Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

[friardchips]

Yes, but Orthodox is not Protestant.

And I can give one reason immediately why the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church.

Matthew 16:18

“So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build My church. And the gates of the underworld can never hold out against it.”

I am surprised an ‘expert’ didn’t state the key to the whole equation!

Also, to one of the posters, once baptised a Roman Catholic always a Roman Catholic. Do not be deceived.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think that the best arguments is that Roman Catholics themselves cannot explain why they aren’t Orthodox Catholics, but why they are Roman Catholics. Can you provide, for example, some list of books which would prove to Orthodox Catholics that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church? No. Because I once asked via e-mail Roman Catholic expert, who translated acts of Fourth and Fifth Ecumenical Councils into English, Professor Fr Richard Price this question, and he replied:
Me: “Fr Richard, which books or articles would you recommend, after reading
of which an Orthodox believer will know enough information in order
to make the right choice between Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic
Church?”
Fr Richard: “I wouldn’t use the language of a ‘right choice’ between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches. Each is a part of the one Church of Christ our God. The ‘right choice’ for an individual, if he really faces such a ‘choice’, will depend on his particular culture and situation.”

Sadly, I think you and even some of these well-intentioned priests have been misinformed. The Catholic Church has gone through a “ecumenical” phase in which conversion to the Catholic Church was viewed as unnecessary.

I would be more than happy to explain to you why Orthodoxy is in error, but I didn’t start THIS thread to take up arguments but to hear them aired.

For you, as an Orthodox, I would recommend that you read my OP in the** Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward** thread. It’s currently active.

Feel free to respond there at length. I haven’t had a serious rebuttal to my position, yet.

Thanks!

 

[clem456]

That doesn’t address the very specific questions I asked. We are not pondering relationship, we are addressing very specific points that have driven a wedge on that relationship.

Really? From scripture note the very personal nature of faith in God.

Jesus Comforts His Disciples

  1“Do not let your heart be troubled; believe **in God**, believe also **in Me**. 2“In My **Father**’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. 3“If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive **you to Myself**, that where **I am**, there **you may be **also. 4“And you know the way where I am going.” 5Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, **how do we know the way**?” 6Jesus said to him, “**I am **the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through **Me**.

Faith is a person, not a book. The gift of authority is real. It resides in a person, and is given to, persons. That is the heart of Christianity. Without it you have gnostic individualism.

Oneness with the Father

  7“If you had **known Me**, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.”

  8Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”

This is the classic Protestant objection: “show me”
9Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10“Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. 11“Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. 12“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. 13“Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14“If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

  15“If you love **Me**, you will keep My commandments.

The essence of the protest is to throw out the divine-human relationship and believe on individualist ideas and words.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think that it would be good to start with a question “why you aren’t Orthodox Catholic, but why you are Roman Catholic?”. Can you provide, for example, some list of books which would prove to Orthodox Catholics that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church? No. Because I once asked via e-mail Roman Catholic expert, who translated acts of Fourth and Fifth Ecumenical Councils into English, Professor Fr Richard Price this question, and he replied:
Me: “Fr Richard, which books or articles would you recommend, after reading
of which an Orthodox believer will know enough information in order
to make the right choice between Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic
Church?”
Fr Richard: “I wouldn’t use the language of a ‘right choice’ between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches. Each is a part of the one Church of Christ our God. The ‘right choice’ for an individual, if he really faces such a ‘choice’, will depend on his particular culture and situation.”

Sadly, I think you and even some of these well-intentioned priests have been misinformed. The Catholic Church has gone through a “ecumenical” phase in which conversion to the Catholic Church was viewed as unnecessary.

I would be more than happy to explain to you why Orthodoxy is in error, but I didn’t start THIS thread to take up arguments but to hear them aired.

For you, as an Orthodox, I would recommend that you read my OP in the** Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward **thread. It’s currently active.

Feel free to respond there at length. I haven’t had a serious rebuttal to my position, yet.

Thanks!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’m not attacking House; I’m explaining why House might have reasons to hold the views that he has.

Hard to tell when you write about his denomination and not the subject of his post.

Oh. Like I don’t deal with subject matter on a daily basis? Have you read many of my posts and threads? There are few who provide as much substantive material in their responses as I do.

Fair enough.

If it was already believed, then why NOT?

Why not… Now that has to be the most compelling argumentation I have ever heard

It doesn’t.

Then is the position of the Catholic Church that I am free as a Catholic to not believe in it and still attain salvation? (I do believe in the assumption, just in case you are wondering)

Because it is now certain.

But it doesn’t change anything in the salvific work of Christ. Why make it a requirement?

Since it was already believed, where is the problem?

Since those same Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is infallible, where is the problem?

It’s an addition, not a development. Catholics are now required to believe in something that doesn’t change anything in the salvific mystery of Christ.

What’s the point?

But the answer, again, is because now it is certain.

The wheels on the bus go round and round…

Is it new public revelation?

I will follow your kind example.

Oh no. We both know which example we need to follow.

Is the Catholic Church infallible?

I believe the scope of infallibility is limited to faith and morals. It does not extend to discipline. I also believe that a line is crossed when disciplines and beliefs are placed on the believers shoulders as a new requirement of the faith, more so when it doesn’t add or change the salvific mystery of Christ. Some development is completely understandable and expected. We have abused development…

It doesn’t matter if it is or is not. As Catholic, all doctrines AND disciplines must be obeyed whether they are infallibly declared or not.

So what’s the point? Why Not? Because we have nothing else to do but to develop ad naseum? Whatever happened to the “easy yoke”?

Do you know all the “De Fide” doctrines from the Catholic Church?

Um…okay. What are we going to be discussing in the new thread?

Oh, so the papacy is not one of the best arguments AGAINST becoming Catholic? Ok.

And now a question for you: What is the meaning of “catolico”?

Really? Why not use the capital [C] like my religion shows? It’s Catholic in Spanish. Capital [C] please.

 

[pianistclare]

I’ve talked a lot about the first bit, the second bit is interesting to me, though. The biggest strength, that’s tough. I think there is a definite pull for many non-denominational protestants like me that it would be a relief if we actually believed that the pope was infallible and could just tell us what to do, believe, etc… Kind of like having a leader in an army and everything they say goes, only they were never wrong when issuing direct orders. I also like the connected idea that each parish (in theory) is on the same page, so you can go in any RCC parish and (theoretically) have the same beliefs and actions present.

I’ve always felt that protestants do a good, clear, concise job presenting the gospel, and putting the emphasis on a direct relationship with God, but where we struggle is with the “now what?” lol

But the Pope is an enforcer, if you will. All of the things that he teaches come directly from Christ. So, we are obedient yes, but he doesn’t pull theology out of the air.
The Magisterium and Sacred Tradition is where we learn about our faith. From the mouth of Jesus to eyewitness accounts of the Apostles to the lessons of the Saints. The Pope ensures that we do not ignore, misinterpret, twist, or discount the great treasury of faith that we received 2000 years ago.
God bless you! It is an interesting question.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Really? From scripture note the very personal nature of faith in God.

You are still not answering my questions.

Faith is a person, not a book. The gift of authority is real. It resides in a person, and is given to, persons. That is the heart of Christianity. Without it you have gnostic individualism.

And where did I say that Faith is a book? Kindly point me to that post and I will correct it.

The essence of the protest is to throw out the divine-human relationship and believe on individualist ideas and words.

That is a by product, not the essence. The essence is that we were horrible stewards of the faith.

I linked some history books that deal with the Protestant Reformation on another link from Randy. I suggest you read them.

 

[clem456]

Because we have nothing else to do but to develop ad naseum? Whatever happened to the “easy yoke”?

So doctrine can’t develop…
When in your opinion does/did the Church cease to be alive?
Or is Christ dead?
Or did we have perfect understanding…then? Now? When?
Which is it?
Is the Church dead? Have we been perfect and not known it?
Or did Christ die and we didn’t know it?

 

[clem456]

You are still not answering my questions.

Yes I am.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I have to underscore, that from one outside of the RCC, that has never been in the RCC, this is a serious topic that needs addressed for those of us looking in and trying to respectfully and truly seek truth (and unity).

It is.

Isn’t it funny when they hear from another Catholic and then the argument start to steer into [authority] - hinting do what you are told and shut up, lol. Or how they try to steer the argument into a more familiar arena and straw men start to pop up? Like: “Are you saying that _______?”, you know when a question is formed like that all the straw man needs is to be tied up, lol.

Have you also noticed the lack of factual support outside of authority and infallibility?

Reminds me of a DaVinci quote:

“Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory.” - Leonardo da Vinci

Really, all I hear is: “Because I am the boss and I say so, now shut up and do as you are told”.

We both know where that took us…

 

[Vadim244]

For you, as an Orthodox, I would recommend that you read my OP in the** Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward** thread. It’s currently active.

Thanks, I’ll look at it. Next argument… Council of Apostles forbade to eat blood (Acts 15:29). But the Pope “cancelled” this prohibition at the Council of Florence, after the departure of Greeks. Therefore, we have direct contradiction between what Bible says and what Roman Catholic Church says. By the way, as a former Protestant you may find interesting that Luther also had problems with this, he said that Apostles ERRED when they forbade to eat blood.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

So doctrine can’t develop…

Is that what I said? Can you kindly point me to the post I said that so I can correct it?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yes I am.

I just went back to your posts and you have not.

Feel free to talk to me as if I was 6 years old.

 

[clem456]

It is.

Isn’t it funny when they hear from another Catholic and then the argument start to steer into [authority] - hinting do what you are told and shut up, lol.

There it is. The misunderstanding and rejection of authority. Christianity without Christ.

That silly Christ, why would he ever become human.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hard to tell when you write about his denomination and not the subject of his post.

Everyone has reasons why they are here.

Fair enough.

Thank you.

Why not… Now that has to be the most compelling argumentation I have ever heard

When the Church reaches the point of certainty about a subject, why wouldn’t it be stated as such?

Then is the position of the Catholic Church that I am free as a Catholic to not believe in it and still attain salvation? (I do believe in the assumption, just in case you are wondering)

You know the answer to that. What happens when we begin to let people pick and choose which parts of the faith we believe? And who would decide that? Isn’t that the path that Protestants have followed and which has led to thousands of denominations?

But it doesn’t change anything in the salvific work of Christ. Why make it a requirement?

Not everything we believe is directly related to Calvary, is it?

It’s an addition, not a development. Catholics are now required to believe in something that doesn’t change anything in the salvific mystery of Christ.

Jesus died on the cross. The fact that Mary is the Mother of God does not relate directly to that truth. But it does tell us something of who Jesus is, doesn’t it?

The wheels on the bus go round and round…

Is it new public revelation?

Public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.

Oh no. We both know which example we need to follow.

I’ll be right behind you.

I believe the scope of infallibility is limited to faith and morals. It does not extend to discipline. I also believe that a line is crossed when disciplines and beliefs are placed on the believers shoulders as a new requirement of the faith, more so when it doesn’t add or change the salvific mystery of Christ. Some development is completely understandable and expected. We have abused development…

That is your opinion. Obviously, a lot of very learned people disagree.

However, could you give an example or two of theological developments which are acceptable?

It doesn’t matter if it is or is not. As Catholic, all doctrines AND disciplines must be obeyed whether they are infallibly declared or not.

Correct. Because Jesus said, “whatever you loose…bind”. Is there a limit implied in “whatever”?

So what’s the point? Why Not? Because we have nothing else to do but to develop ad naseum? Whatever happened to the “easy yoke”?

Easy doesn’t mean that we won’t be challenged.

Do you know all the “De Fide” doctrines from the Catholic Church?

Not offhand, but I haven’t run across anything in my 35 years of Catholicism that I disagree with so far.

Oh, so the papacy is not one of the best arguments AGAINST becoming Catholic? Ok.

It’s a COMMON argument, but I’m not particularly stressed when a non-Catholic has questions about the papacy. Like the game of chess, I know all my opponents opening moves better than he does.

Really? Why not use the capital [C] like my religion shows? It’s Catholic in Spanish. Capital [C] please.

That was a typo. And really? I just wanted to be sure. “All heretics want to be called Catholic.” St. Augustine

We even have a few Anglicans and Lutherans around here claiming the name “Catholic”.

 

[clem456]

So let’s go ad hominem instead of dealing with the subject?

How about we deal with the subject and not the person for a change:

1. If it was already believed, why did it become a dogma?
2. How does it change Christ’s salvific work?
3. If it wasn’t a requirement for the faith for over 1,800 years why add it?
4. If it was possible for Catholics to achieve salvation without this dogma, why is it necessary now?

How about you address a fellow Catholic and not get personal?

You are correct when you say that there is a difference between adding to the faith and developing the faith. The difference is in the eye of the beholder. Of course, the common come back argument is: The Catholic Church says it.

Another question:

1. What happens when 2 or more that can bind and lose disagree? Where do you take it? To the Church or to Peter? We know the answer to that and that is what happened for the first 1,000 years. Our Catholic development happened after without all the Church, only the West agreed with the Papacy as it is today. I left the subject go at your request on another thread. This looks to be a thread prime to go over the subject. What say you?

Arguments from silence are not compelling and a 2-way street, btw

Hard to tell when you write about his denomination and not the subject of his post.

Fair enough.

Why not… Now that has to be the most compelling argumentation I have ever heard

Then is the position of the Catholic Church that I am free as a Catholic to not believe in it and still attain salvation? (I do believe in the assumption, just in case you are wondering)

But it doesn’t change anything in the salvific work of Christ. Why make it a requirement?



It’s an addition, not a development. Catholics are now required to believe in something that doesn’t change anything in the salvific mystery of Christ.

What’s the point?

The wheels on the bus go round and round…

Is it new public revelation?

Oh no. We both know which example we need to follow.

I believe the scope of infallibility is limited to faith and morals. It does not extend to discipline. I also believe that a line is crossed when disciplines and beliefs are placed on the believers shoulders as a new requirement of the faith, more so when it doesn’t add or change the salvific mystery of Christ. Some development is completely understandable and expected. We have abused development…

It doesn’t matter if it is or is not. As Catholic, all doctrines AND disciplines must be obeyed whether they are infallibly declared or not.

So what’s the point? Why Not? Because we have nothing else to do but to develop ad naseum? Whatever happened to the “easy yoke”?

Do you know all the “De Fide” doctrines from the Catholic Church?

Oh, so the papacy is not one of the best arguments AGAINST becoming Catholic? Ok.

Really? Why not use the capital [C] like my religion shows? It’s Catholic in Spanish. Capital [C] please.

Is that what I said? Can you kindly point me to the post I said that so I can correct it?

The posts above.
Truly we are not having a good faith discussion here. Starting with your identity, which does not match your propositions and arguments.
There are some things you refuse to understand about Catholicism and that’s what we are discussing, and that’s who we are here.

So good luck and God bless.

 

[JonNC]

If anyone here is tempted to fall for that, I strongly encourage a reading of them.

Treatise Compiled by the Theologians Assembled at Smalcald - 1537

1] The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].

2] Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].

3] And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.

4] These three articles we hold to be false, godless, tyrannical, and [quite] pernicious to the Church.

What FathersKnowBest neglected to mention about Father K is that in Church of Norway only accepts as confessional the Augsburg Confession and Small Catechism. Father K would not be bound in any way to Smalcald.

Jon

 

[Vadim244]

Next argument… On the forums, we share only words, written arguments, but at Councils, heretics were persuaded not only with words, but even with the fact that Orthodox bishops were looking like Saints. For example, at the First Ecumenical Council, there was an episode when one heretic said that he was persuaded with the fact that one bishop was looking like a Saint. So look at our former Orthodox Russian Patriarch Alexy II – and you will see that he looks like a Saint: youtube.com/watch?v=eaFtMK6VT4I

 

[Vadim244]

Next argument… On the forums, we share only words, written arguments, but at Councils, heretics were persuaded not only with words, but even with the fact that Orthodox bishops were looking like Saints. For example, at the First Ecumenical Council, there was an episode when one heretic said that he was persuaded with the fact that one bishop was looking like a Saint. So look at our former Orthodox Russian Patriarch Alexy II – and you will see that he looks like a Saint: youtube.com/watch?v=eaFtMK6VT4I

 

[Isaiah45_9]

There it is. The misunderstanding and rejection of authority. Christianity without Christ.

That silly Christ, why would he ever become human.

lol, welcome to my ignore list, lol