Non-catholics!

[prose]

Can you name ten things you absolutely can not accept in the Catholic Church?

I am guessing these will come up:

Mary, the papacy, reconciliation, faith and works relationship....

Are there more?

[Lena]

ok well firstly, i am catholic. but i have been questioned (by non-catholics) on the church's teachings regarding homosexuality, the Friday Lenten fast/no meat (tried explaining this one to my roommate and it didn't go over), and the role of saints.

Edited May 2, 2007 by Lena

[homeschoolmom]

Don't forget sacramentals

[hoosieranna]

I'm not Catholic. My single remaining huge issue is the ban on artificial contraception. I actually didn't have "Mary issues" once it was explained. I didn't get papal infallibility either. I now know that very specific conditions have to be met. It's not like "The pope said potatoes are actually fruit, so we have to believe they are fruit." Saints weren't an issue because I like the idea of having a prayer team working for me.

Even then, my issue with the contraception ban isn't theological. I'm a geographer. We study the earth and it's peoples. If the population were to increase to a point that is unsustainable, I'm left without anywhere to live or study. I've done some reading on NFP and was impressed by its apparent efficacy.

As for faith vs. works, I remembered that "faith without works is dead." Sola scriptura was busted for me when a very Protestant pastor used Augustine as an authority on Scripture. This pastor was quoting one of the ultimate Catholic theologians like the guy (Augustine) knew what he was talking about. Where did that leave the pastor?

[desertwoman]

1. Marian devotion

2. Papal Infallibility

3. Purgatory

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Nadezhda' post='1262726' date='May 2 2007, 06:15 PM']I'm not Catholic. My single remaining huge issue is the ban on artificial contraception. I actually didn't have "Mary issues" once it was explained. I didn't get papal infallibility either. I now know that very specific conditions have to be met. It's not like "The pope said potatoes are actually fruit, so we have to believe they are fruit." Saints weren't an issue because I like the idea of having a prayer team working for me.

Even then, my issue with the contraception ban isn't theological. I'm a geographer. We study the earth and it's peoples. If the population were to increase to a point that is unsustainable, I'm left without anywhere to live or study. I've done some reading on NFP and was impressed by its apparent efficacy.

As for faith vs. works, I remembered that "faith without works is dead." Sola scriptura was busted for me when a very Protestant pastor used Augustine as an authority on Scripture. This pastor was quoting one of the ultimate Catholic theologians like the guy (Augustine) knew what he was talking about. Where did that leave the pastor?[/quote]

If you were to study Christopher West's series discussing JP II's theology of the body, I truly believe that you would understand why the teaching is what it is. God provides.

[hoosieranna]

I do understand pretty well. My issues are not theological. I'm one of those that actually knew about the Lambeth conference of 1930. I am especially impressed that the Billings method is accepted as effective in China. If it's good enough for a country with a population that large and government that, special, it's certainly good enough for me. And it's not banned by the Church.

Thanks for the suggestion. I've read rave reviews by other posters about Mr. West's Theology of the Body series. I will look into it when I have more time free (not at the end of the semester .

Edited May 2, 2007 by Nadezhda

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Nadezhda' post='1262801' date='May 2 2007, 06:26 PM']I do understand pretty well. My issues are not theological. I am especially impressed that the Billings method is accepted as effective in China. If it's good enough for a country with a population that large and government that, special, it's certainly good enough for me. And it's not banned by the Church.

Thanks for the suggestion. I've read rave reviews by other posters about Mr. West's Theology of the Body series. I will look into it when I have more time free (not at the end of the semester .[/quote]
As much as the population of the world may be growing, NFP cannot be used with a contraceptive mentality. If, of course, the population got so bad that it would be irresponsible to have children (i.e. serious reasons would enter the picture: they couldn't be taken care of), then it could be used.

The problem is that in most parts of the world, as you undoubtedly know, the population is decreasing. I don't think there's a need for most people to abstain on the basis of overpopulation. Even if there was, it's clear that contraception would not be the answer, but I won't go into that because you already have no theological problem with Catholic teaching.

[RezaMikhaeil]

1.) The Roman Catholic Church isn't mentioned in the Bible [where as the Coptic Church is mentioned]
2.) Papal Infalliblilty [as everyone probably knows]
3.) The sinlessness of St. Mary

[Era Might]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1262877' date='May 2 2007, 08:37 PM']1.) The Roman Catholic Church isn't mentioned in the Bible [where as the Coptic Church is mentioned][/quote]
St. Paul devoted an entire epistle to the Roman Church.

[quote]To all God's beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

--Romans 1:7[/quote]

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1262883' date='May 2 2007, 06:56 PM']St. Paul devoted an entire epistle to the Roman Church.[/quote]

The Roman Catholic Church isn't prophesied about thou, that was to all the Roman Churches in Rome, not specifically the Roman Catholic, while the Coptic, Syriac and Antiochian are prophesied about in Isaiah 19, and are mentioned as being indestructable.

Have you read Revelation 17? An orthodox brother pointed this out to me:

[code]The "Whore" which, according to Hunt, is the Catholic Church, is said to sit upon a seven-headed beast. Hunt assumes that this refers to the Catholic Church, since the Church is headquartered in Rome and ancient Rome was built on seven hills. Assuming that the intelligent reader would even consider such an analogy to be reasonable, it must be pointed out that geographically, the Vatican is not located on ANY of the hills of ancient Rome.[/code]

[code]If they get rid of papal infallibility, then it might mean that St. Gregory the Great, sixth century pope of Rome, was wrong when he said whosoever raises himself above the other bishops to make himself Universal Bishop would be the precursor of the anti-Christ.[/code]

Reza

[prose]

We had 266 pre-cursors to the anti-Christ?

[jeffpugh]

How about that? Oh dear... hahahaha
Seriously though... interesting. I've heard some prods go hardcore on that theory. They never went as far as equating Babylon with Rome. At least we're that far. Anywho I have a Prod who has a problem with the saints. He says why do we pray to them? Then he quotes a chapter in the old testament saying the dead do not now what's going on. I think I have a refutation. maybe not.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1262911' date='May 2 2007, 09:48 PM']How about that? Oh dear... hahahaha
Seriously though... interesting. I've heard some prods go hardcore on that theory. They never went as far as equating Babylon with Rome. At least we're that far. Anywho I have a Prod who has a problem with the saints. He says why do we pray to them? Then he quotes a chapter in the old testament saying the dead do not now what's going on. I think I have a refutation. maybe not.[/quote]

I was taught that the Catholic Church is the W of B in Sunday School and from the pulpit. They're still at it. If they would read my thread "How 27 books became the NT," they'd know how uninformed they are.

Where in the Bible does it say the saints are dead? They are more alive than we are -- alive in Christ Jesus.

Guess Protestants don't read their Bible, eh? "He [God] is not the God of the dead but of the living" Mt 22:32.

The Church is one family, the living (Church Militant), in Purgatory (Church Suffering), and in Heaven (Church Triumphant). God's best friends are in heaven. Any friend of God's is a friend of mine. That's the title of a great little book by Patrick Madrid that explains the Communion of Saints.

And -- we pray to the saints because it gets results. We've been doing it for 2,000 years. On a tomb adjacent to St. Peter's tomb in Rome is this inscription: [b][color="#A0522D"] "Peter, pray for the pious Christian men buried near your body."[/b] [/color] The Catacombs are full of prayers to the saints inscribed on the walls, asking for prayers for the Christians who were buried there.

St. Paul prayed for Onesiphorus, who most likely was deceased (2 Tim 1:18). And he said, "Be imitators of me as I am of Christ."

Why do I pray to our Mother, Mary? Because it works! Her prayers are powerful. Thanks, Mama. I love you.

Likos

Edited May 3, 2007 by Katholikos

[Sojourner]

prior to conversion I at one point believed Catholics weren't Christians because of the whole faith/works justification issue. It was a really vague idea, not well thought through -- just something I accepted as true because that's what I'd been taught. I think I also grew up hearing that icons and statues were bad in church, prob. because of idol worship.

Of the two of those early issues, the justification one was bigger for me. I really wrestled with understanding that. Other things that were problems ... Marian doctrines, papal authority, and the Eucharist. After I started really getting serious, things that were a detraction were 1) Catholics are often ill-informed about their own faith, and b) parish communities are often not as warm and welcoming as I'd been used to. But those things did not ultimately deter me.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1262901' date='May 2 2007, 10:25 PM']If they get rid of papal infallibility, then it might mean that St. Gregory the Great, sixth century pope of Rome, was wrong when he said whosoever raises himself above the other bishops to make himself Universal Bishop would be the precursor of the anti-Christ.[/quote]I had to work a little bit to track down the quote. It's from his Epistle VII:33:

Link: [url="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.iii.v.vii.xxi.html"]http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.iii.v.vii.xxi.html[/url]

In any event, Catholic.com provides a solid response here: [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9212qq.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9212qq.asp[/url]

Refer to the second question.

Briefly reading through Pope Gregory the Great's letters (there's a lot to read!), a clear indication of Rome's primacy is in Epistle IX:12 ([url="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf213.ii.v.xii.html"]link[/url])
[quote]For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. For he is foolish who thinks himself first in such a way as to scorn to learn whatever good things he may see.[/quote]As Pope Gregory mentions, others continually recognized the primacy of the Roman See. This shows up in some letters to the pope written by church and civil leaders, which are included in the collection at CCEL.

Much of Pope Gregory's humble words toward his office reflect both an awe for the it (which he felt unworthy to fill) and a profound respect for Episcopal collegiality, in which he desired to treat all bishops as brothers. This was not unlike the papacy of the late Pope John Paul II.

Lastly, regardless how one interprets the pope's words, I don't think that Catholics believe that every word written by a given pope is subject to papal infallibility. I think this is a distortion of how to properly view the the charism of infallibility.

[hoosieranna]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1262987' date='May 2 2007, 10:09 PM']Lastly, regardless how one interprets the pope's words, I don't think that Catholics believe that every word written by a given pope is subject to papal infallibility. I think this is a distortion of how to properly view the the charism of infallibility.[/quote]

That's what I was talking about when I used the silly potato example. Having the subject explained to me in terms of what conditions must be met really helped. I never thought Catholics weren't Christian. I just wasn't sure how they could believe words said by someone very obviously human were infallible. I understand now, thanks to a kind and informative Legionary of Christ!

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]Lastly, regardless how one interprets the pope's words, I don't think that Catholics believe that every word written by a given pope is subject to papal infallibility. I think this is a distortion of how to properly view the the charism of infallibility.[/quote]

I guess that's one method to justifying it...

[Katholikos]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1262901' date='May 2 2007, 09:25 PM']The Roman Catholic Church isn't prophesied about thou, that was to all the Roman Churches in Rome, not specifically the Roman Catholic[/quote]

Reza, tell us the names of all these different Christian churches in Rome to which St. Paul (allegedly) wrote his Epistle to the Romans.

[quote], while the Coptic, Syriac and Antiochian are prophesied about in Isaiah 19, and are mentioned as being indestructable.[/quote]

Methinks this is a case of eisogesis rather than exegesis.

[code]If they get rid of papal infallibility, then it might mean that St. Gregory the Great, sixth century pope of Rome, was wrong when he said whosoever raises himself above the other bishops to make himself Universal Bishop would be the precursor of the anti-Christ.[/code]

Neither St. Peter nor any of his 264 successors raised themselves above the other bishops. Christ elevated them to the job, which is servant of the servants of God. Somebody's gotta chart the course and steer the ship.

[i]Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.[/i] ~ St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Church at Smyrna, A.D. 107.

Peace, Likos

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1263060' date='May 2 2007, 10:42 PM']Reza, tell us the names of all these different Christian churches in Rome to which St. Paul (allegedly) wrote his Epistle to the Romans.

[code]We don't know their names posetively [there were lots in Rome], but it's a matter of jurisdiction. Etheopian Orthodox rite will always look to the See of St. Mark, just as the Eritrean Orthodox rite will always look to the See of St. Mark, just as the Chaldonian Christians [in Iraq] will always look to Rome and the See of St. Peter. Historically it's a fact that there were four original rites, and the others were under their jurisdiction.

Read in Revelation, it says "the church of Philidelphia", was it really a seperate church? No it was part of the universal church, but it was it's own rite. Even Roman Catholics acknowledge this![/code]

Methinks this is a case of eisogesis rather than exegesis.

[code]You're welcome to your opinion, but if I were to anaylize it, it's a case of you crediting everything in the Bible to Roman Catholics, when Roman Catholics probably weren't nearly as responsible for the Bible's Compilation, etc. as you're giving them credit for. It's a fact that Egypt is geographically closer to Jerusalem, that the Holy Family traveled to Egypt, when they fled from Isreal, that the most Saints [pre-schism] came from Egypt, that Egypt had the most theologians [St. Athanaus, etc], that a Copt even wrote the Nicene Creed. You've been repeatedly attributing Roman Catholics to the Compilation of the Bible, the council of Nicene, the Nicene Creed, etc. when it doesn't belong to them... it was a Copt that wrote the Nicene Creed but does that mean that it belongs to Copts? No because the Roman Rite, the Coptic Rite, Antiochian Rite [among others] all equally contributed and are all the True Church of Jesus Christ. I may not agree with the Chalcedonian Antiochians but I'm going to give them their props as being part of the Early Church, doing their duty. I'm also not going to say that they aren't part of "the truth church", because I believe that the schism is much greater then politics, it's also in the hearts of people and it's a fact that the Apostles founded the Antiochian Church along with the Coptic, so we're brothers divided by things that will be overcome in due time.[/code]

[code]If they get rid of papal infallibility, then it might mean that St. Gregory the Great, sixth century pope of Rome, was wrong when he said whosoever raises himself above the other bishops to make himself Universal Bishop would be the precursor of the anti-Christ.[/code]

Neither St. Peter nor any of his 264 successors raised themselves above the other bishops. Christ elevated them to the job, which is servant of the servants of God. Somebody's gotta chart the course and steer the ship.

[code]And that's a major difference, Orthodox believe that Jesus Christ is the head of the church and that patriarches are not infallible but are mere men that God appointed to authority [thou not infallible authority]. At Nicene, as I'd pointed out, everyone of the rites has a part in it, it wasnt just one patriarch/bishop, one rite but something that the church together did by being Guided by Jesus Christ as the head and final authority. Non-Traditionalists [like Protestants] often use this as an example of why they disagree with the Roman Church for a good reason... Romans elevate their patriarch to an infallible state, attribute themselves to having been "the head ones in church" at Nicene and other events, but in reality Jesus Christ is the head, the one in church that inspired the bishops to all agree.

That's the thing: At Nicene, the Bishops from every rite agreed! It wasn't a situation of "Roman Pope, what do you think" and having the Roman Pope dictate what's the truth and what isn't, it was Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit inspiring the bishops to know what scriptures were of God and what one's weren't. Luther rejected this and put faith in the council of Jamnia because he didn't have faith that God inspired the Bishops and guided them to what books should be included, rather he believed men merely compiled the Bible and made these decisions [as gnostics also believe].[/code]

[i]Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.[/i] ~ St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Church at Smyrna, A.D. 107.

[code]The Pre-schism Catholic Church [as that was the proper context]. Copts and Antiochians that disagree with Rome's current traditions, are also part of that Church, don't EVER FORGET THAT![/code]

Peace, Likos

[code]May God's peace be with you,
Reza[/code][/quote]