My Main Problem With Catholicism

[itsjustdave1988]

If every human is subject to the Roman Pontiff, why say that that’s necessary for salvation?

Because it is.

Your view doesn’t exactly fit in the context of a Bull of excommunication, either. It seems like the pope was trying to scare the excommunicant back into the Catholic Church.

You have to understand the Bull in its context. It was written to a French Catholic King who was asserting that he had authority over the Church. The French King was not excommunicated, but was mistaken. The Bull corrected the King’s faulty understanding of secular and ecclesiastical authority.

The Bull says nothing more than “you must follow Heb 13:17, and in the context of Heb 13:17 the Roman Pontiff is your superior. To do otherwise is a grave sin which if you die unrepentent in that sin, you risk loss of eternal life.” As stated earlier, it presumes the lack of invincible ignorance as the cause of disobedience.

 

[Exporter]

Juxtaposer says he doesnt agree with or cannot understand the last sentance of CCC1228.

[St.Augustine says of Baptism;“The word is brought to the material element ,and it becomes a sacrament”.]

John Chap 1:"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Or God was the Word. God is a Spirit!

In Baptism there are two things ocurring. One is spiritual and one is physical or an element. Element here refers to the body of the conferee ( the one being Baptised).

So, there is a spiritual change in the soul of the one being Baptised…AND…the observers can see a physical change also. The water of Baptism is poured signifying the cleansing. The soul was being cleansed but you can’t see that. HOWSZATT?

 

[martino]

Juxtaposer:

Is the infallibility of the pope…

If you found out that the pope wasn’t infallible would you then want to become Catholic?

 

[Juxtaposer]

itsjustdave1988:

Because it is.

When did Jesus say that?

Exporter:

Juxtaposer says he doesnt agree with or cannot understand the last sentance of CCC1228.

No. I completely agree with this sentence. What I’m saying is that, from what I can tell, this goes against previous Catholic teaching. As Augustine said to the Donatists, the reception of grace is not dependant on the recipient or administrator of the sacrament. Is what Augustine said official Catholic teaching? If so, was he talking about actual or sanctifying grace? If he was talking about actual grace, his teaching aligns with the last sentence of CCC 1128. If not, he is justifying forced baptism, hence many native Americans were forced baptized by Franciscans. If you want to see more on what I’ve said on this issue, check out my htread on sacramental realism:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=6202&highlight=sacramental+realism

 

[Juxtaposer]

martino:

If you found out that the pope wasn’t infallible would you then want to become Catholic?

It’d sure help, but only because I wouldn’t see any grave contradictions in Catholic dogma. It’s not infallibility that turns me off; it’s contradictions in a supposedly contradictions less system.

 

[Pax]

I love these forums but our posts have their limits, and these limits are reached rather quickly. Many of the questions non-Catholics raise need considerable research and reflection. As a Catholic, I have had my own questions and musings about a great many things. The one thing I did discover is that once carefully researched and understood my misgivings always disappear.

I find great complexities in non-Catholic Christian thought and even apparent contradictions. Likewise, I have found great complexities in Catholic teaching and what appeared to be contradictions. To sort things out requires a lot of work and study. Please read the last statement again; it cannot be over emphasized.

I always try to suggest to my non-Catholic friends that they do a few things if they are really interested in understanding Catholic teaching. I try to apply the same rules to myself when studying other faiths and faith traditions. These are my suggestions:

1. Admit that I have biases and that I need to keep these in check while studying the teachings before me.
2. Do the necessary work and read the best orthodox materials available.("orthodox"as it applies to the faith tradition under study)
3. Know history and look for reliable materials and “temporarily” suspend reading polemics that simply reinforce my biases.

All of us may try to do these things and sometimes we are reasonably successful at it. On other ocassions we forget them altogether and avoid the hard work that’s required of us.

I have a personal bias that I will admit to. In fact it is an integral part of my three suggestions. I believe, rightly or wrongly, that most non-Catholics don’t do the necessary work to appreciate Catholic teaching and where it comes from. I also think that most Catholics are under educated on the Protestant understandings of justification as well as other things. I think it unreasonable to assume that posts in these forums, although helpful, can adequately answer the questions posed in this thread. Entire books can be devoted to addressing a single objection.

I’ve read many great posts on these forums, but even the best one’s simply spur me on to further study. A topic like the Trinity remains beyond my grasp in terms of its mystery, but I still learn more all the time. The Trinity is something we all agree on, but we can never exhaust its depths. I believe that Catholic teaching is very deep and well developed, but it can only be appreciated when studied thoroughly. It is a beautiful and endless task of enrichment.

 

[Antonio_B]

martino:

If you found out that the pope wasn’t infallible would you then want to become Catholic?

Not to get off the subject, but I posted a new thread on objective truth and since you participated on the first one, I’ll like for you to read the current one. Thanks,

Antonio

 

[metal1633]

Juxtaposer:

When did Jesus say that?

No. I completely agree with this sentence. What I’m saying is that, from what I can tell, this goes against previous Catholic teaching. As Augustine said to the Donatists, the reception of grace is not dependant on the recipient or administrator of the sacrament. Is what Augustine said official Catholic teaching? If so, was he talking about actual or sanctifying grace? If he was talking about actual grace, his teaching aligns with the last sentence of CCC 1128. If not, he is justifying forced baptism, hence many native Americans were forced baptized by Franciscans. If you want to see more on what I’ve said on this issue, check out my htread on sacramental realism:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=6202&highlight=sacramental+realism

In the case of the Donatists, they denied that Clerics who had fallen into sin could Administer the Sacraments. Augustine reiterated the Church’s Teaching that the Grace of the Sacraments is not dependant on man but on God.

You are straining at gnats.

 

[Juxtaposer]

metal1633:

In the case of the Donatists, they denied that Clerics who had fallen into sin could Administer the Sacraments. Augustine reiterated the Church’s Teaching that the Grace of the Sacraments is not dependant on man but on God.

You are straining at gnats.

The fact that it’s not through the administrator’s power that grace is delivered is perfect. It’s the part about the recipeint that gets me. Would some one just answer my question on my sacramental realism thread? My questions my seem like gnats to you, but they are very important to me. Please don’t undermine them.

 

[metal1633]

Juxtaposer:

It’d sure help, but only because I wouldn’t see any grave contradictions in Catholic dogma. It’s not infallibility that turns me off; it’s contradictions in a supposedly contradictions less system.

Your beating up fallacies of your own imagining. Who claimed we have a contradictionless system? I know I know, “IF the Pope is infallible THEN there would never be any contradiction”. But that is YOUR reasoning, not the Church’s. And so far you have never demonstrated a contradiction. Only your own lack of understanding.

Your problem is with Christianity, not with the Church “System”.

Compare Romans 3:20 with Romans 2:13
Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before him. For by the law is the knowledge of sin.

For not the hearers of the law are just before God: but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Even “simple” theology dealing with justification is rife with appearant contradictions. You must accept that both of these appearantly contradictory statements are true if you are to accept the bible as inspired and inerrant. In the same was you must accept that the Church’s teachings are also correct for they spring from the same source. The Holy Spirit.

We must accept with the Faith of a Child those things we do not understand. If your demand understanding first, then it is not by Grace but by knowledge that you seek salvation.

We are saved by Grace, NOT of ourselves. Our human understanding will ALWAYS fall short and leave us lacking. We see through a glass darkly. You seek to see clearly, before you will say YES to the Lord.

 

[Juxtaposer]

metal1633:

Your problem is with Christianity, not with the Church “System”.

What’s Christianity?

metal1633:

You must accept that both of these appearantly contradictory statements are true if you are to accept the bible as inspired and inerrant.

I never said that the Bible is inerrant. The Bible’s writers were inspired by God, but they were human.

metal1633:

We must accept with the Faith of a Child those things we do not understand. If your demand understanding first, then it is not by Grace but by knowledge that you seek salvation.

I’m not seeking salvation. I’m searching for the origianl Church so that I may fully enter into God’s plan for me.

metal1633:

We are saved by Grace, NOT of ourselves. Our human understanding will ALWAYS fall short and leave us lacking. We see through a glass darkly. You seek to see clearly, before you will say YES to the Lord.

I’ve said “yes” to the Lord. I have not said “yes” to the Catholic Church. I can not enter into Catholicism if I don’t agree with it.

 

[Pax]

Juxtaposer:

What’s Christianity?

I never said that the Bible is inerrant. The Bible’s writers were inspired by God, but they were human.

I’m not seeking salvation. I’m searching for the origianl Church so that I may fully enter into God’s plan for me.

I’ve said “yes” to the Lord. I have not said “yes” to the Catholic Church. I can not enter into Catholicism if I don’t agree with it.

When you say “yes” to the Lord, you really must say “yes” to the Church. The Church is the body of Christ. This is very profound and it is our source of unity as Christians. Unfortunately, there is some serious lack of understanding on the part of Christians as to the seriousness of Jesus call for unity in the gospel of John. This is not an invisible unity because it is a unity that the world can see. Jesus prays for this unity, “so that the world may believe that thou[the Father] hast sent me.” [See John chapter 17]

Our disunity as Christians does not show the world anything that would cause them to believe that the Father sent Jesus. Nor can an invisible church show the world anything. The Church is a “light on a hill.” The first one thousand years of Christianity were totally unified in the Catholic Church. The last thousand have been filled with disunity and it is getting more divided all the time. It is time for all Christians to recognize the “visible” Church as the body of Christ on earth. It is time for reunification.

Catholic teaching remains as solid now as it was during the first one thousand years. Understanding how its proclamations apply in each era will help show its consistency. This Church has survived everything thrown at it since the time of the apostles and it remains intact. This in itself is a tremendous work of Christ in our midst.