRoots said:
By the way, thanks for the hockey analogy. Despite living in Ranger country, I’m a huge Islanders fan.
Click to expand...
Amen. The Pens have been without their captain (Crosby) for many weeks–and they have been kicking serious butt!!! 👍
 
Rolltide said:
Well, in order for me to stop being Catholic, you’d have to definitively prove to me that it was incorrect, and in order to do that, you’d probably have to completely disprove God to me. I could envision a scenario where I would become Orthodox (for other reasons), but if you could actually disprove Catholicism, I would almost certainly be atheist. In my mind, if Catholicism isn’t correct, than there isn’t a God. No other denomination seems plausible to me.
Click to expand...
I totally agree. I mean, that Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the other apostolic Churches (in that order) have ligitimate authority from Christ and the Apostles. I hate to say it, but, it seems to me that the Protestant communities have no linkage or are even related to the Apostolic foundation; that’s why there are so many thousands of differing, bickering, kinds. They’re all forms of D-I-Y Christianity.
 
Mickey said:
Hmmm? Does St Ignatius talk about the supreme infallible Roman pontiff?
Click to expand...
He doesn’t use those exact words, but he does say that the best way to discern whether you are actually a Christian or not is to compare whether you are following the same religion as the Bishop of Rome.

He indicates that, if so, you’re doing okay; if not, it’s time to make some changes in your practice of the faith.
 
jmcrae said:
He doesn’t use those exact words, but he does say that the best way to discern whether you are actually a Christian or not is to compare whether you are following the same religion as the Bishop of Rome.

He indicates that, if so, you’re doing okay; if not, it’s time to make some changes in your practice of the faith.
Click to expand...
Yes but the reason why one must follow the same religion as Rome at that time is because Rome held the orthodox faith that they had received from Peter and Paul. It does not follow that the Roman bishop will remain orthodox. St Irenaeus mentions nothing about the Roman bishop being perpetually infallible.
 
VARC said:
Yes but the reason why one must follow the same religion as Rome at that time is because Rome held the orthodox faith that they had received from Peter and Paul. It does not follow that the Roman bishop will remain orthodox. St Irenaeus mentions nothing about the Roman bishop being perpetually infallible.
Click to expand...
No, but it does seem to indicate that the promise of infallibility that was given by Christ to Peter was residing in Rome at that time, and we don’t have any subsequent evidence to show that it moved from there to somewhere else later on. Those who deny infallibility to Rome also deny that it exists at all; they don’t propose an alternative location to which it moved at some point in time.
 
jmcrae said:
No, but it does seem to indicate that the promise of infallibility that was given by Christ to Peter was residing in Rome at that time, and we don’t have any subsequent evidence to show that it moved from there to somewhere else later on. Those who deny infallibility to Rome also deny that it exists at all; they don’t propose an alternative location to which it moved at some point in time.
Click to expand...
Yeah don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe the pope was infallible and stopped being infallible. I believe he was orthodox and stopped being orthodox.

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul,** that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us **after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have **maintained the apostolic tradition” **

He is completely silent about any infallible bishop in Rome(and there was no mention of Victor’s infallibility when he opposed the pope in the Easter dating controversy). But rather he is praising Rome for its Apostolic origin and for maintaining the tradition and faith that was handed down to the Apostles. But it does not follow that they will always maintain that tradition and faith. And when Rome violated the canons of the Church by unilaterally changing the Creed, Rome ceased to be orthodox.
 
…and 10 people have put down atheist, while none have put down “Muslim”. Sometimes you people surprise me.
 
Filius99993 said:
…and 10 people have put down atheist, while none have put down “Muslim”. Sometimes you people surprise me.
Click to expand...
The only reason to convert to something else would be if the Catholic faith were to turn out to be completely false.

What truth of the Catholic faith could be shown or thought to be false, whose opposite is best expressed in Islam?

If you decide that God doesn’t exist, atheism makes the most sense.

If you decide that Jesus isn’t real and that there is no Trinity, then Judaism makes the most sense.

If you decide that monotheism is incorrect, then the Eastern religions make the most sense.

If you decide that the authority of the Church is an invention of man, then high-church Protestantism and/or Eastern Orthodoxy makes the most sense.

If you decide that the Sacraments and liturgical forms of worship are inventions of man, then low-church Protestantism makes the most sense.

And so on.
 
jmcrae said:
The only reason to convert to something else would be if the Catholic faith were to turn out to be completely false.

What truth of the Catholic faith could be shown or thought to be false, whose opposite is best expressed in Islam?

If you decide that God doesn’t exist, atheism makes the most sense.

If you decide that Jesus isn’t real and that there is no Trinity, then Judaism makes the most sense.

If you decide that monotheism is incorrect, then the Eastern religions make the most sense.

If you decide that the authority of the Church is an invention of man, then high-church Protestantism and/or Eastern Orthodoxy makes the most sense.

If you decide that the Sacraments and liturgical forms of worship are inventions of man, then low-church Protestantism makes the most sense.

And so on.
Click to expand...
Ah. I didn’t quite get that. (I thought of it more as a forced thing- that’s the only reason why I would leave.)
 
I would never stop being a Catholic

but if I have to choose, then it’s Orthodox…cuz they have the closest thing when it comes to theology

plus, I wouldn’t mind going to a latin mass.I find that really mysterious
 
Mickey said:
Sorry. Infallibility is alien to the Apostolic Church. 😦
Amen brother. The Holy Orthodox Church would rejoice if the bishop of Rome brought his flock back to Holy Orthodoxy.
Click to expand...
How does one “unite” with a Church that has no leadership? 🤷
 
Mickey said:
Are you expecting the Holy Orthodox Church to have a supreme infallible pontiff?!? :eek:
Click to expand...
He doesn’t have to be supreme and infallible. But he should at least exist, don’t you think? What I am trying to figure out is, if the Pope were to decide to “unite with” the Orthodox Church (speaking as though there were only one), with whom would he make the appointment? 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top