What's the ONE Catholic Doctrine that you disagree with most?

[Constantin]

You dare not to disagree? Well, good for you, if that works for you! Believe me, I am serious, no irony here.

 

[BornInMarch]

It makes me cringe to see people claim to be perfectly orthodox Catholics. Really? In your whole life you’ve really never come across a Church Rule that you disagreed with or felt uncomfortable with or at the very least couldn’t understand?

You know God will still love you if you admit to having imperfections; pretty much every prophet and apostle mentioned in the bible had a lapse at least once. Saying “well X rule does make me uneasy” won’t turn you into a pillar of salt.

 

[Kliska]

I don’t simply disagree with monotheism; it’s not something that I’d say is false: I’m saying there is no such thing as monotheism to disagree with, or to regard as false.

I just proved your position to be incorrect. By definition, by sheer definition, there is indeed Monotheism. I’m a Monotheist, nice to meet you.

Monotheism is supposed to be a form of theism that opposes polytheism; which is why you’ve posted a definition of monotheism right next to a definition of polytheism, and capitalized “God” in one and not the other.

No, Monotheism can exist without polytheism. The reason I posted polytheism is to show polytheism also exists and is defined. I can post the definition for Monotheism and it stands on its own. Monotheism is the belief that there is only one God.

Well, the definition of monotheism says there is only one of something.

No, the definition of Monotheism states there is a belief in only one God.

Only one of what? Something it calls “God.” So, it treats “God” like a kind of being that has only one member. Problem is, we know that part of being divine involves transcending all categories or kinds of being. As such, “monotheism” is using the term “God” to refer to something that isn’t truly divine because it doesn’t transcend all categories or kinds of being.

In Judaism and Christianity, as with some other religions, it’s the view that God has revealed truth about Himself. He reveals this Truth to humans who are the ones stuck within our own frame of reference. As such, it is His choice as to how to reveal Himself, and in our terms He’s revealed Himself in various ways with various labels. He is “I AM.” He is One.

But all of this is besides the point; you are arguing there is no such thing as “Monotheism” itself. You disprove your own claim by arguing against it.

So, that’s what the definition of monotheism amounts to. Does it oppose polytheism? No, not at all: while polytheism is talking about a multitude of Gods, monotheism is talking about something that isn’t a God because it doesn’t transcend all categories or kinds of being.

This is why I asked if you are a subjectivist. You are making up a definition of Monotheism that isn’t the agreed upon definition. Monotheism is the belief in one God. Of course it exists, I’m a Monotheist. I believe there is only one God. It has nothing to do with trying to “oppose” polytheism. Now, I oppose polytheism because I don’t believe in it, but I would never say polytheism does not exist. Of course it does; you are a polytheist.

As such, “monotheism” doesn’t exist as a form of theism which opposes polytheism: it exists only as a non-theistic position about something it mislabels “God.”

Again, you are showing that you disagree with Monotheism, not that it does not exist.

 

[Kliska]

Well you know what they say about Non-Catholics who argue with other Non-Catholics.

What DO they say about Non-Catholics arguing?

 

[PluniaZ]

It makes me cringe to see people claim to be perfectly orthodox Catholics. Really? In your whole life you’ve really never come across a Church Rule that you disagreed with or felt uncomfortable with or at the very least couldn’t understand?

You know God will still love you if you admit to having imperfections; pretty much every prophet and apostle mentioned in the bible had a lapse at least once. Saying “well X rule does make me uneasy” won’t turn you into a pillar of salt.

That’s the whole point. Our personal opinions do not matter. The Church is a kingdom not a democracy. Jesus Christ is our King and the Pope is His Vicar. We had better get busy obeying the King and His Vicar, not waste time and cause confusion for everyone else by introducing our own quite frankly stupid opinions.

“But the hand of God was in Juda, to give them one heart to do the word of the Lord, according to the commandment of the king, and of the princes.” 2 Chronicles 30:13

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I wouldn’t say “disagree with the most” but if you want to know the “one Catholic doctrine” that is the highest barrier to my conversion, it is this idea that the only way to cross the Tiber is with a one-way ticket, that once someone becomes Catholic, either as a baptized baby or as an adult convert, it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to leave the Church. And so, I have to be 100% sure with not even a smidgen of doubt, that I will join the Church and never leave it afterward.

Especially since this is apparently a fairly new innovation, that the Church used to accept formal “defections” in written form. And that apparently, the main reason this is no longer allowed, was to make it easier for Catholic reverts who have married outside the Church, to obtain “defect of form” annulments for those marriages.

The idea being that, if the Church claims “once a Catholic, always a Catholic subject to Canon Law”, then any Catholic, even if they are “Catholic” because Grandma secretly baptized them in her bathtub, and they don’t even know about it, they are required to marry in a Catholic form. And if they don’t, the marriage is automatically invalid.

That just seems to be a really petty reason for making such a sea change to Catholic practice.

 

[Peter_J]

What DO they say about Non-Catholics arguing?

I don’t know, I was hoping you knew.

 

[Porknpie]

Neither does the idea that someone who is baptized is forgiven of all temporal punishment. Someone could commit murder and then be baptized and they would go straight to heaven

Not if they were unrepented. The grace would not have affect. As with ALL the Sacraments, not just the Eucharist, we have examine our conscious. Receiving a sacrament in a state of mortal sin brings judgment.

“but a Catholic who confessed to murder would not be forgiven the temporal punishment.”

Our all-loving God will forgive them, if they repented and received the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

 

[Kliska]

I don’t know, I was hoping you knew.

I was guessing it had something to do with insanity…

 

[PJM]

I am a Catholic but there are still a few that i fail to understand. Indulgences is one of them. I am pretty knowledgeable about Catholic theology but this one just doesn’t make any sense to me. Neither does the idea that someone who is baptized is forgiven of all temporal punishment. Someone could commit murder and then be baptized and they would go straight to heaven but a Catholic who confessed to murder would not be forgiven the temporal punishment.

Thanks for asking.

Because the FORUM limits the space we can use for replies, I’ll address your issues as completely as I am able. SEND ME A PRIVATE MESSAGE if you desire even more information.

**INDULGENCE. “The remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins forgiven as far as their guilt is concerned, which the follower of Christ with the proper dispositions and under certain determined conditions acquires through the intervention of the Church, which, as minister of the redemption, authoritatively dispenses and applies the treasury of the satisfaction won by Christ and the saints” (Pope Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences).Fr Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary **

All this was changed by Pope Paul VI. From now on the measure of how efficacious an indulgenced work is depends on two things: the supernatural charity with which the indulgenced task is done, and the perfection of the task itself.

Another innovation is that partial and plenary indulgences can always be applied to the dead by way of suffrage, asking God to remit their sufferings if they are still in purgatory. Fr. Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary

A bit of background for those who may not understand all of the terms in the Question and my reply:

The Power; the Authority for the Church to enact this practice is found in Mt 16:15-19, Mt 28:18-20 & Mt 7: 13-20, & John 17: 17-20, as She [Mother Church] is entrusted and commanded to CARE for the Souls under Her charge

ALL SINS, even those properly Confessed & Forgiven Jn 20:19-23, still accrue a Debt directly imposed by Christ that theologians term THE TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT due to sin. WHY is this?
ALL sins 1 Jn 1: 8-9 & 1 Jn 5: 16-27, have what we can term a “PUBLIC NATURE”; meaning that sins always affect and effect -others besides the sinner. Take for example: lies, adultery, abortion, theft, gossip, lack of charity, and so on; others like the church [by our poor examples], our families and friends, and even those who know that we have sinned that we may be unaware of are entangled by our sins.

So GOD in Divine Justice demands that this DEBT be repaid in full before anyone can attain the Beatific Vison [Heaven]; because God is Perfect, so too must our Souls be either Perfect upon our death , or able to be perfected through Purgatory [died with NO unconfessed /unforgiven Mortal sins [John 20:19-23]. Purgatory references: Lev. 22:21, Heb 2:10, Mt 5:26, Mt 5:48, Rev 21:22

OF NOTE: Because this debt is charged & applied by Christ directly; only Christ knows what, and to what DEGREE He will accept repayment for “TP.”

But the Power of the Key’s permits the Church to obligate God Mt. 16:18-19 to accept what She makes possible for atonement. [18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH [singular] , and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to YOU the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever YOU shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever YOU shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”

Indulgences then are detailed acts; prayers, charity, and sacrifices DEMANDED to be precisely fulfilled, to have the desired effects,

This FREE site explains Indulgences well: newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

They fall into 2 categories and Christ is the only auditor.

Partial repayment and FULL [Plenary] repayment depending on the intent of the person & the degree of charity, humility, and complete accuracy of the demanded conditions imposed by Mother Church. SEE again Fr Hardon’s definition shared above. Indulgences take many forms.
As for BAPTISM: John 3:5 & Mt 28:18-20
…. newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
Sacramental Baptism can be VALIDLY received only one time.
Some of the effects of Baptism includes making one a marked- Child of GOD; entry into the Church, and forgiveness of ALL sin and ALL punishment those sins accrued UP TO THE POINT of the Sacramental Baptism.

In effect a Baptized Soul is literally made PERFECT, and worthy of Heaven, Until or Unless ones sins again before dying.

In its purest form of understanding; Sacramental Baptism is a GIFT from God who as 1st Timothy 2:3-5 tells us “[3] For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, [4] Who will have [DESIRES THAT] all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. [5] For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus”

Humility challenges humanity NOT to deny. & not to challenge God’s Gifts, or to question His Sovereign-Right to do whatever He [GOD] in Divine Justice sees as fitting.

I pray my friend this helps you’re understanding? If not please let me know.

GBY
Patrick [PJM]

 

[Perplexity]

Kliska: Noam Chomsky’s famous sentence “colorless green ideas sleep furiously” illustrates the fact that a sentence can be grammatically correct and not mean anything.

It’s perfectly fine as a rule of thumb to assume that grammatically correct sentences are meaningful, but not when the meaningfulness of that statement is in question, and arguments have been given. To assume anyway is to beg the question, and make an ad populum appeal.

So, I guess all I can do is reiterate this point: contrary to popular belief, “monotheism” is not a denial of polytheism. It isn’t even a theistic position. Instead, “monotheism” is a position about a creature labeled “God.” What doesn’t exist is the idea of monotheism that most folks profess to believe.

 

[Kliska]

Kliska: Noam Chomsky’s famous sentence “colorless green ideas sleep furiously” illustrates the fact that a sentence can be grammatically correct and not mean anything.

That’s a far cry from arguing against the existence of a belief that is a cornerstone of multiple world religions. You can argue logically against the belief, or correctness, of Monotheism, but you cannot argue logically against Monotheism existing as a belief. Of course it exists, “I believe in one God.” I’m a monotheist.

To assume anyway is to beg the question, and make an ad populum appeal.

It has nothing to do with opinion, and everything to do with deductive logic.

So, I guess all I can do is reiterate this point: contrary to popular belief, “monotheism” is not a denial of polytheism. It isn’t even a theistic position. Instead, “monotheism” is a position about a creature labeled “God.” What doesn’t exist is the idea of monotheism that most folks profess to believe.

I’m sorry, but this isn’t a logical position given that we have whole religions that are Monotheistic. The defining of Monotheism does not have to be connected with polytheism in any way shape or form. Polytheism is not a part of the definition of monotheism at all. Theology is the study of the nature of God. Of course Monotheism is theistic by definition.

 

[Perplexity]

Kliska: You’ve gotta put more into this exchange bro What I mean is that while I’ve given an analysis of the sentence “There is only one God”, and explained why it doesn’t actually mean anything if it’s intended to be about the divine, you’ve simply repeated the sentence and said that it was meaningful as a statement about the divine. But, you haven’t given us any reason to agree.

So, what does the sentence “There is only one God” mean? What is it that there’s only one of?

 

[Peter_J]

It makes me cringe to see people claim to be perfectly orthodox Catholics. Really? In your whole life you’ve really never come across a Church Rule that you disagreed with or felt uncomfortable with or at the very least couldn’t understand?

To be fair, claiming to be perfectly orthodox doesn’t imply having always been perfectly orthodox.

 

[PluniaZ]

To be fair, claiming to be perfectly orthodox doesn’t imply having always been perfectly orthodox.

It’s true. For most of my life I was very anti-orthodox.

 

[Kliska]

Kliska: You’ve gotta put more into this exchange bro

Not bro, unless you call everyone bro.

OK, background info; I taught logic at the college level. I’m being very specific because of that, and what you said caught my teacher-eye.

You said, “there is no such thing as monotheism. See, monotheism is supposed to be a denial of polytheism.”

You are making two conclusions here:

1. Monotheism is a denial of polytheism.
2. There is no such thing as monotheism.

OK, let’s look at #1. Monotheism is not defined in relation to polytheism. I gave a dictionary definition of Monotheism up-thread. Per the dictionary: Monotheism is* the doctrine or belief that there is only one God.* Notice that it is not defined in terms of polytheism. The word polytheism is not there.

Lets look at #2. If I can show that anyone holds the belief that there is only one God, then Monotheism exists by definition. I believe there is only one God. Therefore, monotheism exists. Maybe I’m right, maybe I’m wrong, but monotheism exists. Maybe I’m illogical, maybe I’m not, but monotheism exits.

What you seem to be arguing is that Monotheism makes no logical sense; even if we assume that’s true it does not mean that “there is no such thing as monotheism.” That’s an entirely different set of arguments. That’s all I’m pointing out.

 

[Perplexity]

Kliska: The sentence “There is only one God” undoubtedly exists, as does the belief in its truth. But, that doesn’t mean the sentence or belief have any content. It’s the content I’m denying the existence of, not the sentence or belief that it is true.

 

[ashleyxo]

not a doctrine I guess…but I don’t like how homosexual men cannot be priests. I get that there’s a whole thing on it but I feel there’s not much understanding/clarity with it. A little but of hypocrisy too, sometimes. I also don’t really get the whole complementarian thing, but I guess it’s more present in protestants/evangelical groups, so it’s not really a catholic thing.

 

[Kliska]

Kliska: The sentence “There is only one God” undoubtedly exists, as does the belief in its truth.

Then we agree; Monotheism exists, by definition.

But, that doesn’t mean the sentence or belief have any content. It’s the content I’m denying the existence of, not the sentence or belief that it is true.

I’m not sure what you mean by “content” here, but I’ll go with it.

It does have clear meaning because it has coherent meaning. We can exchange dialogue about it because we, and anyone with access to a dictionary, can know what it means. You are still arguing about the logic, or the lack there of, of the phrase (and ultimately the belief) “there is only one God.”

If two people meet on the street and one is a Jew, and the Jewish individual says, “I’m a monotheist,” then he has just transmitted an accurate label, and accurate information, based on his own belief.

 

[Perplexity]

Kliska: Sorry, but I think we’re splitting hairs at this point and avoiding the substantive issue at hand The sentence exists, the belief that this sentence is true exists. But, does this sentence mean anything? I hope those following this will give that some thought.

Analyzed by predicate logic, the statement “There is only one God” is made of two parts: an existential quantifier and a higher order object called “God.” No matter what sort of higher order object “God” is, it is what gets instantiated by only one. But, this is intrinsically at odds with divine simplicity. Think about that folks.