Be Wary of Catholism Because it is a "Religion"

  • Thread starter Thread starter lozeerose
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lozeerose

Guest
Anyone have any suggestions about how to respond to someone who says they are wary of Catholicism and those who are faithful, hard-line faithful, to the Church because Catholicism is a “religion” and a “religion” does not serve God or is not how one should follow him.

To put this into context the person telling me this is a Protestant who holds to some basic tenants such as Faith Alone, baptism is symbolic (and only for the those of the age of reason), there is no Eucharist (Lord’s Supper is symbolic), no saints, Mary wasn’t special, etc… All of that is part of a religion and not Christ…
 
perhaps begin by asking him what “the pillar and foundation of truth” is. From there, look to other parts of the NT where “the Church” is described (particularly in Matthew 18: 15-18 and Ephesians). It’s pretty easy to demonstrate from these two sources alone that the Church has a visible unity, and an authority.

If you really want to undermine his criticism, you can point out the flawed premise from which he begins. What is his authority for believing anything that he does? Identify the presumptions in his argument, etc…
 
Show him James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (NIV)
 
Chances are that your friend, when he/she says “religion” is really thinking of “ritual” or rituals. As a protestant he/she sees certain rituals as a “tradition of men” and therefore opposes them on principle. They may as well be opposed to coin-tosses before football games; paper flowers decorating the gym at prom; or walking down the aisle at a wedding. Traditions, traditions, traditions. . .

My favorite is when the “seeker” types say “I don’t like organized religion.” What’s the alternative? Disorganized religion? It’s like saying I don’t like organized universities or organized police forces or organized baseball games. 🤷

All my best . . .
 
I’d tell my friend that Catholicism isn’t just a religion it is the religion established by Christ Himself. It is the true religion - in fact - the only religion that embodies all of truth in herself (the other religions only contain some truth to them).
 
lozeerose said:
Anyone have any suggestions about how to respond to someone who says they are wary of Catholicism and those who are faithful, hard-line faithful, to the Church because Catholicism is a “religion” and a “religion” does not serve God or is not how one should follow him.

To put this into context the person telling me this is a Protestant who holds to some basic tenants such as Faith Alone, baptism is symbolic (and only for the those of the age of reason), there is no Eucharist (Lord’s Supper is symbolic), no saints, Mary wasn’t special, etc… All of that is part of a religion and not Christ…
Click to expand...
We’d have a heck of a faith if it was just left up to each of us to interpret an old book. God wouldn’t have cared for us very much if He had left it to chance that we’d figure out for ourselves what was right and wrong.

Why do protestants have churches, themselves, if not to tell people what they believe?

There’s no true protestant, because if they were true to what you say, they’d just silently pass out Bibles on corners. and not answer any questions, and certainly not waste money on churches and Sunday meetings.

Why did Jesus command his apostles to*** teach ***all nations? Teaching implies authority and that in people – the Church. Even acts describes a council where the apostles themselves had to figure out what to teach. And, at that, they taught the opposite of what the “scriptures” told them most emphatically, that men had to be circumscised.

That teaching was underscored in the account of the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch, who couldn’t possibly be circumcised. To deny that is to deny scripture itself. Where then does your “friend” stand?
 
An argument against a “religion” is a cop-out. At best, the person has a rhetorical idea of what religion is, despises it, and thus rejects it. We may very well also reject the idea of a group of people practicing cabalistic rituals without meaning - though we embrace Scripturally-founded liturgies that convey meaning symbolically as well as literally.

What I’ve often found is that those who dislike “religion” in the Catholic Church either want something entirely intellectual and rational that does not resemble anything mystical, or they don’t understand the meaning of the liturgy.

At worst, the person wishes to convey that they alone are the only authority they will follow - usually by saying “I obey Scripture” although Scripture is not an instruction manual and is often not clear.

Among things that are clear in Scripture are:
  • Jesus’ assigning of authority to the Apostles, ie: Mt 16:18-20, Mt 18:18, Jn 20:21-23
  • The hierarchical nature of the Church, following that authority, ie: Phil 1:1, Ti 1:7
  • The sacraments: Ja 5:14-15, 1 Cor 10:16, 1 Cor 11:27, 1 Jn 1:9
Among things that are not spoken about in Scripture:
  • That we are each to interpret Scripture for our own understanding
  • That in 1611 the Bible was hidden until it fell from the sky in King James English, leather-bound and red-lined.
  • That each believer in the Bible went about preaching his or her own understanding of Scripture in accord with being a “royal priesthood” (1 Pt 2:9)
How would you answer such a person? First, clarify the objection.
If they don’t like symbolism, then how do they explain Scripture that is full of hyperbole and metaphor?
If they don’t like the existence of an earthly authority other than the Bible, you could take them to task to explain the passages about Apostolic authority.
If they believe that the eucharist is merely symbolic, then how can it be received unworthily and thus render someone “guilty of the body and blood”?
If they believe that faith alone saves, then why are judged according to our deeds, and why is baptism, repentance, confession of Christ and obedience to his commands required for salvation?
 
Crumpy said:
We’d have a heck of a faith if it was just left up to each of us to interpret an old book. God wouldn’t have cared for us very much if He had left it to chance that we’d figure out for ourselves what was right and wrong.

Why do protestants have churches, themselves, if not to tell people what they believe?

There’s no true protestant, because if they were true to what you say, they’d just silently pass out Bibles on corners. and not answer any questions, and certainly not waste money on churches and Sunday meetings.
Click to expand...
Bear in mind that Protestant is not a self-declarative. You’re a Protestant if you’re not a Catholic, just as you’re a gentile if you’re not a Jew, and you’re gaijin if you’re not Japanese. There are liturgical Protestants who differ in theology but maintain much of the form of Catholic liturgy - Lutherans and Churches of Christ come most to mind. There are non-liturgical Protestants who follow a free-form of worship, centered around a sermon - EFCA and Assemblies of God come to mind. And there are Protestants who hold to neither form nor function but render themselves their own small congregation - the Primitive Baptist church in my Nana’s hometown, with it’s 55 members; my co-worker who started his own home church (and berated me for baptizing my infant daughter) and doesn’t celebrate Christmas because it’s not ordained in Scripture.

There are some Christians who really should be called Autobiblians because they take their own understanding of Scripture to the exclusion of history, context and translation. KJV-only Christians strike me as such. I have a friend whose wife grew up in the Quiverfull movement - she was homeschooled and raised to be a wife and mother. She takes the KJV as the sole “correct” Bible and will gladly tell me that it is superior in translation and fidelity to the original manuscripts - nevermind that we do not have the original manuscripts anymore, nor that she’s ever gone to college nor learned Greek or Aramaic.

So when you encounter someone who raises an objection, find out what their mindset is first and then you can begin to engage them.
 
Here we go again, fighting the reformation all over again.

Recall John Wycliffe of England, an early reformer? His point of view was that everyone should have the right to interpret the Bible for themselves.

But, what actually happened. Sure, “everyone” could interpret the Bible for themselves, except Catholics – of course! If you were a Catholic, you had to die. And, many did.

Why do people go off half-cocked, and repeat the same old things? They don’t even THINK about what they’re saying. If everyone can interpret the bible for themselves, than what’s wrong with Catholics? What’s the fuss?
 
Crumpy said:
Here we go again, fighting the reformation all over again.
Click to expand...
I’m convinced that much of the problem arises in bright and zealous 15-year-olds who determine that anyone who differs in their understanding of Scripture must be wrong, and take it upon themselves to save and convert. Ten years later, D.Div’s hand, they start writing books and history repeats itself.

I wonder if it would help to point out that their understanding of Catholicism is as outdated as the propaganda still used against us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top