Why I'm Almost Convinced Catholosism is Wrong:

  • Thread starter Thread starter MrZetterlund
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A few things that might help that I’ve heard over the years.

Imagine if you could somehow take DaVinci to the Louvre today to sign autographs. Stand him next to the Mona Lisa. Imagine for a moment that many people oohed and ahhed over the magnificent painting while the artist was RIGHT THERE! Would he be affronted? Would he be jealous that his masterpiece was receiving more attention than he himself? Of course not! All praise directed at the masterpiece is DE FACTO praise for its creator! Same for Mary. Catholics do not worship Mary, we recognize her as the masterpiece of what mere humans can be.

The second thing to realize is that for catholics, prayer is NOT the highest form of worship a human can offer God. For catholics, the holy sacrifice of the mass, supernaturally joined “once for all” with the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is the highest form of worship. Prayer is the next highest. Prayers directed TO saints are not the same as prayers directed to God Himself. In the latter case, the prayer is a manifestation of the communion of saints. Saints in heaven are fully baked! Not only forgiven, but completed in sanctification. They make unbelievable prayer warriors becuse they no longer suffer the distraction that we on earth (the Church Militant) do. If you have no problem asking your brother to pray for you, you should have no problem asking a “dead” saint to pray for you.

The clue for you on the pope is in your own post. Did you REALLY think that no catholic in 2,000 years noticed that St. Peter wasn’t impeccable? That he made mistakes? That should have been your clue that you didn’t understand what catholics mean by an ‘infallible pope.’ Popes are only infallible when speaking on a matter of faith and morals and are upholding the longstanding Sacred Tradition (such as catholic teaching on abortion or homosexuality) or are explicitly invoking the authority of Peter’s office (ex cathedra). That second kind happens less than once a century!
 
MrZetterlund said:
Hm, well thanks for the clear up, guys. 👍 Though I must admit, I’m still hung up on infant Baptism
Click to expand...
hey…i was gunna reply to this, and then i realized i already did - d: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=420352
EmeraldWings said:
well, what kind of loving parent would deny their child salvation? a person can deny Christ whether they are baptized or not, the baptism does not hinder you from choosing between heaven and hell, but if you are not baptized as an infant, and then die before you can even decide on your own to, then you can’t go to heaven…i would never do that to my children(if i had any e_e)
and on top of that, baptism gives many graces and virtues that you would otherwise not have that would help you greatly in understanding and believing in God and your religion so you could make your decision based on what you do understand instead of what you don’t.

according to the Catholic Church, a baby should be baptized within two or three weeks of its birth, and It is actually a mortal sin to delay the baptism of a baby for a long time.

and besides…you’re not “saved” until you die and go to heaven, this life is a trial, we are hear to learn to love, and to know, love, and serve God, choosing on our own if we want baptism is really irrelevant to it’s purpose,
if we decide later in life that we want to follow Christ, and already received baptism as an infant, then good, continue on,
but if you decide later in life that you don’t want to follow Christ, and you also received baptism as an infant…then continue on…you have already lost the sanctifying grace your baptism gave you…

what you need to understand here is, the important deciding factor is not baptism, the only important thing is choosing God and making it to heaven, and if you understand that, then you understand the need to baptize infants, it’s for their own good,
really, what’s more important, making sure your child had the chance to choose on their own to be baptized, or making sure that they even have a chance at heaven in the first place if they were to die at a young age?
if your unbaptized child died, would you be thinking to yourself “well at least i didn’t force them to have original sin cleaned from their soul”, or would you be thinking what a fool you were for putting the importance of choice over the importance of their immortal soul…

well, that’s all for now, i hope this helps you, tc
Click to expand...
 
MrZetterlund said:
Hm, well thanks for the clear up, guys. 👍 Though I must admit, I’m still hung up on infant Baptism 🤷 And for one more (name removed by moderator)ut for this post, I’d just like to say that I LOLed when I read this post:😛
Click to expand...
As to infant Baptism, the Orthodox carry it even further and administer not only Baptism, but even communion to infants. Anyway, the bible speaks to this, even if indirectly. See Acts 16:15 and 18:8, where whole “households” were baptized. As well, Paul baptized an entire household in 1 Corinthians 1:16 as well. In at least one of those households, there likely were children. Now, children are not specifically mentioned, but neither is it biblically prohibited to baptize them. The resistance to children’s baptism is a recent development in Christianity.

As well, the bible apparently indicates that no faith at all is required to receive healing. In Luke 5:18-20, the paralyzed man is lowered through the roof to Jesus. The paralytic is healed when Jesus saw the faith of the man’s friends. There is not one iota of scriptural evidence that the paralytic himself had any faith at all. So, great faith can bring heavenly grace upon others. It is this faith of the parents which calls the grace of Baptismal regeneration upon infants.

Christ’s peace be with you.
 
MrZetterlund said:
Hm, well thanks for the clear up, guys. 👍 Though I must admit, I’m still hung up on infant Baptism
Click to expand...
Do you have a catechism? For about $10, it is an amazing collection of God’s revealed truth. Give it a try. Heck, I’ll send you one if you want!

Christ’s peace.
 
MrZetterlund said:
I really admire the Catholic faith and unity, however, I must get answers to these objecctions before I could ever “swim the Tiber,” (I think is what it’s called.) 🤷

1: Most Catholics believe that the Pope in inherent and is the succesor of Peter. But Peter certainly wasn’t inherent. He denied Christ three times.
Click to expand...
Then Peter repented and was later nailed to a cross upside, if I’m not mistaken.

Surely, if anything, this is evidence of God’s great love and forgiveness and not any scandal against our Pope.
3: Catholics kiss the toe of a statue of Peter, don’t they? And pray to Mary, and kiss the Pope’s ring, ect. How can this not be viewed as idolatry?
Click to expand...
Its intention, isn’t it? If the intention when kissing these statues is to worship said statue,then yeah, its idolatry, if its respect or love for these people then it is not.

Do you kiss your mum? Your dad? Praying to Mary is asking her to interceed on our behalf before God, its no different than getting your living friends to pray for you. THe only difference is we ask the Mother of God to do the asking. And she had gotten Jesus to perform miracles before His time.
 
MrZetterlund said:
I really admire the Catholic faith and unity, however, I must get answers to these objecctions before I could ever “swim the Tiber,” (I think is what it’s called.) 🤷

1: Most Catholics believe that the Pope in inherent and is the succesor of Peter. But Peter certainly wasn’t inherent. He denied Christ three times.

2: Catholics see Baptism as a promise that a child will be raised in the faith. But in the Bible it’s a public confession of faith.

3: Catholics kiss the toe of a statue of Peter, don’t they? And pray to Mary, and kiss the Pope’s ring, ect. How can this not be viewed as idolatry?

Forgive me if I come across as a little persistant, but I can’t really acomplish much if I don’t ask.
Click to expand...
Catholics have similar (maybe better) attacks against protestantism. I wouldn’t rule out the fact that both creeds are wrong 🙂
 
MrZetterlund said:
Hm, well thanks for the clear up, guys. 👍 Though I must admit, I’m still hung up on infant Baptism 🤷

😛
Click to expand...
I’m sure you will keep getting wonderful, and possibly lengthy, answers on this, but I like to keep things simple.

A Christian has a Child born to them. They know that this Child is born with “Original Sin” and that we must be baptized in order that original sin be removed and that we be able to enter heaven.
The parents, knowing this, take the Child to be baptized as soon as possible to wipe away this sin so that, if the Child dies in infancy, (something quite common in the early days of the church when this practice was established) the Child would go straight to heaven.
Now perhaps this baptism does not meet the “public profession” of faith by the individual that you see as a part of baptism. But I’m sure you can easily see that the parents, and Godparents, by their act of Love, are acting in the best interest of The Child. They are not only ensuring the childs entry into heaven, they are committing to raise the child in the Christian faith. For such an act, done out of Love, will God not look down and bless it, and those participating in it?

That is the core thing to look at in this. The fact that this act - this sacrament - is done out of pure Love and pure commitment to God.

This may not be the “Theological” answer, but it is my answer.

Peace
James
 
Think_About_It said:
Catholics have similar (maybe better) attacks against protestantism. I wouldn’t rule out the fact(???) that both creeds are wrong 🙂
Click to expand...
Don’t you mean the possiblity that both creeds are wrong??

Also - I don’t see that the OP has asked as being “attacks”, nor has anyone else who has ansered his questions. What he has is misunderstandings and/or misinformation.

In this you are right. Catholics also are many times misinformed about “protestant” beliefs. Of course, since there are so many different protestant beliefs and belief systems, it can be hard to “keep up” with them. 😃

Peace
James
 
MrZetterlund said:
Well, I guess that includes atheism. Since a creed is any system or codification of belief or of opinion. -Which atheists have, that is, that there is no God. 🙂
Click to expand...
My belief is not that “there is no God”. Rather, I don’t believe there is evidence for God. My non-belief is a non-creed. You don’t have a creed for not believing in zeus. I don’t have a creed for not believing in Yahweh.

all creeds are wrong*
 
How can a creed be wrong?

Creeds state what a person believes. Now one can argue whether or not what one believes is an objective truth or not, but if a creed accurately states what one believes, it’s not “wrong”.
 
Newbie2 said:
How can a creed be wrong?

Creeds state what a person believes. Now one can argue whether or not what one believes is an objective truth or not, but if a creed accurately states what one believes, it’s not “wrong”.
Click to expand...
So you’re arguing creeds are not normative, but descriptive? Interesting:hmmm:
 
Doc_Keele said:
MrZ - as a convert myself, when I was still in the stage of considering joining the Church, I anticipated that I would find it difficult to accept “the Mary thing”, but once I understood the actual position on Mary (rather than my misunderstandings about Mary’s position) it wasn’t a big issue at all.
Click to expand...
Not pickeing on you Doc. Just seemed I had to choose one person to add my two cents.

We do have to look in historical context too. For instance, prior to Vatican I there were Catholic Prelates in England who wrote that the Catholic Church did not and would never hold the Pope to be infallible. On the surface it would seem contradictory and as if Infallibility is a modern invention of the Church. The real story is quite different.

Prior to the definition of Papal Infallibility at Vatican I, there were many Protestants and even a few Catholics who were swayed by the improper understanding of the term and believed that Catholics must believe that all things a Pope did in his offical and private life were infallible, some added that he was incapable of committing a sin, etc. It was this that the Prelates in England denied, not what was defined at the Council.

Worship of Mary. Well there too, you can find older Catholic books that say we Worship Mary. Some older translations of prayers also speak of Worship with relation to Mary. But what the truth is remains different again. English is a language that is ever changing. Worship has had different meanings over time. In England a judge and other officials were and are referred to as Your Worship. We know they are not seen as being equal to God. So context is important as well as an understanding of linguistics.

I’ve writtten before about Anmensis, and Rememberance on the forum too. As one poster mentioned about differences in translation, there is an old addage, “The translator is a traitor.” Translators have a tough job, and it is sometimes influenced by their own prejudices. A good read if you can find it is Msgr. Ronald Knox book, On Englishing the Bible. It covers the problems he had in translating the text into modern English.
 
Newbie2 said:
How can a creed be wrong?

Creeds state what a person believes. Now one can argue whether or not what one believes is an objective truth or not, but if a creed accurately states what one believes, it’s not “wrong”.
Click to expand...
You can’t be serious. Surely to Darwin you know that I`m taking creed to mean any system, doctrine, or formula of religious belief, as of a denomination. And even if I did mean it to be belief alone, obviously I would be talking about the tenants on which those beliefs are based, which are objectively right or wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top