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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Porknpie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
While my remark included something seen by my eyes, there are spiritual situations as well. The first, “universal forgiveness” which is considered by “universalists” better than what we proclaim. Secondly, the concept of excommunication, which is fortunately being slowly repaired. In divorce, the details are being worked out. My mother likely received communion after I told her the Vatican is changing and she is not really to consider herself fully “excommunicated” from our religion which is her strongest (beyond doubt) preference. I have also learned that certain acts, such as freemasonry membership can excommunicate an individual. BUT, after guidance from my confessors, dropping the organization in conjunction with penance is sufficient. In freemasonry, (back to universalism), they stand on a foundation of accepting a person so long as they believe in any higher power. Yes, for wise Catholics, a reason to leave after careful thought. So, I believe the church has a tough repair involving a joining of these matters in depth.
 
Rerum Novarum and labor unions. You might as well say that the Mafia is a valid means of obtaining social justice for its individual members.
 
The one Catholic doctrine I disagree with most…monotheism, I’d say.
 
Rerum Novarum and labor unions. You might as well say that the Mafia is a valid means of obtaining social justice for its individual members.
Most unions started out for good and necessary reforms. It seems now most unions are a big business in itself. A union member needs a union to protect them from unions.
 
While my remark included something seen by my eyes, there are spiritual situations as well. The first, “universal forgiveness” which is considered by “universalists” better than what we proclaim. Secondly, the concept of excommunication, which is fortunately being slowly repaired. In divorce, the details are being worked out. My mother likely received communion after I told her the Vatican is changing and she is not really to consider herself fully “excommunicated” from our religion which is her strongest (beyond doubt) preference. I have also learned that certain acts, such as freemasonry membership can excommunicate an individual. BUT, after guidance from my confessors, dropping the organization in conjunction with penance is sufficient. In freemasonry, (back to universalism), they stand on a foundation of accepting a person so long as they believe in any higher power. Yes, for wise Catholics, a reason to leave after careful thought. So, I believe the church has a tough repair involving a joining of these matters in depth.
NOT TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT, BUT THE Advise you’re sharing is being HOTLY debated. One TRULY needs to talk to THEIR PASTOR on this topic.

Anyone seeking more information PLEASE send me a private message requesting same [PJM] I don’t wish to derail the OP topic

GBY

Partick
 
Papal infallibility ex cathedra.
And WHY is that:thumbsup:

Please use this site to read the following bible teaching; PAYING very close attention to the HS Inspired [2nd Tim. 3:16-17]

www.drbo.org/

Mt, 10:1-8
Mt 16:15-19
John 17:17-20
Mt 28: 18-20


EACH OF THE ABOVE IS

DIRECTLY & EXCLUSIVELY TO THE APOSTLES & SUCCESSORS [compare Mt 10: 5-8 to Mt 28:18-20] GOD Ordained catholic Papal Succession

NOTE IN Jn 17: that Jesus Christ GIVES HIMSELF as the personal warranty of being able to OFFICIALLY teaching ONLY HIS TRUTHS on ALL matters of Faith beliefs & Morals:

NO OTHER CHURCH; NO OTHER FAITH CAN MAKE THIS CLAIM AND PROVE IT. AND THIS IS THE BIBLICAL FOUNDATION FOR PAPAL INFALLIBILITY:thumbsup:

**John 14:21-27 **“He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith to him, not the Iscariot: Lord, how is it, that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not to the world? **Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him. **He that loveth me not, keepeth not my words. And the word [in its entirety!] which you have heard, is not mine; but the Father’ s who sent me. These things have I spoken to you, abiding with you. But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, do I give unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be afraid”

GOD bless you

Patrick
 
The one Catholic doctrine I disagree with most…monotheism, I’d say.
“mon·o·the·ism
ˈmänōˌTHēizəm/
noun
the doctrine or belief that there is only one God.
Translations, word origin, and more definitions”

Thanks:)

As the OP, I’d be happy to discuss this issue with you.

WHY then do you hold to such a view?

God Bless you,

Patrick [PJM]
 
“mon·o·the·ism
ˈmänōˌTHēizəm/
noun
the doctrine or belief that there is only one God.
Translations, word origin, and more definitions”

Thanks:)

As the OP, I’d be happy to discuss this issue with you.

WHY then do you hold to such a view?

God Bless you,

Patrick [PJM]
Hello Patrick, my reasons for being polytheist are many and can seem quite recondite to those unfamiliar with polytheist thinkers. So, I’ll stay away from the more philosophical stuff.

Instead, let’s start simple by considering the claim “there is only one God.” On its face, this claim treats “God” like a nature or essence that only one has. But, part of being divine is lacking things like natures and essences. So, on its face, monotheism is a misunderstanding of divinity.

But, maybe monotheism doesn’t treat “God” like a what (e.g. a nature or essence) that only one has: maybe it treats “God” like a who. On this interpretation, monotheism asserts that “there is only one [YHWH, Allah, etc.].” There’s nothing wrong with such a claim, except that polytheists can agree: likewise, there’s only one Odin, and only one Poseidon, etc.

In the end, monotheism either ends up being a misunderstanding of divinity, or a claim that in no way contradicts polytheism.
 
Hello Patrick, my reasons for being polytheist are many and can seem quite recondite to those unfamiliar with polytheist thinkers. So, I’ll stay away from the more philosophical stuff.

Instead, let’s start simple by considering the claim “there is only one God.” On its face, this claim treats “God” like a nature or essence that only one has. But, part of being divine is lacking things like natures and essences. So, on its face, monotheism is a misunderstanding of divinity.

In the end, monotheism either ends up being a misunderstanding of divinity, or a claim that in no way contradicts polytheism.
Interesting:) But as you shared, you are speaking of many gods each with their own SEPERATE Nature. NOT so for our GOD.

Catholics & Christians treat God as a “who” and one WHO has a “spiritual essence” John 4:23-24] and a Perfect Divine Nature. [Rev 1:8] Jesus who is a part of the Triune Godhead [one NATURE; which each of them have in its entirety & 3 Divine Persons" alone has two perfect natures; Human nature & His Always present Divine Nature…This is a mystery

Because space is limited here on CAF I will be more brief than I’d like to be

From the Genesis; Chapter 1, verses 26 & 27 &, John 4:23-24

The universe exist for 2 reasons: 1 that God could be “discovered” through its existence & complexity 2 That God would be glorified as the creator & sustainer of it.

So My God created the entire Universe. The Universe is far too Vast; Complex & well-Ordered, for there to have been more than a single source for its existence. My God did this so that his created humanity; who alone in the entire Universe of Billions of stars, galaxies and planets would be enabled to discern this reality. Unique also In the Universe is planet earth; the only one that can be scientifically proven [not thought to be; but is] able to support the life forms that we are aware of. Literally one out of Billions. That too is a critical part of MY God’s design and hopes and expectations for humanity.

On planet earth with its Many Millions of things; including an uncounted number of “living things”; again, only one of them is able to love or hate. & is able to make complex things out of less complex things. Our computers for example. That one “thing” is humanity; you and me. Nothing exist that is more perfect; more complex; more evidently God “created” than is humanity. And only man is able to logically discover and find God through the Universe that He created [a term meaning: “to make something out of nothing] for THAT very purpose.

The Universe is created so that man alone is able to discover God from the Majesty of size, Complexity Well-Ordered arrangement, [as in commanded; not even remotely possible as an accident or for that matter as a Big Bang. Where did the stuff that went BANG originate?]

In order for man to be able to discover God in Creation; in able for man to be able to freely choose to love and to hate; and in order for man to be “creative” requires certain attributes; God-like attributes to be exact. Keep in mind here that we have already described God as “Spirit & Truth.”

God gives to every human person:

A mind [not meaning here one’s brain]

A Intellect [not referencing one’s “I.Q.”

And a Freewill

Each of these attributes is attached to man’s Soul; which for now we will describe as “that which animates ALL Life forms”. That said; there exist a hierarchy of order for all living things; of complexity and worthiness. Man is the pinnacle; the summit of that Order.

Now before we apply the GOD TEST here; I’d like to speak briefly about man’s bodily existence and what happens when we die. To do so, we once again return to the Book of Genesis: Chapter 3; verse #8

Gen. 3: 8 “19 “In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return."

So here we are told what most of us already know. When the human body dies it decomposes and returns to dust. Now we ask the obvious [at least to me] question. Does this mean that there is no After-Life?” Is that too just a myth?

Here’s how man emulates God; here’s how we can establish without the slightest doubt, by applying logic [another thing only man can do] that “God” has to exist.

The attributes that God gives to humanity: mind, intellect, freewill and Soul; like our God are all “Spiritual Realities.” Really??? You say.

If you doubt this; then quantify for me your “freewill.” What is its weight, shape, size and color?And just where exactly in the body is it contained? This can’t be done; yet any one foolish enough to disclaim the reality of man’s freewill; is at best completely illogical. Man’s freewill, intellect, and mind are permanently attached to our Souls; this “package” I have come to call “our Other-self.” And it is this after death Spiritual- package that our human body choices choose for us: Either Eternal Hell or Eternal Heaven. And yes; like our God our Other-Self is immortal; it cannot be killed and it never dies.

So I have, I pray, proven logically and biblically the existence of God. Physical things can come from a variety of other physical things; BUT the Spiritual reality of man’s “Other-self” can only come in emulation from another “Spiritual Reality”. It is the reality that we choose to call [as commanded by the First Commandment] “our God

As awesome as is the Universe that God created so that man, using logic and the powers of observation might discover Him; even more amazing is the other side of the coin called “The Natural Laws”, which are the Moral Laws written upon men’s hearts and embedded in their minds, so that man could discover goodness. It is this innate inner sense of goodness in all men that makes most evident the reality of God and goodness whose souse is God. Man’s Freewill however at times over shadows it. That too is evidence of God.

GBY
 
Thanks for sharing the Christian perspective PJM, let’s not get too far afield from monotheism though 😛 For what it’s worth, polytheist thinkers have always been staunch defenders of our immortality.

So, the argument I gave was that there is no such thing as monotheism. See, monotheism is supposed to be a denial of polytheism, but there’s no way for it to do this: it either treats a God like something that has a nature or essence, in which case it’s not talking about what is truly divine; or it says little more than that there is only one of a particular deity, which is something polytheists can agree with. In either case, “monotheism” is not an alternative to polytheism.

As such, arguments for “God” are really just arguments for a God. Consider the following assertion you made:
The Universe is far too Vast; Complex & well-Ordered, for there to have been more than a single source for its existence.
Suppose that this assertion is true. All it would mean is that only one God caused the universe, but it wouldn’t mean that only one God exists. So, it would not show that monotheism is true, only that a God exists, and caused the universe – which a polytheist could in theory agree with.

As it is, the assertion assumes several things about how a multitude of Gods would relate to one another that polytheist thinkers would reject as well. But, I don’t want to wade us into henadicity or polycentricity here.

So, to keep things simple and focused, in light of the argument I’ve given, do you agree that monotheism isn’t really an alternative to polytheism, so that arguments for “God” are really just arguments for a God? If not, which part of the argument do you reject?
 
So, to keep things simple and focused, in light of the argument I’ve given, do you agree that monotheism isn’t really an alternative to polytheism, so that arguments for “God” are really just arguments for a God? If not, which part of the argument do you reject?
Are you a subjectivist as well as a pagan?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top