What's YOUR beef?

[Dave_Noonan]

By what standards are you judging institutional self-critique and Biblical scholarship? Were those standards passed through Apostolic succession or something from a more modern Church view?

Well, a “beef” I suppose is a complaint based on personal observation, so it’s really only two things I’ve noticed and don’t like. In terms of institutional self-critique, I’d say my view is significantly influenced by the idea: “ecclesia semper reformanda est” which I suppose you could say is from reformed theology. As far as I’m concerned the institutional church, composed of fallible humans, is too fundamentalistic and absolutist about its expressions of faith and doctrine. It’s also pretty clear, at least to me, that the Catholic church has grave difficulties reforming itself until someone from the outside makes a big enough stink that things finally change–whether that’s clerical corruption in the 13th-16th century or in the 20th century

In terms of biblical scholarship, my beef is that there are a lot of just plain erroneous statements floating around out there, many propagated by Catholic apologists–which is really just a matter of honesty and professionalism and which I suppose you could say is a modern perspective, I don’t know. I see these people as being so quick to support the claims of the Catholic Church that sometimes logic and accuracy regarding the Bible and history fly out the door. And no one ever seems to question them. (See above regarding fundamentalism.)

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well, a “beef” I suppose is a complaint based on personal observation, so it’s really only two things I’ve noticed and don’t like. In terms of institutional self-critique, I’d say my view is significantly influenced by the idea: “ecclesia semper reformanda est” which I suppose you could say is from reformed theology. As far as I’m concerned the institutional church, composed of fallible humans, is too fundamentalistic and absolutist about its expressions of faith and doctrine. It’s also pretty clear, at least to me, that the Catholic church has grave difficulties reforming itself until someone from the outside makes a big enough stink that things finally change–whether that’s clerical corruption in the 13th-16th century or in the 20th century

In terms of biblical scholarship, my beef is that there are a lot of just plain erroneous statements floating around out there, many propagated by Catholic apologists–which is really just a matter of honesty and professionalism and which I suppose you could say is a modern perspective, I don’t know. I see these people as being so quick to support the claims of the Catholic Church that sometimes logic and accuracy regarding the Bible and history fly out the door. And no one ever seems to question them. (See above regarding fundamentalism.)

I, and I suppose other Catholics on these forums, would be interested in discussing those plain erroneous statements if you’d like to start a thread to discuss them?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I, and I suppose other Catholics on these forums, would be interested in discussing those plain erroneous statements if you’d like to start a thread to discuss them?

Ok–but just so you know, this would entail a critique of people like Scott Hahn and Jimmy Akin–who seem, at least to this outsider, effectively equal to sacred cows for many Catholics and I think would evoke some pretty visceral responses. At least this has been my experience at times in the past. For example, I was discussing the canon of the O.T. with one poster who simply couldn’t buy the idea that Fr. John Corapi, and a list of other popular apologists, could be wrong about anything. Assumptions like this tend to quash healthy discussion.

I’m open to trying to discuss things logically, civilly and in an attempt to be objective, but I have to have someone who is a discussion partner. Maybe this approach sort of runs counter to the whole idea of apologetics…and since this is essentially a site about apologetics, maybe it wouldn’t be a good forum. What do you think?

 

[Della]

For a blog purpose, I am wondering what your top issue with the Catholic Church is?

Papal Infallibility, no ABC, no divorce, etc? I am looking for topics to write on.
Thanks in advance!!

P

May we ask what you propose to do with these entirely subjective and, from what I’ve read so far, limited understandings and/or misunderstandings about what Catholicism is and what it teaches about itself and other faiths?

This is a public forum. You’re going to get a lot of opinions but little real information asking such a question. If you are having difficulties with any of these issues, you should read the Catechism, the articles on them that are posted on this website, and/or ask well-informed people. Starting a blog to complain about the Church won’t give you any useful information.

If you are going to answer the “beefs” on your blog with good information, I suppose that could be helpful. Of course, you would need their permission to quote whatever people might write here and be sure to quote them accurately. Frankly, I wouldn’t care to read such a blog when I can read people’s objections to the Faith right here where they can be discussed, but that’s me.

 

[Roy5]

My principal beef with Catholicism is its legalism, its insistence that all good Catholics conform to its doctrines, its formal liturgy and its position on certain moral issues.

I treasure the free mind, investigating, weighing, thinking, even disagreeing in a civil fashion. Catholicism seems to want to limit that. The church insists that she alone has hold of the kernel of spiritual truth, that everyone else is wrong to a lesser or greater degree. This spirit of arrogance insists that I believe - for example - that Mary never committed a sin, that Padre Pio levitated and bilocated, that annulment means that the marriage was invalid from the outset, that married couples can't use artificial birth control, etc., etc. Catholicism has improved a lot. When I was young they emphasized their Index of forbidden books, among them some of the great classics. They relaxed a little after Vatican II, but the church still wants to determine how Catholics are to think, and I want to be free to think, examine, and evaluate on my own within feeling that I am commiting some horrible sin.

My second main gripe was illustrated for me recently when I watched (on EWTN) several new Bishops being consecrated at the Vatican. I saw all the gold, all the pomp, all the men (only) in rich vestments, all the precision, and rather than be impressed, I thought: "Now, what would Jesus think of all this, born in a manger as he was, with not a place to lie his head? What a contrast to this display of wealth and splendid ceremony that I am watching from St. Peter's."

 

[RedDawgMCM]

Dave,
I think Prodigal Son is one of the most knowledgeable, well spoken folks on the boards. I think folks like him and myself could easily hold a legitimate discussion with you on these ideas. I love Scott Hahn and Jimmy Akin and Fr. Corapi as much as the next guy, but they are human. I guess I am just trying to say I am not Hindu I have no sacred cows

Ok–but just so you know, this would entail a critique of people like Scott Hahn and Jimmy Akin–who seem, at least to this outsider, effectively equal to sacred cows for many Catholics and I think would evoke some pretty visceral responses. At least this has been my experience at times in the past. For example, I was discussing the canon of the O.T. with one poster who simply couldn’t buy the idea that Fr. John Corapi, and a list of other popular apologists, could be wrong about anything. Assumptions like this tend to quash healthy discussion.

I’m open to trying to discuss things logically, civilly and in an attempt to be objective, but I have to have someone who is a discussion partner. Maybe this approach sort of runs counter to the whole idea of apologetics…and since this is essentially a site about apologetics, maybe it wouldn’t be a good forum. What do you think?

 

[Della]

My principal beef with Catholicism is its legalism, its insistence that all good Catholics conform to its doctrines, its formal liturgy and its position on certain moral issues.

I treasure the free mind, investigating, weighing, thinking, even disagreeing in a civil fashion. Catholicism seems to want to limit that. The church insists that she alone has hold of the kernel of spiritual truth, that everyone else is wrong to a lesser or greater degree. This spirit of arrogance insists that I believe - for example - that Mary never committed a sin, that Padre Pio levitated and bilocated, that annulment means that the marriage was invalid from the outset, that married couples can't use artificial birth control, etc., etc. Catholicism has improved a lot. When I was young they emphasized their Index of forbidden books, among them some of the great classics. They relaxed a little after Vatican II, but the church still wants to determine how Catholics are to think, and I want to be free to think, examine, and evaluate on my own within feeling that I am commiting some horrible sin.

My second main gripe was illustrated for me recently when I watched (on EWTN) several new Bishops being consecrated at the Vatican. I saw all the gold, all the pomp, all the men (only) in rich vestments, all the precision, and rather than be impressed, I thought: "Now, what would Jesus think of all this, born in a manger as he was, with not a place to lie his head? What a contrast to this display of wealth and splendid ceremony that I am watching from St. Peter's."

All these issues have been discussed on CAF at length. If you want to read up on any of them just do a search. If you want to discuss them, please start threads and we will be happy to address each and every “beef”.

Someone wrote, in essence, that this is an apologetics site therefore the answers given are necessarily polemical. I don’t agree with that assessment. Apologetics is explaining Church teaching and practice. It’s not meant to convince anyone or diss anyone’s beliefs/practices. People often forget themselves and become overly heated in discussions–it’s happened to me, to my shame, but it’s not the goal to be hard on anyone. It’s meant to be an invitation to have what informed, practicing Catholics have–all that Christ intended for us by establishing his Church.

It’s sad there are so many misunderstandings about the Catholic faith, most based on impressions instead of true knowledge. We Catholics simply want to remove the misunderstandings so people can decide if the Church is where God wants them based on what the Church truly is and and what it truly practices/teaches. We want that because we want every soul saved and we believe the fullness of salvation and the certainty of it lies within Christ’s body, the Church. That’s the mission–plain and simple.

 

[hosemonkey]

I have no “Beef” with my Church. I am a member of the “HLS” club. Catholic 'till I die (and after,too)

 

[Montalo]

while catholic, these are issues that i struggle with and would be the reason why i would leave Rome and become Orthodox

the filioque- I find it difficult to believe that God in a perfect trinity could have the Holy Spirit regulated to an inferior position and importance behind God the Father and God the Son, rather then a perfect union

Papal Supremacy. I fully accept the Rome, as the See of peter, deserves a place of honour as the first amoung equals, but not as the supreme bishop

 

[pkdsquared]

So just so you all know, I am planning on writing a series of blogs addressing the things that people tend to have issues with in the Catholic church. My blog is all about my faith journey, but part of the thing I did was literally “read” myself back into the Church. I was very poorly catechized and I was one of those people that always wanted answers.
I find it interesting now that I am back on my faith track, when people find out I am Catholic, they tend to always say “oh, you know what I disagree with about the Church?” and then launch into it. The blog posts are a way for me to do the research to answer these questions and so I can address them when I am confronted with them in the future.
I don’t write a blog for people to read, necessarily, it’s more like an online journal for me…

Thanks so much for your help!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Ok–but just so you know, this would entail a critique of people like Scott Hahn and Jimmy Akin–who seem, at least to this outsider, effectively equal to sacred cows for many Catholics and I think would evoke some pretty visceral responses. At least this has been my experience at times in the past. For example, I was discussing the canon of the O.T. with one poster who simply couldn’t buy the idea that Fr. John Corapi, and a list of other popular apologists, could be wrong about anything. Assumptions like this tend to quash healthy discussion.

I’m open to trying to discuss things logically, civilly and in an attempt to be objective, but I have to have someone who is a discussion partner. Maybe this approach sort of runs counter to the whole idea of apologetics…and since this is essentially a site about apologetics, maybe it wouldn’t be a good forum. What do you think?

I am interested in discussing scriptures with you, based on my ‘private interpretation’. I will admit my interpretation is influenced by the Church and Catholic apologists, but if you feel it necessary to enter into a disparaging remarks about other individuals not in the discussion I fail to see how that can be a ‘healthy discussion’. I feel my understanding of scriptures became more clear when I converted to Catholicism.

I’m not sure I understand a ‘discussion partner’. I think anyone on these forums is welcome to join us. To be perfectly honest it appears as if you’re setting some type of ground rules, taking control of the discussion before it starts, or possibly attempting to avoid the discussion.

If you wish to start a thread send me the link and I’ll join.

Just to let you know, my sister-in-law suffered a massive stroke and I am in a motel at the moment and hopefully will return home tomorrow. It all depends how she does since her surgery. The doctors only give her a 50/50 chance at this time. Prayers would be appreciated and an understanding if it seems I am slow to respond.

 

[benidict]

I am interested in discussing scriptures with you, based on my ‘private interpretation’. I will admit my interpretation is influenced by the Church and Catholic apologists, but if you feel it necessary to enter into a disparaging remarks about other individuals not in the discussion I fail to see how that can be a ‘healthy discussion’. I feel my understanding of scriptures became more clear when I converted to Catholicism.

I’m not sure I understand a ‘discussion partner’. I think anyone on these forums is welcome to join us. To be perfectly honest it appears as if you’re setting some type of ground rules, taking control of the discussion before it starts, or possibly attempting to avoid the discussion.

If you wish to start a thread send me the link and I’ll join.

Just to let you know, my sister-in-law suffered a massive stroke and I am in a motel at the moment and hopefully will return home tomorrow. It all depends how she does since her surgery. The doctors only give her a 50/50 chance at this time. Prayers would be appreciated and an understanding if it seems I am slow to respond.

sending up prayers for your sister in law, and your family right now brother. May Blessed Mary intercede on her behalf, and may Christ return her to strength. His will be done. Peace

 

[uglygal]

If this isn’t a thread to bait non-Catholics then what is it
but anyhow … I’ll bite
My “beef” is the derogatory dismissal of all who are not Catholic and all who do not submit to the authority of the Church as proud, arrogant people who will go to hell.

Other things that keep me from returning to Catholicism (i am a former Catholic) are:
** papal infallibility. I cannot believe a mortal man is Christ on earth or infallible. He is a mortal man, made of dust like me and you, and will be worm food when he dies. He has made and will make mistakes and will never ever be infallible. Only God is infallible.
** the diminishing of God the Father, YHWH, to obscurity and passing references in prayers
** inordinate ‘revering’ of saints and Mary but particularly the saints
** being accused of loose morals as the reason one leaves the Church
** cover up of sex abuse scandals

 

[Hiskid1973]

I have the general bible fundy issues but if I would choose a beef it would be the pride/arrogance of some in the forums…I had a pretty radical conversion experience
and a strong faith going for almost 40(age 60) years…I have actually been put down/had my
born again experience made fun of in these forums…It doesn’t bother me but I wonder what propagates this attitude…We’re either “In Christ” or we’re not…It’s the same Holy Spirit that resides in these earthly tents of all who are in Christ…

 

[Reuben_J]

I have the general bible fundy issues but if I would choose a beef it would be the pride/arrogance of some in the forums…I had a pretty radical conversion experience
and a strong faith going for almost 40(age 60) years…I have actually been put down/had my
born again experience made fun of in these forums…It doesn’t bother me but I wonder what propagates this attitude…We’re either “In Christ” or we’re not…It’s the same Holy Spirit that resides in these earthly tents of all who are in Christ…

The so-called born again experience is not everything. Yes, it can kick start your faith and in that it’s truly a grace. But to depend on your ‘feeling good’ experience as a bench mark that God has truly brought you into his Church may not be entirely correct.

Many ex-protestants have become Catholics who had this born again experience sometimes in their lives. As they experienced this, they still moved on and come to a Church that’s truly founded by Jesus – the Catholic Church. It is perhaps in this context that you may feel ridiculed; but what do you expect, you are in a Catholic forum? Catholics do not have to agree with you, the bottom line is, a born again experience though can be an action by the Holy Spirit does not necessary be all in all; it also could be the means to lead you to a more true destination that the Lord wants to bring you, only you may not recognize it yet.

Even atheists can have conversion experience of some sort, though not necessary spiritual. If they believe in some new idea, you’d be surprised that those can change a person. A person who falls in love too can have conversion experience. Many such a people have undergone changes in their lives out of some belief or a new found experience that motivates them to change.

 

[facetious5487]

For many…including myself…I have simply happened to b raised protestant, like others happen to have been raised catholic. Who cares.

 

[Contarini]

I guess if I had to give one “beef” it would be “over-realized eschatology,” particularly as applied to the Church. In other words, Catholicism identifies the Church Militant with the eschatological Mystical Body, and hence with Christ Himself, in a way that I think flattens the distinction between the present time and the Age to Come. I think that this is related to a lot of the concerns Dave Noonan and others have expressed.

One practical result of this which makes communication difficult: folks on this forum often proceed on the assumption that Protestants believe about our churches (counting myself as a Protestant here, though that depends on your definition of Protestant) what Catholics believe about theirs. At the very least, Catholics assume that if I remain Anglican, it must be because I think Anglicanism is better than Catholicism. I don’t. I’m just not sure Catholicism is quite what Catholicism claims to be. I’m sure that Anglicanism isn’t what Catholicism claims to be. Anglicanism is clearly a bunch of sinful Christians who are not, as a body, protected against error. The question is whether that’s the shape we’re all in, or whether one of the existing Christian bodies is related more directly to the eschatological Bride of Christ than that.

Yet most Catholics simply dismiss this possibility as relativistic or just too depressing to talk about, and prefer to compare one church to another as if we were all making parallel claims.

Edwin

 

[Della]

while catholic, these are issues that i struggle with and would be the reason why i would leave Rome and become Orthodox

the filioque- I find it difficult to believe that God in a perfect trinity could have the Holy Spirit regulated to an inferior position and importance behind God the Father and God the Son, rather then a perfect union

Then you will be happy to know that the Church in no way teaches that the Holy Spirit takes any kind of back seat to the Father and the Son. The filioque is merely a way to describe the relationship within the Trinity. It’s a question of what each Person of the Trinity is in relation to the others not about who is the "highest’ or “best” any more than the relationship between husband and wife means one is better than the other.

Papal Supremacy. I fully accept the Rome, as the See of peter, deserves a place of honour as the first amoung equals, but not as the supreme bishop

If Christ had not intended to create the papacy he should have been more careful not to call Peter the “rock” or to take him aside to give him specific commands to “feed my sheep”, etc. nor selected him as the head of the three, Peter, James and John, whom he set apart from the others on various occasions. It has been the teaching of the Church since Pentecost that there is one visible head of the Church on earth. It’s biblically and historically sound and has worked marvelously even when the men holding the office were not worthy of it.

I struggled with each and every one of the “beefs” brought up in this thread. I lost many nights’ sleep over them and finally came to understand this–that either Christ established his Church on Peter and the Apostles or he didn’t. If he did (the Bible, Sacred Tradition and history all indicate he did) then it is my duty to bow to the Church’s authority. Coming to that realization was a long, hard process.

I wouldn’t expect those coming from outside the Church with no/little understanding of it to grasp this and accept it just like that. Nor do I believe one’s salvation depends on “getting it” and being a card carrying member of the Catholic Church. There’s a lot to absorb and a lot of misunderstandings to be resolved, and a different world view to adopt before most non-Catholics can come to accept the Church. We Catholics can help people here on CAF, but we cannot make real to anyone outside the Church what it means to be Catholic. We can only be good examples as Catholics, especially if we aren’t the best apologists.

 

[Alix1912]

I’m Lutheran Missouri Synod (tragically you now have to define that), and married to a Catholic so my issues are probably a little less than most.

I have very few beefs with the Catholic Church on theology or liturgy as the Lutherans are really close to them in that manner.

I don’t really see a Biblical Basis for the Papacy as it has evolved over the last several hundred years. I have been studying the Bible a lot more lately and I do think the Christ had a special purpose in mind for Peter, and he is mentioned ALOT in the gospels. However, Christ also even tells Peter he has special purposes in mind for other disciples as well. Example John not as much Church building and evangelism, but he wrote a Gospel and Revelation. I realize a lot of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is based on tradition, and that’s Ok with me. I also have no problem with the Papal Infallibility claims as they only apply to when the pope speaks from the throne of St. Peter, which has officially happened only a few times in history and most of those times I agree with what he said.

I have a little bit of an issue with the concept of Mary being sinless. If she was sinless then she didn’t need a savior and I think it cheapens the story a little. However If I get to heaven and they tell me she really was sinless…I’m Ok with that too. I do find thinking about and studying Mary a lot more meaningful now that I have kids of my own.

I find the asking Recognized Saints for intercession a little strange. But it’s really not that different then asking a friend to pray for you. It’s just not something I was brought up doing so it’s a little odd. I do think that studying Saints and their lives is good as I think we can often learn from their examples.

I think the stance on ABC is a little strict. I have no issue with non abortificant birth control. Seriously God can make a virgin pregnant…a condom isn’t going to stop him. However my husband and I practice NFP because it is important to him, and it is much healthier for me. There are non abortificant versions of the Pill, but pumping artificial hormones into your body for a prolonged period cannot be good for you. I also understand that the no ABC thing is also a good shield…you can’t come after the church on abortion if they don’t even allow ABC.

I think the Catholic Church thru its Charities, focus on building up families, and organizations like the KOC does a lot of good in this world. In general my view is really fairly positive.

My biggest beef with the Church is over how elitist some of the members are… Especially here on this forum. How hypocritical and often badly instructed they are as well. I probably am more knowledgeable on the Catholic Church than 75% of my husband’s parish. I’m also bother by the lack of taking a stand on issues certain parishes are. My Lutheran Pastors have no problem preaching about being Pro Life, and other social issues, but several times I think the priest at my husband’s church has been a little soft on those issues.

I also do not like how many Catholics lump all Non Catholic Christians together as one big group of dumb Protestants. We aren’t the same. There are HUGE doctrinal differences between a Fundamentalist Church and a High Liturgical Church like the Lutherans. I also don’t like the fact that many Catholics act like all non Catholics are going to hell because their church is the only path to salvation…which is actually not what the official Catholic stance on that is.

I’m also disappointed in the American Catholic Council of Bishops on their stance on Illegal immigration. Your church practices closed communion, you have to agree to the Catholic Churches Teaching and officially join the church to partake in the Eucharist (which is also my churches stance too, so no issues with this teaching), but it’s Ok for people to come into our country illegally, not follow it’s laws yet still reap the paid govt. benefits for doing so…doesn’t make sense to me.

So I guess I have issues with the hypocrisy. But I think that can be a charge leveled at any single church or denomination. You have lots of people who go to Church on Sunday…but don’t live it during the week…actually we are all guilty of that at one point in our lives or another.

Just my 2 cents…or a buck I guess.

 

[fred_conty]

For a blog purpose, I am wondering what your top issue with the Catholic Church is?

Papal Infallibility, no ABC, no divorce, etc? I am looking for topics to write on.
Thanks in advance!!

P

1. Priest’s sermons. Charity is great but not the only thing to talk about. Our Catechism and Bible is thick with other moving truths. We need them too, desperately.
2. People’s lukewarm attention during the liturgy. Men kneeling with their rears on the pew. People looking around during important parts. Hands not folded in some way while receiving the King of kings during communion. Not participating in the hymns and songs.
   Bored looks. What they are preaching is that they are somewhere else and this is not important. How do you think this affects the priest looking at this indifferent mess? He needs his faith strengthened by his fellow christians, and what does he get? Show some enthusiasm and just maybe everyone’s prayer life will pick up. Maybe we won’t have so many drop outs. I personally don’t believe in a “feely good” liturgy, but I do believe in a pious, and respectfull liturgy and I don’t see it. Anyone listening? Just do it and maybe you will be the one everyone will notice, and lift up the hearts of those around you. We need you, everyone! Sit straight, kneel straight, stand straight, head straight, eyes open, mouths singing praises to God, head bowed in adoration, hands folded at communion (that holds for you men especially), and innner thoughts supporting all of this. God love you and praise be to Jesus!