Non-Catholics, what do you dislike most

[elvisman]

What do you consider attacks though?? Many baiting threads here are started that solve nothing. I would love to see just good spirited debate. Pick something and debate it both ways. That’s how we learn and ultimately I think that’s how we unite.

Instead it’s usually that there’s no way anyone BUT the RCC can be right. Phrases like what authority are you speaking from, or who made you pope, really de-rail things quickly.

I totally agree with your first point but I have to disagree with your last point.
It’s not so much an attack about authority, it’s about the reality of authority as seen by the Catholic.
If come on - as some do - and call us “idol worshippers” instead of asking WHY we have statues, pictures or crucufixes - THAT is counter-productive.
If a Catholic attacks you as lost becaue you have no visible head or authority - THAT’s counter-productive.
BUT, if a Catholic to asks you by what authority you are speaking from, I don’t see that as an attack. You could ask the Catholic the very same question - then the debate wold be over authority.
I find that most of the debates on this forum boil down to authority anyway.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Can’t be opinion, he either did or he didn’t. Consensus won’t find you the truth on this one.

Since there is no way to find out for certain, let everyone do what they think is right.

 

[Deacon110]

Jesus does not permit divorce. Nor does his Catholic Church.

Manny you stand corrected my brother:

Matthew 5:32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Jesus clearly is giving an exception. He is not making a blanket statement here. You have to understand what the law was at this time to understand this. If a husband cheated on his wife she could not leave and re-marry carrying on a sexual relationship. She would be committing adultery even though the husband was cheating. This is how one-sided the law was. The only way a woman could move to a new marriage and have marital relations was for the current husband to write her a certificate of divorce releasing her from the marriage. Otherwise she would be committing adultery and so would her new husband. This is precisely what Jesus is talking about here. He doesn’t want us to abuse marriage no doubt, but he does give an exception and a prescribed way of handling it.

 

[AgnosTheist]

it quotes Jesus as saying it is unlawful to divorce.

no it doesnt.

can we at least agree that we should not live according to the teaching of this real world, but rather those of our Father in heaven?

Who came up with the following lovely ideas:

Racial equality
Ban of slavery
Gender equality
Religious tolerance
Basic human rights

Was it your so called “Father” or the real world?

Can we agree that what this real world has to offer is sin and suffering unless we “choose” God over man?

No. Your “God” is not much different from the real world. Both has positive sides, and both has dark sides. If the true God wants me to change the way I think, I want to hear it from Him, not from you.

 

[Deacon110]

Evidence? Wow, are you the man to bring down Catholicism?

Are you talking in general, or do you actually have this evidence?

No I don’t claim to be the man bringing down Catholicism but I appreciate your jab at humor. At least I hope it’s humor. Otherwise here we go again.

I’m not talking too generally I’m talking pretty specific. Knowing Mosaic law, studying the bible in greek, and reading Matthew, I can demonstrate how this is an incorrect teaching. If you like we can go to another thread. Create it and I will join. Only in good spirit though.

 

[gigageek]

MH84 you are missing a few pieces of this though. Look at the comparitive text in Matthew and you will see Jesus gives us an exception which is porneia in greek. Now this is interpreted many different ways but in fact one word used in the Greek Lexicon is adultery.

I agree we don’t take marriage serious enough but you can’t get around that Jesus says don’t divorce except for porneia. He gives an exception plain and simple.

He does but it is also a shockingly different exception than the two prevailing positions of the time for which he was being “tested”. Either it was allowed or it was not, except from adultery. Those were the two options available at that time. So if he was saying that neither was right and those hearing his testimony to that affect were surprised at this NEW teaching then what does that leave us with?

 

[MH84]

No I don’t claim to be the man bringing down Catholicism but I appreciate your jab at humor. At least I hope it’s humor. Otherwise here we go again.

I’m not talking too generally I’m talking pretty specific. Knowing Mosaic law, studying the bible in greek, and reading Matthew, I can demonstrate how this is an incorrect teaching. If you like we can go to another thread. Create it and I will join. Only in good spirit though.

Sorry for being a smart alec.

I can’t start a thread because I have no idea what the evidence against Mary perpetual virginity is.

In all seriousness, when one says that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, he is saying that the Church is wrong regarding a doctrine. This means the Church could be wrong with other doctrines as well. From there it is a slippery slope.

 

[gigageek]

If the true God wants me to change the way I think, I want to hear it from Him, not from you.

Fair enough. Out of humble curiosity then may I ask why if you don’t want to hear these things from me or others than God why do you post and respond to these questions?

I am sorry if my attempts at discussing this with you have upset you. I will keep you in my thoughts and prayers and hopefully you will someday “hear” what He has to say, both from Him and His messengers.

 

[Deacon110]

I totally agree with your first point but I have to disagree with your last point.

Why do you use so much bolding and coloring?? Makes it hard to keep up with the tags

Anyway I’m glad you agree and we can speak in a spirited fashion on the disagreements

**It’s not so much an attack about authority, it’s about the reality **of authority as seen by the Catholic.

Yes as a Catholic you see that authority residing in Rome. But here is the issue as I personally see it. Not saying I’m the solver of all problems

OK the RCC claims infallibility. We ask how? They say from scripture. Then you ask to show it to me so I understand it. They show it to you. You disagree. They say you don’t have the authority to interpret scripture. Then I say how can I ever understand? Bottom line is, if I don’t understand it and see it another way I can’t say anything because that would be heretical. I have to accept that it is the truth. The RCC is claiming only they can interpret scripture properly. And their understanding is that they are infallible based on their interpretation. So you ask how do you know you are right and others are wrong. They say we are protected by the Holy Spirit. But the Bible tells us the Holy Spirit guides us all. The RCC says on matters of Faith we are the experts. So then that means the Holy Spirit is guiding only them in that regard and no one else. They have information from the Holy Spirit that no one else has. This is what the gnostics claimed. Not saying they were right.

But then no one could ever challenge that the leaders in the church would lead us down a wrong path because they declare themselves infallible by scripture which we disagree with. It’s then a HUGE catch 22. The church itself will never have the gates of hell prevail against it. But the individuals within that make up the church certainly could. Not every person professing to be a Christian will go to Heaven. This includes the Pope and anyone in a leadership position. We would never be able to challenge them. We would have to leave to show protest. Then we would be told we’re losing salvation. You see what I mean. It’s like a very bad trap.

If come on - as some do - and call us “idol worshippers” instead of asking WHY we have statues, pictures or crucufixes - THAT is counter-productive.

And I agree with you. That is ridiculous. Unfortunately people on both sides do that. Many threads are started by both sides that do nothing but bait an argument. I wish no one would ever respond. Just leave them empty. Now that would show true unity

If a Catholic attacks you as lost becaue you have no visible head or authority - THAT’s counter-productive.

Yes very counter-productive.

**BUT, if a Catholic to asks you by what authority **you are speaking from, I don’t see that as an attack. You could ask the Catholic the very same question - then the debate wold be over authority.

I agree somewhat. Unfortunately many RCCs will then say that the authority from which we speak is invalid. Then the conversation falls off the proverbial cliff again. Just remember, Jesus HIMSELF detested authority and specifically told the Apostles they would not exercise authority over each other. This is precisely what I see Rome doing. Excercising authority which Jesus forbids. So I question it and then I’m wrong because the church is infallible. You see we’re in a catch 22 again.

I find that most of the debates on this forum boil down to authority anyway.

They always do. So perhaps we should just concede that our respective authorities are different. Then debate from there. I was in a debate with someone the other day. Answered all the objections in detail. Instead of admitting I could be right the response was, “wait who put you in charge, no one can refute you, you’re like a self proclaimed pope”. I certainly don’t think that as I have a high regard for the Pope. But instead of saying hey that could be a possibility, that person reverted back to the RCC and said, no absolutely not the RCC can’t be wrong. Well yes they can. They just may not admit it.

PEACE

 

[Deacon110]

He does but it is also a shockingly different exception than the two prevailing positions of the time for which he was being “tested”. Either it was allowed or it was not, except from adultery. Those were the two options available at that time. So if he was saying that neither was right and those hearing his testimony to that affect were surprised at this NEW teaching then what does that leave us with?

I don’t think Jesus was changing HIS stance. The Pharisees asked for a clarification as to why Moses was allowed to give a divorce certificate, given that Jesus was speaking out against it. But just because HE was peaking against it doesn’t preclude HIM from giving us an acceptable exception. Which HE does in the case of Porneia which in Greek can mean adultery. So that would make sense. If a spouse was committing adultery I hardly think Jesus would want that relationship to continue. How about if the person gets pregnant outside of the marriage, what does it do to the trust of the relationship etc. etc. There’s just a list of bad things associated with adultery in a marriage.

 

[Deacon110]

Sorry for being a smart alec.

I can’t start a thread because I have no idea what the evidence against Mary perpetual virginity is.

In all seriousness, when one says that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, he is saying that the Church is wrong regarding a doctrine. This means the Church could be wrong with other doctrines as well. From there it is a slippery slope.

Absolutely. It is for this reason I don’t think the church should make so many strict doctrines. Then if they are wrong? Uh oh as you say, look out below.

I think where the Bible is silent they need to be silent and present it as, this is what the early church believed because of XYZ. Let it be an optional belief. Mary’s virginity has no impact on our salvation and should therefore not be a required belief. If you like I will create a thead to show you how a few theological scholars well versed in Greek Bible study and Mosaic law taught it to me. It makes complete sense. If the RCC didn’t create so many strict docrinal beliefs then they wouldn’t have to say we’re wrong.

PEACE

 

[gigageek]

I don’t think Jesus was changing HIS stance. The Pharisees asked for a clarification as to why Moses was allowed to give a divorce certificate, given that Jesus was speaking out against it. But just because HE was peaking against it doesn’t preclude HIM from giving us an acceptable exception. Which HE does in the case of Porneia which in Greek can mean adultery. So that would make sense. If a spouse was committing adultery I hardly think Jesus would want that relationship to continue. How about if the person gets pregnant outside of the marriage, what does it do to the trust of the relationship etc. etc. There’s just a list of bad things associated with adultery in a marriage.

I guess I can’t argue from the translation of the word you have chosen . But as you yourself have said it is but one of many translations.

I also concede that He was giving us an acceptable exception, but based on another translation of the word. In relating to the gentiles of the time it was common for them to allow marriages within the family by close cousins. My understanding of the translation of the word porneia was admonishing or prohibiting those types of marriage and not adultery.

Your arguments about what Jesus thinks or wants, in my mind, are not consistent with what I have read and had revealed to me from Scripture. He wants forgiveness and mercy, which would be the apposite of divorce. He wants us to work out our differences with one another, not split us apart.

And since God decides who gets the divine spark of life any child born is of value, beyond the visible boundaries of our selfish and shortsighted desires. Even in the Bible there are great disciples of God born out of wedlock or from adultery.

Adultery is clearly a sin, but Gods instructs us clearly on how to repent from sin and divorce is anything but repentance.

 

[Metaron]

Since you asked…in no particular order,

(1) Now I am not particularly a eternally secure Calvinist, but Catholicism really seems to be a totally insecure faith. I have seen to much of fearful Catholics coming to this board petrified that they will go to hell if they miss mass, miss the fast before mass, masturbate, or any number of sins that you classify as mortal. If I were to actually be a Catholic, the idea that an ill-timed death could send me eternally to hell because I skipped the hour fast before mass (do not pass go…do not collect $200…would drive me absolutely nuts). I have to believe that my salvation is more stable than the whim of turning a light on and off.

I’m sorry, Mozart, but this is an extreme misunderstanding of the Faith. However, I do admit that at the current time in history, the observance of rules, both moral and disciplinary, of supposed Catholics is at an alltime low, especially in America.

(2) The one true church document is a problem. First of all the criteria which you claim to be the one true church doesn’t distinguish y’all from the Orthodox…or if it does…it is so subtle that I can’t get it.

Petrine Supremacy.

Anyway, if you are not careful, it can really breed an arrogance that is a first-class turn off to non Catholics. And I have seen that so many times on this board I have told myself many times that I don’t have to put up with this…I am leaving and not coming back. But I guess I am addicted to arguing over the internet or something…

Yes, it happens. The same happens with Protestants calling us the Whore of Babylon too, though. Ultra-arrogant. They’re usually the ones with the most misunderstandings of Roman Christianity.

It is also a turn off when the rest of us are called heretics. Maybe I am just the sensitive type, but the word heretic invokes a mental image of folks frying at the stake. Not good.

Separated brethren is a nicer term.

In summary when you claim to be the one true church and the rest of us heretics, I stiffen up and ask you to prove it by either (1) your lifestyle that clearly demonstrates that Catholicism is superior. (2) Through the Bible. (1) you haven’t done and (2) you can not do.

Although (1) is certainly desirable, it proves nothing, even if we were the saintliest of people. Most Mormons are good people. Most Buddhists are good people. That doesn’t make them true. Besides, in terms of humanitarian effort, no one can beat the Roman Catholic Church. It has done more to aid the suffering of mankind than any other institution in the world, and far more than any Protestant community. This is a well-aknowledged fact by most historians and anthropologists, Catholic and non-Catholic.

(2) has been done, and that’s one of the reasons I’m an ex-Protestant.

A third one, of course, is historically, which clearly shows that no Protestant organization has linkage to the original apostolic foundation, so none of them are the original Church. This, in addition to the fact that they abandoned many central teachings of the early Church (Such as the Real Presence, Apostolic Succession, Baptismal Regeneration, Catholicity, and a sacramental worldview) as shown by the Ante-Nicene Fathers, rule them out as being linked to the Apostles. That narrows it down to several groups that do have apostolic connections:

Coptic Orthodox
Eastern Orthodox
Nestorian
Roman Catholic
Anglican (partially; alot of their lines of succession are corrupted by women “priests” and “bishops”)

I can’t go into the details one why I narrowed it down to Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic, but the Coptic and Nestorian were for conciliar doctrinal reasons, and the Anglican was because they only claim to be one branch of the Apostolic Church, the others being Orthodox and Roman.
So then we have two,

Eastern Orthodox
Roman Catholic

But the Bible clearly shows Petrine Supremacy, as well as the early Church Fathers, so then that narrows it down to one:

The One, Holy, Apostolic, Roman Catholic Church.

Of course, this by no means says that there are not many sincere and devout Catholics (even though they don’t even know it) in Protestant communities and Orthodox churches. There certainly is.

 

[lurdes]

Christians themselves cant agree among themselves whether or not Jesus allows divorce in the bible. Thats why its just a matter of opinion.

get it right none Catholics don’t agreed we Catholics know were we stand

 

[Deacon110]

I guess I can’t argue from the translation of the word you have chosen . But as you yourself have said it is but one of many translations.

Agreed.

I also concede that He was giving us an acceptable exception, but based on another translation of the word. In relating to the gentiles of the time it was common for them to allow marriages within the family by close cousins. My understanding of the translation of the word porneia was admonishing or prohibiting those types of marriage and not adultery.

That’s how the RCC has always interpreted it. But the mistake there is Jesus was not speaking to Gentiles so this does not apply. He never spoke to gentiles about divorce. In one case he was speaking to Pharisees who were familiar with Mosaic law which allowed divorce. They were questioning why this would be allowed if Jesus suddenly is speaking against it. He let’s them know why and then gives HIS directive which has an exception built into it. In the other instance he was speaking to HIS disciples who were also Jews and he gives the same exception. So Gentiles at this point were not in the picture and their marriage practices are not being referenced.

Your arguments about what Jesus thinks or wants, in my mind, are not consistent with what I have read and had revealed to me from Scripture. He wants forgiveness and mercy, which would be the apposite of divorce. He wants us to work out our differences with one another, not split us apart.

I agree he wants forgiveness. But forgiveness does not mean that you have to stay in the marriage. Consider this. Your best friend hurts you really bad emotionally. You may forgive them in your heart but decide that they are not a good person to associate with anymore. This doesn’t mean you didn’t forgive them. You’re placing conditions on forgiveness then. If the differences can be worked out then yes they should be.

In the case of adultery the couple should try to work it out. But in the end it comes down to a matter of trust. You may forgive but not trust. Not trusting doesn’t mean you’re not forgiving. You can forgive and pray for that person but feel spiritually it’s better to part ways. You’re implying that they should stay in the marriage and just have mercy. What if the adultery continues?? What if the spouse contracts a disease because of the other’s indiscretions?? You have to be able to draw the line somewhere.

And since God decides who gets the divine spark of life any child born is of value, beyond the visible boundaries of our selfish and shortsighted desires. Even in the Bible there are great disciples of God born out of wedlock or from adultery.

Don’t forget GOD took David and Bathsheeba’s baby to punish them for their indiscretions. Le’ts use that as a lesson and not just say oh well good things can happen out of bad. How about all the children that get abandoned because of adultery? How about all the abortions that take place because of adultery? I appreciate your spirit on this but sometimes we’re too utopian.

Adultery is clearly a sin, but Gods instructs us clearly on how to repent from sin and divorce is anything but repentance.

Again we can ask for forgiveness which is not repenting. Repenting means turning away from sin not forgiveness of sin. Divorce does not mean we are not forgiving so I disagree with you. Someone may ask their spouse for forgiveness and say they will repent. But it’s still a matter of trust. What if you agree and it happens again? Then what?

PEACE

 

[gigageek]

Again we can ask for forgiveness which is not repenting. Repenting means turning away from sin not forgiveness of sin. Divorce does not mean we are not forgiving so I disagree with you. Someone may ask their spouse for forgiveness and say they will repent. But it’s still a matter of trust. What if you agree and it happens again? Then what?

This still sounds counter to God’s plan, to me. Consider some sin of your own for a moment. How often have you tried to turn from a given sin only to fall into its snares again and again. You still keep trying and God is always there ready to take you back. He asks no less than that of us. If He won’t give up on us then how can we give up on others, especially those we love. Love is unconditional and blind. If we are so ready to quit trying with the ones we love how much more quickly will we give up on those we hardly know?

For me divorce is not an option because of the rest of God’s words. And while you are clearly able to make a compelling argument for divorce in light of adultery, in my mind if one allows even the smallest crack it is only a short time before a flood occurs. I think the current state of affairs regarding divorce in our country bears this out.

 

[joeybaggz]

Jesus does not permit divorce. Nor does his Catholic Church.

With all due respect Manny, the church will not proceed with an petition for a decree of nullity, without a civil divorce. The Church requires divorce.

I suggest that what you are saying is that the Church does not permit remarriage without a finding that a prior marriage was not a sacramental union.

My Two Cents.

 

[LutheranDK]

To the non-Catholics on the board–what do you dislike most about the Catholic Church?

What 3 doctrines are most problematic for you? What do you know about those 3 doctrines, and what exactly do you disagree with?

In no particular order:

• The cult of Mary and the “saints”
• The over-emphasis on the Bishop of Rome.
• The “justification by works”-which it IS in Roman “applied theology”.

Please note that I am well awere that neither Mary, nor the “saints” are worshipped, in theory. But whether or not this is the case in “praksis” is another matter entirely. If it is happening (Mary has been called “co-redemptrix”), and the Vatican does not speak out at least as heavily against it, as it did against the Reformation, it has made itself accomplice.
“Qui tacet consentire vide”, as Bonifacius VIII so rightfully said.

Justification.
On this subject - Scripture is clear. Man is saved by faith alone. The TRUE faith, that is. And true faith is one that shows in deeds. As late as yesterday, when I was asked to speak at my local youth group, I taught that, based on Rev 2-3.
To the untrained eye, this above statement might sound very much like the Roman viewpoint. But it is not. The Roman viewpoint is, as I have understood it, that God’s grace “gives the strenght to keep the Commandments”. This is, in my view, sidestepping the clear issue in Scripture, that it is by faith ALONE we are saved - the TRUE faith, that is.
That does not mean that we need to go around all the time worrying about whether or not we are doing enough good deeds not to go to Hell. It means that since we KNOW that we are saved, we should do good deeds, because that is the way Our Lord has prepared for us (Eph 2:10). The idea that works merits salvation is a very human idea - which can be recognized in all other beliefs - which is excactly why it has no place in the Christian church.

To all three of my points: They are, in my view, unscriptural, and instead of pointing towards Christ as man’s only hope, they point towards man himself.

Solus Christus

 

[paidion]

To the non-Catholics on the board–what do you dislike most about the Catholic Church?

What 3 doctrines are most problematic for you? What do you know about those 3 doctrines, and what exactly do you disagree with?

I find this question interesting in that it seems to imply I don’t like the RCC. I don’t “dislike” the Church at all. I just don’t understand all of its teachings.

Three (of many) things I don’t understand are:

1. the Eucharist - I don’t understand the RCC stance that it becomes Messiah’s flesh and blood
2. purgatory - I don’t really know enough of what the Church teaches to know what I do/don’t agree with
3. What’s the big deal about Peter? Some things I’ve read here make me wonder what folks would believe in if Peter had never existed.

I try to read through a variety of posts, taking many things I read with a grain of salt. Sometimes it’s hard to discern what is really the truth and what is not. I mostly come here to try to “talk” with someone about the faith to try to broaden my understanding.

shalom

 

[Syele]

To the non-Catholics on the board–what do you dislike most about the Catholic Church?

What 3 doctrines are most problematic for you? What do you know about those 3 doctrines, and what exactly do you disagree with?

1. Beliefs about Justification (While the definitions between Protestants and Catholics on this are very similar, the distinction affects beliefs about the nature of God.)
2. Definitions of Sin, Mortal sin, and Venial sin (these definitions affect beliefs about the nature of God and how we respond to Him.)
3. Infallibility

Should the above all be reconciled somehow, my other objections are minor in comparison.