Poll - What is (was) your #1 objection to the RCC

[DavidFilmer]

This thread is intended to be a poll, not a discussion. I can’t use the Board’s poll feature because it limits a poll to 7 choices, and I think that is not nearly enough!

If you are not “Roman” Catholic, I wonder - what is your #1 objection to the Catholic Church. Forget all the other objections - what is the BIGGEST objection you have?

If you’re a convert, what WAS your #1 objection before converting?

I am NOT seeking (name removed by moderator)ut in this thread from current or former Catholics who still have an objection to some aspect of the Church - only those who are/were not Catholic to begin with.

Please feel free to offer a brief comment on WHY this item is/was so objectionable. But - again - this is too broad a thread to facilitate individual discussion - those should be opened in other threads

I’ll start off (being a Convert myself): Papal Infallibility was my #1 objection - I viewed it as a late invention of convenience after the Great Schism. I had other issues (Marian doctrines), but if you could prove to me the Pope was, indeed, infallible, then I would be compelled to concede the other issues anyway (how can you argue with infallibility???)

• If I get enough answers, I’ll attempt to categorize/tabulate them and post my results.*

 

[Ghosty]

My number one objection was that I couldn’t believe in God, and when I could believe, I absolute hated Him.

Only through understanding Judaism, specifically Orthodox Judaism, did I come to understand and believe in God. Once I studied the Orthodox, specifically Hasidic, anticipation of the Messiah, I simply could not avoid seeing Jesus as that Messiah. From there it was simply a matter of finding out where the Messianic Kingdom lay, and historically it was obviously the Catholic Church. Once I realized Jesus was the Christ, and that the Church was His Body and Kingdom on Earth, I didn’t have any objections to the faith (though I still struggle with understanding and ignorance at times).

 

[mommy]

I converted, and I don’t know that I exactly had specific objections. I grew up not being baptized or going to any specific church. I honestly didn’t know that there was that big of difference between Catholic/Protestant churches.

Once I went to Mass with my husband, I knew the mass/church services were quite different, but I still didn’t understand. It wasn’t until I fully understood the Real Presence that It hit me.

I do remember when we got married I didn’t get the whole ‘unmarried priest’ thing, that almost seemed silly to me then.

Now that I’ve gone through RCIA and studied the Church I understand all of this at it all makes total sense to me.

 

[chevalier]

I am a cradle one, but I have had my problems. Currently two:

1. At some point in time, there being a different Canon Code for the Latin and the Eastern rite, two different rules for the validity of Protestant marriages existed. This was formal requirements. Protestant marriages deemed valid in the Latin rite could have been declared invalid in the Eastern right and the people marry again while they couldn’t have in the Latin right.
2. Currently, some priests and other learned people often tell people that they shouldn’t investigate the validity of their marriages if they don’t want to separate. But neither do they tell them to obtain conditional convalidation. If there is even a slight chance marriage is objectively invalid, shouldn’t we examine the validity in order to make sure it’s valid and sacramental or to convalidate it, if needed, so that it could become sacramental? People who are told that by their priests aren’t sinning for having sex together, but what if they don’t actually have a sacramental marriage? Shouldn’t we make sure they get it?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

She can’t seem to decide if I have a God-given free will or not.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

chevalier:

1. Currently, some priests and other learned people often tell people that they shouldn’t investigate the validity of their marriages if they don’t want to separate. But neither do they tell them to obtain conditional convalidation. If there is even a slight chance marriage is objectively invalid, shouldn’t we examine the validity in order to make sure it’s valid and sacramental or to convalidate it, if needed, so that it could become sacramental? People who are told that by their priests aren’t sinning for having sex together, but what if they don’t actually have a sacramental marriage? Shouldn’t we make sure they get it?

Roger that. I was just observing a similar idea on another thread.

Alan