Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

[friardchips]

Several people in the thread pointed to the person as the source of the teaching…

Can you be specific please?

but Paul clearly says that he could err,

Please specify…?

and even that an angel from Heaven could err

Again, can you give the example you are referring to, please?

(we already know a third did).

And who would that be exactly and when, please?

The message was what was checked. If Paul, an Apostle, or an angel preached a different gospel, then it was a big fail.

They didn’t. Please can you provide the source material which has led you to believe these things?

There were already those in the church trying to teach false teaching.

Who is it that validates such a notion, please?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Several people in the thread pointed to the person as the source of the teaching… but Paul clearly says that he could err, and even that an angel from Heaven could err (we already know a third did). The message was what was checked.

Yep. He checked it … with St. Peter!

[Gal 1:18-19;2:2,9]

 

[Kliska]

Can you be specific please?

Not right now; there have been at least 2 posters in this thread referring to proof of teaching being the person who said it rather than the teaching itself.

Why the rolling of the eyes? Sorry if my reply was confusing to you.

Galatians 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

As I mentioned; angels do err, just look at Satan and those angels he took with Him. (see Genesis, and Revelation for more detail).

 

[tonyfish58]

I suffered tremendously as a believer. It was my unbelief that set me free and healed me.

That is a shame dear friend, one who is tested much in known by God to have a capacity to match.

What unbelief has done is submit you to and tie you to this Mortal World, a world of fleeting and vain imaginations, a mere resemblance of the True Reality.

This world is but an addiction, it is easier to turn to the addiction than give it up.

If you have Faith and Pray the wisdom of tests become part of our spiritual life, if you give up then you return to this earth and its vanities which in Gods Eyes is the True Death.

May God Bless you again with Faith and Strength in all Tests - Regards Tony

 

[tonyfish58]

This is an interesting question, I would like to have an attempt at answering.

Firstly my point would be never to offer that as a valid argument, that is advising any person “Not to Become Catholic”.

My advice would be to use your God Given Intelligence and Spiritual Capacity to make your own Choice, if that path through prayer and meditation leads you to accepting Jesus the Christ as a Practicing Catholic, then this is what is best for you.

To me it is not the Faith that you accept to Love God through that is any of any one elses business. The world needs now is for us to Show in Love, Deeds and actions what we claim our Faith to be and not mere words of Faith. Is it not by our Fruits that we are known?

God Bless all and may He grant us True Love to live this Life to Do His Bidding - Regards Tony

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I suffered tremendously as a believer. It was my unbelief that set me free and healed me.

This is so sad to hear. In fact, I suffer when I hear things like this.

At times I wonder why some are so blessed where others don’t appear to be as much. It is indeed the most significant struggle. To suffer.

I am a retired law enforcement officer and my last 10 years I worked in the crimes against children investigations division. My other 10 years pale in comparison to what I saw in this last unit… I still have nightmares about it, the images, the sounds, the atmosphere in some of the places we visited. It woke in me the reality that there is indeed a spiritual element to our existence and very real presence of evil as well. It felt like sharp hooks grasping at my skin. And shortness of breath.

The one thing that always carried me through was prayer. The light of the world: Jesus Christ. He’s worked in so many other areas of my life and that of my family. I am humbled.

I guess what I am trying to say is that there is suffering in this world, but there is also a promise for the world to come. There is much more than what meets the eye.

May the peace of Christ, which surpasses all understanding be made present in you.

 

[Peter_J]

**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.”

For me it’s pretty simple: I was born Catholic. (Well, okay not technically but you know what I mean.) I haven’t left Catholicism for Orthodoxy, but neither have I left Orthodoxy for Catholicism.

Many Orthodox I’ve spoken with seem to regard this as a trivial distinction (i.e. they seem to feel that I might as well have left Orthodoxy, since I’ve chosen not to join Orthodoxy) but to me it’s an enormous difference.

 

[Peter_J]

Can I be on it, too?

Not trying to speak for him of course, but if he used the “Ignore” feature w.r.t. your posts, then all the posts written by others but directed at you (there are quite a lot of those … I wonder if some of our non-Catholic brethren are obsessed with you jk) wouldn’t make a lot of sense.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Several people in the thread pointed to the person as the source of the teaching… but Paul clearly says that he could err, and even that an angel from Heaven could err (we already know a third did). The message was what was checked. If Paul, an Apostle, or an angel preached a different gospel, then it was a big fail. There were already those in the church trying to teach false teaching.

Paul never taught doctrinal error. God prevented this by preventing this shepherd from leading Jesus’ sheep astray. Catholics call this work of God, “infallibility”.

Those who were teaching false doctrine were not apostles, and they were not individually infallible.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Galatians 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

As I mentioned; angels do err, just look at Satan and those angels he took with Him. (see Genesis, and Revelation for more detail).

If anyone taught another gospel then sure, they would be accursed, etc.

But no living apostle COULD preach another gospel because they were prevented from doing so by the Holy Spirit.

The angels fell not because of false teaching but because of rebellion. And they are not infallible.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not trying to speak for him of course, but if he used the “Ignore” feature w.r.t. your posts, then all the posts written by others but directed at you (there are quite a lot of those … I wonder if some of our non-Catholic brethren are obsessed with you jk) wouldn’t make a lot of sense.

I know. I don’t have anyone on my ignore list, either.

 

[987mk]

I can’t participate any longer in this discussion.

 

[SteveVH]

I believe my beliefs are the truth. If I did not believe they were true I wouldn’t believe them. I am not saying that I am not wrong about some of them, because I most likely am, but I can only assent to that which I know. Please don’t get into a epistemological commentary on that last sentence.

My personal beliefs are my 3rd priority. If I found that my personal beliefs contradicted the truth then I would change them. My 3rd priority does not affect my 1st so I see no reason to change the 3rd. Especially since I believe the 3rd to be right.

You have to understand my position if your claims are correct. If you are in fact correct, then I have been in a lot of different denominations that all claim that they hold the most truth and do not. So of course I will set my personal beliefs as trumping all others. If you are correct then I have been listening to people my whole life telling me falsehoods and saying that they are truths. So it would make sense for me to be skeptical of a church that claims that everything it says is either the truth or I have to accept as truth when it comes to faith and morals.

Protestor, my only point is this, and it applies to all of us, not just you; we must seek truth and when we find it, conform our lives to it. When we follow what we want to believe, we are many times in error. We can become very comfortable with some of our beliefs and it is difficult to let go sometimes. It means we might have to change our lives and no one really likes to do that.

So what I am saying is don’t let what you feel you want to hold onto stop you from finding truth. At least explore the possibilities. When you find something hard to believe explore it and find out why the Church teaches this. I have been proven wrong each time and have had to change my views on capital punishment, contraception, divorce and remarriage and some social teaching. The Church was right, every time, when I really looked into it and I had to change.

Peace.

Steve

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Not trying to speak for him of course, but if he used the “Ignore” feature w.r.t. your posts, then all the posts written by others but directed at you (there are quite a lot of those … I wonder if some of our non-Catholic brethren are obsessed with you jk) wouldn’t make a lot of sense.

Why would I want to ignore Randy? He is able to maintain sense of humor through the madness.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

For non-Catholics: Why are you non-Catholic and what, in your opinion, is the biggest strength of the Catholic Church?

I am non Catholic because I don’t believe any of the Catholic distinctive dogmas are particularly true.

The thing I like the most about the Catholic Church is its art.

 

[guanophore]

I was confused about the quote, and am not sure whose it is, so please correct me if I am wrong.

In reality, even if we look at someone else lustfully we commit adultery. Difference is that an adulterer and a serial killer can partake communion as long as they confess.

No, such a confession would entail a repentant lifestyle, such that the penitent is no longer an adulterer or a serial killer.

A remarried Catholic cannot, unless you live as brother and sister. So… do I procreate as mandated or do I go against the mandate?

There is a mandate that someone living in adultery procreate?!

How did I miss that?

On the one hand I disobey God and on the other I disobey the Church - It is the literal damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

There is no dichotomy between the two. The teaching of the church on this matter is straight from the mouth of Christ, who is One with His Holy Bride, the Church.

The prospect for a remarried Catholic is Hell. That is a hell of a place to be.

I think this is too often the case. It is very unusual in our culture for an estranged spouse to accept the cross that they may be called by God to devote themselves to prayer for the salvation of their spouse for the rest of their days.1 Corinthians 7:16–17

This laying down of one’s life for someone who has abandoned them, abused them, cheated on them, etc, etc. is completely contrary to our culture. God did not intend for it to be “hell” but it is very much a purgatory. It is the most difficult cross to take up and bear, especially if one is in childbearing years as you indicate.

 

[guanophore]

Then you also understand what a daunting process it appears to be from a non-Catholic.  A Catholic that marries outside of the Catholic church gets a comparative wrist slap (nullity due to lack of form) as compared to two baptized non-Catholics who divorce and have THAT marriage considered to be valid and thus require a lengthy annulment process, if it is even possible.

This is not the case. Marriages are considered valid whether they are civil or sacramental. The difference is that the Catholic, by being in a state of disobedience to the Church has also committed a sacrilege.

I am not sure where you are getting your ideas about canon law, but it applies to Catholics, not non-Catholics. People are not held responsible for things they did not know. Catholics, once they are confirmed, are expected to learn and obey their faith.

Non-Catholics who were raised in a faith that considered divorce to be a grave sin (but could be repented and absolved) face a significant barrier to enter the Catholic church. Is the fullness of the truth worth it? It may be difficult to convince someone who has survived spiritually on a leaner version of the Gospel that they need something more.

I think you lost me here. Are you under the impression that the CC does not absolve the grave sin of divorce when someone has repented?

and yes, as you may have a guessed this "is" a personal subject to me and I'd be happy to discuss in a PM]

Thank you for sharing your frustrations. I hope that I can come to understand it better, but it if is personal we should not do it on the thread.

 

[guanophore]

Actually, it is at our Baptism that we realize our salvation, even if we can later loose it. I have never heard that we are saved at the moment of genuine belief, even if we are not opposed to penance and the sacraments. Maybe you could explain further.

Steve

I agree with your point, but as most Catholics are baptized in infancy, they really don’t cognitively “realize” anything. The moment that one professes and believes is more of a personal/experiential realization. Beyond the age of reason there may be many such moments of awareness of salvation, just as we profess in the daily Mass. It is a matter of laying hold of that which has laid hold of us.

I personally don’t like the construct of “losing” salvation. I don’t think we can lose that which we have not yet attained. In this life, we are working out our salvation in fear and trembling as long as we are in this life, and salvation is not “realized” in this world. Baptism does "save"us, and we are being saved, and will be saved.

 

[guanophore]

In a way, we are all, since Christ accomplished his atonement for us, already forgiven, we just need to believe (accept the free gift) and follow. There is no gradually earning salvation, but remaining in the faith which continually saves us.

I like this way of thinking about it. It seems that, for the Apostles, salvation was about participation in Christ.

 

[guanophore]

What if the Church gets it wrong, like in Exurge Domine article 33?

What’s wrong with article 33?

Besides, this document is a disciplinary response to the heresies of a specific member of the Church. It is not part of the once for all deposit of faith.

Of course mistakes can be made with Church disciplines.The gift of infallibility applies to the doctrines, not the disciplines. This is one reason Jesus taught the disciples to obey the appointed authority even if they thought they were wrong.

Jesus didn’t had down an acorn to believers, he handed down the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. No additions necessary.

You are right, He called it a mustard seed, but the principle is the same. One cannot tell how big it will be by how it looks.

31 Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field; 32 it is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”Matthew 13:30–33

God is infinite so never. But fortunately there is no new information that God is waiting to spring on us about himself or the faith.

Perhaps you have trouble with things that you cannot predict, but such is the course of human history. The Church responds to the events in the course of human history, and people change and develop all the time. The Apostles could not imagine the challenges faced by our modern culture.

I don’t think it is “sprung” on us, but it is gradually made clear as our understanding develops.

12 “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth;John 16:12–13

Some things do not come clear until we are ready to “bear them”. That does not mean the once for all deposit of faith changes, or that anything is added (other than our understanding).

Could a Catholic have the fullness of truth in 1869 if he denied the infalliblity of the Pope? How about in 1949 if he denied the assumption of Mary?

How do you know that you have the fullness of truth today when tomorrow the faith might be more full?

You really do seem to have difficulty with trust. Were the Apostles in the fullness of faith before God revealed to Peter through Cornelius that the Gentiles were also to be made part of the Church? Did the fullness change, or was it always God’s intention to bring the Gentiles into the faith? Peter’s understanding changed.

Who said I wasn't interested?

It stands to reason, since you are here.

The difference is that Lutherans don’t take theological speculation and turn it into dogma and doctrine over time, thereby adding to the faith.

Doctrines are those elements that were given to the Church by the Apostles. Dogma are statements/proclamations made by the Church in response to heresy. Theological speculation are the puny attempts of humans to comprehend the mysteries of God.

Tommorow there could be a new Catholic doctrine. Tomorrow there isn’t going to be a new Lutheran doctrine.

No. New doctrines cannot be introduced. As to Lutherans, your faith rests on doctrines that the early church did not have (modern innovations). Even if there were not new doctrines like Sola Scriptura, if the practices of those who call themselves Lutheran depart from the Confessions, how are you in a better position?