Which Catholic doctrine do you object to the most?

Sorry, but we have nothing in common. I don't compare myself to people, I compare myself to Jesus Christ. In which I will always come up short for all of my days...

AFrazier said:

The one factor that Protestants don't take into account is that Catholics don't let Catholics take communion either. Not until they have their Confirmation. Confirmation leads to your First Communion.

Click to expand...

That must have changed recently. When I came up in the RCC we were baptized as infants. Around second grade we had our first confession. The next year, in third grade, was first communion. In eighth grade we went through confirmation.

Ancient of Days said:

Sorry, but we have nothing in common.

Click to expand...

You and they are both Christian; so you have that, to start with.

Ancient of Days said:

Sorry, but we have nothing in common. I don't compare myself to people, I compare myself to Jesus Christ. In which I will always come up short for all of my days...

Click to expand...

That's a petty and insincere statement. It's shameful. We are all Christians, and certain incorrect doctrines notwithstanding, we all share the foundational doctrines.

Phil 1:21 said:

That must have changed recently. When I came up in the RCC we were baptized as infants. Around second grade we had our first confession. The next year, in third grade, was first communion. In eighth grade we went through confirmation.

Click to expand...

Confirmation is the second sacrament. Communion the third. In theory, you are confirmed before partaking of the body and blood of Christ.

AFrazier said:

Confirmation is the second sacrament. Communion the third. In theory, you are confirmed before partaking of the body and blood of Christ.

Click to expand...

Well like I said, then that has definitely changed.
Restored order for sacraments a growing trend

redleghunter said:

Searching for the above I came across this:

View attachment 225095 View attachment 225096

@JesusLovesOurLady perhaps add creepy human remains relics to the poll .

Click to expand...

Please add this to my list too, along with that belief that only Catholics go to heaven (well...unless they just don't know about the Catholic Church...but if they do and refuse to convert...off to the lake of fire with them!)

Phil 1:21 said:

Please add this to my list too, along with that belief that only Catholics go to heaven (well...unless they just don't know about the Catholic Church...but if they do and refuse to convert...off to the lake of fire with them!)

Click to expand...

I believe that, post Vatican II, we Protestants are regarded as Separated Brethren -- Christians, and thus headed for heaven, but lacking the full understanding and benefits that would come with belonging to the Catholic Church.

Mine is the rejection of Sola Scriptura which then encapsulates the rest.
Why have the Bible if you are going to add things to it? Particularly when we are told in Revelation 22:18 not to?
Haha, just answered my question, so you can add what you want to it!

PloverWing said:

I believe that, post Vatican II, we Protestants are regarded as Separated Brethren -- Christians, and thus headed for heaven, but lacking the full understanding and benefits that would come with belonging to the Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

I've heard that softer version too. This is what the CCC still says:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 [emphasis mine]

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

Phil 1:21 said:

Please add this to my list too, along with that belief that only Catholics go to heaven (well...unless they just don't know about the Catholic Church...but if they do and refuse to convert...off to the lake of fire with them!)

Click to expand...

That goes both ways. I've had Protestants who are members of churches that practice adult baptism tell me that I will not be saved because I was baptised as an infant.

Archivist said:

That goes both ways. I've had Protestants who are members of churches that practice adult baptism tell me that I will not be saved because I was baptised as an infant.

Click to expand...

No doubt, there are good and bad Protestant denominations too.

Wow I’m really surprised more people don’t object to purgatory the most. It teaches that Jesus’ sacrifice didn’t pay for all our sins and we must pay for them ourselves through suffering in purgatory.

BNR32FAN said:

Wow I’m really surprised more people don’t object to purgatory the most. It teaches that Jesus’ sacrifice didn’t pay for all our sins and we must pay for them ourselves through suffering in purgatory.

Click to expand...

Good point which reminds me of:

An “indulgence” is the promise of the remission of temporal punishment upon the basis of certain prescribed “good works,” e.g., fasting, prayers, pilgrimages, etc. Mainly, though, it was alleged that the pains of purgatory could be minimized by the payment of money into the Church treasury. The construction of St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome was partially financed by the sale of indulgences.

Pope Leo X (A.D. 1475-1521) commissioned John Tetzel, a Dominican monk, to travel throughout Germany selling indulgences on behalf of the Church. Tetzel declared that as soon as the coins “clinked” in his money chest, the souls of those for whom the indulgences had been purchased would fly out of purgatory.

These indulgences not only bestowed pardon for sins committed already, they were used to license the commission of future transgressions as well. In the classic volume, The Life and Times of Martin Luther, noted historian Merle D’Aubigne relates an amusing episode relative to this practice.

A certain Saxon nobleman heard John Tetzel proclaiming his doctrine of indulgences, and the gentleman was much aggravated at this perversion of truth. Accordingly, he approached the monk one day and inquired as to whether he might purchase an indulgence for a sin he intended to commit.

“Most assuredly,” replied Tetzel, “I have received full powers from his holiness for that purpose.” After some haggling, a fee of thirty crowns was agreed upon, and the nobleman departed.

Together with some friends, he hid himself in a nearby forest. Presently, as Tetzel journeyed that way, the knight and his mischievous companions fell upon the papal salesman, gave him a light beating, and relieved him of his money, apparently taking no pains to disguise themselves.

Tetzel was enraged by the foul deed and filed suit in the courts. When the nobleman appeared as the defendant, he produced the letter of exemption containing John Tetzel’s personal signature, which absolved the Saxon of any liability. When Duke George (the judge before whom the action was brought) examined the document, exasperated though he was, he ordered the accused to be released.


John Tetzel's Indulgences

redleghunter said:

Good point which reminds me of:

An “indulgence” is the promise of the remission of temporal punishment upon the basis of certain prescribed “good works,” e.g., fasting, prayers, pilgrimages, etc. Mainly, though, it was alleged that the pains of purgatory could be minimized by the payment of money into the Church treasury. The construction of St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome was partially financed by the sale of indulgences.

Pope Leo X (A.D. 1475-1521) commissioned John Tetzel, a Dominican monk, to travel throughout Germany selling indulgences on behalf of the Church. Tetzel declared that as soon as the coins “clinked” in his money chest, the souls of those for whom the indulgences had been purchased would fly out of purgatory.

These indulgences not only bestowed pardon for sins committed already, they were used to license the commission of future transgressions as well. In the classic volume, The Life and Times of Martin Luther, noted historian Merle D’Aubigne relates an amusing episode relative to this practice.

A certain Saxon nobleman heard John Tetzel proclaiming his doctrine of indulgences, and the gentleman was much aggravated at this perversion of truth. Accordingly, he approached the monk one day and inquired as to whether he might purchase an indulgence for a sin he intended to commit.

“Most assuredly,” replied Tetzel, “I have received full powers from his holiness for that purpose.” After some haggling, a fee of thirty crowns was agreed upon, and the nobleman departed.

Together with some friends, he hid himself in a nearby forest. Presently, as Tetzel journeyed that way, the knight and his mischievous companions fell upon the papal salesman, gave him a light beating, and relieved him of his money, apparently taking no pains to disguise themselves.

Tetzel was enraged by the foul deed and filed suit in the courts. When the nobleman appeared as the defendant, he produced the letter of exemption containing John Tetzel’s personal signature, which absolved the Saxon of any liability. When Duke George (the judge before whom the action was brought) examined the document, exasperated though he was, he ordered the accused to be released.


John Tetzel's Indulgences

Click to expand...

So the thief didn’t have to accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior but just give some money and he’s forgiven?

You are a little misinformed about some of the things, but no matter. My point was not really addressed to the minority of fervent Christians whose repulsion reaches a fever pitch over transubstantiation debates, and ... fish hats!!? My comment was more to the world as a whole,like the anti Catholic sentiments on TV shows like the Fosters for example, where the only difference between their contempt for Catholic teaching and other fervent Christians is that Catholic teaching is the clearer target. So much of Protestantism is indistinguishable from secular morality. My comments were directed to kids in Catholic schools who are as fully accepting on secular values regarding marriage and inclusive sexual norms as are kids everywhere else. They follow in their Catholic parents footsteps who were completely in tune with secular values on contraception.
People consumed over the issue of Real Presence vs Transubstantiation, while a significant subset of CF, in terms of worldly opposition to Catholic teaching, are negligible.


The real threat to a Catholic worldview does not come from the negligible subset of Christians repulsed by the sacrilege of fish hats. It comes from the dominant set of secular values that have contempt for Catholic moral teaching, and the moral teachings of the Sola Scriptura crowd who by and large hold to the same moral teachings as the ones that come from Official Catholic teachings.

.dp

SolomonVII said:

You are a little misinformed about some of the things, but no matter. My point was not really addressed to the minority of fervent Christians whose repulsion reaches a fever pitch over transubstantiation debates, and ... fish hats!!? My comment was more to the world as a whole,like the anti Catholic sentiments on TV shows like the Fosters for example, where the only difference between their contempt for Catholic teaching and other fervent Christians is that Catholic teaching is the clearer target. So much of Protestantism is indistinguishable from secular morality. My comments were directed to kids in Catholic schools who are as fully accepting on secular values regarding marriage and inclusive sexual norms

Click to expand...

You live in a totally different world than me, my friend.
I don't see what you see at all. But you are free to believe as you wish.

I mean, how do you get over the whole skull thing in the Catholic church?
How about the bowing down to statues? Does not Exodus 20:4-5 say not to make graven images and do not bow down to them?

Where in the New Testament does it say we can pray to dead people?

Anyways, I say this not to debate with you. But I am merely trying to understand why you don't find these things I mentioned disturbing to your soul.

Jason0047 said:

You live in a totally different world than me, my friend.

Click to expand...

That is something that I probably should feel a little gratitude for.

I don't see what you see at all. But you are free to believe as you wish.

Click to expand...

I am an affecianado of the entertainment industry. I notice things, like, for example, how virtually every British TV show that depicts an Anglican minister, posits them as being gay.

I mean, how do you get over the whole skull thing in the Catholic church?
How about the bowing down to statues? Does not Exodus 20:4-5 say not to make graven images and do not bow down to them?

Click to expand...

Personally I find all the relics of human remains a little macabre.
And the 'iconoclast' 'iconophile' debate has been going on for a thousand years, with Muslims and some Christians coming out on one side of the debate, and the vast majority of Christians coming out on the other.

I think that the praying( to the "dead") is found most overtly in the Deuterocanonicals, but if you want to know more about these things and debate what was actually being said by people who practice these things, you should first learn the actual arguments. Maybe Catholic Answers and such similar websites would be a good place to do the research.

You would be more interesting to me if you actually presented the arguments that Catholics give for their practices, and then go on to smash those pumpkins.

As it is, I stopped taking you seriously when you went on about how the celibate priesthood is not taught in the Bible. I know enough about the teaching to know that that is not a valid argument against the practice, because the Catholic teaching agrees on that and this discipline is based on something quite different than Biblical imperative.

But, in the end, you are not really addressing my post, but my Catholic icon.

I did an interesting experiment on Christian Forums years back. I changed my icon from Catholic to Christian, and had a sock puppet that was Catholic icon, and them went about posting my two cents with both of my little social media puppets. Of course I am not much of a puppeteer, and I kept forgetting that the same people who lauded my one puppet were surly when the other one popped up. It was really hard for me to keep track of who my friends were and who my enemies were in the course of that little experiment with social media.
Please don't presume that a Catholic icon, or any icon really, gives the full picture of what any Christian believes. We are all just struggling to do the right thing the best way that we can.

There is more that unites us than keeps us apart.