Someone passed the following arguments against the Church. Does anyone have an answer to any of these, particularly the 2nd argument?
The difficulties I have in coming into (returning to) the Catholic Church are:
1.) mostly related to bad hermeneutics (eisegesis) by a magisterium that is supposed to be infallible. Catholic apologists appeal to sound hermeneutical principles until it comes to Catholic proof-texting for particular Catholic doctrines.
2.) Papal infallibility as defined by Vatican I seems to fail the test of history. And Catholic apologists do not apply the same standards to their arguments in defending this doctrine, as they do on other issues. For instance, they argue that Gregory’s position on the Apocrypha was not infallible because the Canon was not yet settled by council. Yet , they are ignoring the fact that definition for infallible statements was not given until Vatican I, either. By their argument, early infallible statements would not have to comply with any later standard. And according to Vatican I, Papal infallibility is not based on, nor qualified by either the rulings of Councils, or opinions in the Church. Too, they ignore the fact that Vatican I declares that the Pope’s own faith is protected from error in accord with the promise to Peter that his own faith would not fail once restored.
3.) Places where Roman Catholic doctrine has reversed from New Testament tradition. For if Apostolic tradition is to be kept, then it certainly should not be reversed, qualified, or ignored.
4.) Places where Roman Catholic Mariology seems to have gone overboard (“Mediatrix”, and the view of her being somehow easier to approach than Christ and God).