Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

[House_Harkonnen]

Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

Thanks.

Becauae becomming Catholic is not a mere assent to a body of doctrine, it’s an assent to a body of doctrine PLUS whatever the RC will decide to teach in the future.

I cannot and will not commit to assenting to what some denomination might possible teach in the future.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Becauae becomming Catholic is not a mere assent to a body of doctrine, it’s an assent to a body of doctrine PLUS whatever the RC will decide to teach in the future.

I cannot and will not commit to assenting to what some denomination might possible teach in the future.

What if the Lutheran Church decides to teach something “new” in the future?

It’s happened before. Lutherans used to teach that contraception is a sin; now they teach something new.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

What if the Lutheran Church decides to teach something “new” in the future?

It’s happened before. Lutherans used to teach that contraception is a sin; now they teach something new.

There is no Lutheran church, it’s a confession, there are many churches which claim the confessions.

If a Lutheran church decided to depart from the confessions, there would be an exodus of Lutherans to start a new synod which will hold fast to them.

That IMO makes the confessional Lutherans some of the most traditional christians. Our catechism and confessions have not underwent alteration in 434 years. Other denominations such as the RCC update and add new dogma from time to time.

 

[without]

Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

Thanks.

“If you want to follow Jesus, you need to “sell your possessions and give to the poor.” It is a very simple message, and easy to do. Have you done it? The fact that you are reading this page would indicate that you have not. Chances are you own a computer, pay for an Internet connection every month, live in a home or apartment, have a car, etc. In other words, you live a life at a level of wealth unimaginable in Jesus’ time. Meanwhile, billions of people on the planet live in startling, abject poverty. Why don’t you sell everything and follow Jesus, as he requests in the Bible? The reason is simple: Jesus and God are imaginary, and you know it. If Jesus were real, you would do what he says.” - godisimaginary.com/i19.htm

 

[SteveVH]

Our catechism and confessions have not underwent alteration in 434 years. Other denominations such as the RCC update and add new dogma from time to time.

Please don’t make statements such as this without giving us some evidence of just what new “dogma” the Church has added, from time to time.

Thanks.

Steve

 

[probleman]

I don’t see the reasons that Ben offered as being particularly “Lutheran” - but they seem very “human” to me. Particularly when you deal with an event that could shake the faith of another Christian it seems important to make any transition as gentle as possible (I’m thinking of elderly relatives, other dependents).

What kind of witness to the truth would it be to abandon your responsibilities in your zeal for grasping the fullness of the truth for yourself - and alienating a host of other believers in the process? Education and teaching take a lot of time, and God knows our hearts.

Well, it depends. If the thing you’re abandoning is not the Truth, and the thing you’re fleeing to is the Truth, then there’s no real problem with other people seeing it. For example, compare this to St. Augustine’s conversion. He was a teacher who taught lies, and he knew it. But when he converted to Christianity, he abandoned his teaching position a mere week later, completely and utterly.

Now, that’s all assuming the person is fleeing from lies and to the Truth.

That said, from the Lutheran position, there’s really no significant difference whether you’re Catholic or Lutheran, because they’re both basically true, although in varying degrees (with the Lutheranism being closer to the truth), and any difference is not significant enough to cost you salvation. Thus, defecting from Lutheranism to Catholicism could indeed be a scandal – if Lutheranism was indeed correct (which I don’t hold to be true) – if it misleads and confuses others in the same Lutheran parish, especially if the defector is their pastor.

 

[CuriousMike]

Last year, as I contemplated the decision to become Catholic, I had a discussion with a Protestant Friend(s). These were some of the points that came about:

• Sola Scripture
  • Real Presence, Rosary, ‘Traditions,’ “Praying to Saints/Mary/Angels”

They seem to think that all of this is a load of hogwash, and when you try to debate ANYTHING, and I mean ANYTHING with Protestants, here is the GUARANTEED line(s) you will get:

Protestant: “And where is that in the Bible?”
Catholic: “It isn’t stated specifically, although Council of XXX determined it.”
Protestant: “If it isn’t in the Bible, it is unbiblical, therefore, it is untrue and Catholics are unbiblical and going to hell.”

Catholic: Quotes scripture regarding some matter of doctrine
Protestant: “That verse has been taken out of context.”
Catholic: Red faced, storms off.

Personally, once I started digging through scripture and the apologetics, it became more and more apparent of the truth and realness of Catholicism. Previously I had been against it, but I am now in full communion with the Church - less than a year later.
I had also prayed for God’s guidance on this matter, and was not turned astray, yet, my desire for the Church and to LEARN grew and grew.

During my Baptism; I felt a strange presence behind me, like someone standing behind me and carefully ensuring that everything went according to plan.
During the consecration of the Bread and Wine, I have felt humbled.
If this were not God at work, none of this would seem real and I most certainly would not be Catholic - I have more faith now than I did as a Protestant.
So for me, there is simply NO argument against Catholicism.

Another Point:
People, over time, have gradually changed their interpretation of scripture to try and follow the persistent worldview. The Church Should not, and MUST NOT change for this. If people fall off the wagon, this then disproves the “Once saved, always saved” mentality people might have.
A Protestant co-worker of mine whom I’ve spoken with pointed out the Church is only going to captivate people by going AGAINST the flow. If its so much like the outside, inside the Church, what would be the point of going? Where is the special-ness of God?

 

[benjohnson]

Protestant: “If it isn’t in the Bible, it is unbiblical, therefore, it is untrue and Catholics are unbiblical and going to hell.”

The trick to having good debates with Protestants and Catholics is to find good Protestants and Catholics to debate.

 

[dronald]

“If you want to follow Jesus, you need to “sell your possessions and give to the poor.” It is a very simple message, and easy to do. Have you done it? The fact that you are reading this page would indicate that you have not. Chances are you own a computer, pay for an Internet connection every month, live in a home or apartment, have a car, etc. In other words, you live a life at a level of wealth unimaginable in Jesus’ time. Meanwhile, billions of people on the planet live in startling, abject poverty. Why don’t you sell everything and follow Jesus, as he requests in the Bible? The reason is simple: Jesus and God are imaginary, and you know it. If Jesus were real, you would do what he says.” - godisimaginary.com/i19.htm

I agree with everything stated except for the last bit. The mere fact that we don’t sell all of our possessions and follow Christ speaks volumes to our lack of faith.

The passage you quoted has a man leaving, very upset because he couldn’t do as Jesus commanded. It’s not that he didn’t believe God existed; he certainly did. He even kept all of the commandments and would have likely believed in Jesus. The issue was he couldn’t give up his wealth.

So you are correct in that it’s extremely hard to give up all we have and follow Christ as we’re commanded; and I believe it’s something worth weeping over, just like the man.

 

[Cube2]

Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

Thanks.

I think the question does not address the fundamental need for a human being in joining a religion.
Why would one become a Catholic in the first place. If the call is to follow Christ, then the right question is “…AGAINST becoming a Christian.” The question just calls for curiosity of why a catholic. The word Catholic is not mentioned in the bible. Even Jesus did not mention it, but commanded the apostles to make disciples of all nations (Matt 28:19).

I would strive to become more and more like Christ.
I’d say NO to any teaching or practice that degrades Christ who is the image of the invisible God. Thus it doesn’t matter whether its Catholicism or any other religion, if it has double standards, then I’d not be party to it.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

I think the question does not address the fundamental need for a human being in joining a religion.
Why would one become a Catholic in the first place. If the call is to follow Christ, then the right question is “…AGAINST becoming a Christian.” The question just calls for curiosity of why a catholic. The word Catholic is not mentioned in the bible. Even Jesus did not mention it, but commanded the apostles to make disciples of all nations (Matt 28:19).

I would strive to become more and more like Christ.
I’d say NO to any teaching or practice that degrades Christ who is the image of the invisible God. Thus it doesn’t matter whether its Catholicism or any other religion, if it has double standards, then I’d not be party to it.

Are you implying that Catholicism is not Christian?

 

[rcwitness]

Why would one become a Catholic in the first place.

Because it is God’s will that we all be One body, with One faith, with One mind, through One Baptism, under One Lord, With One leadership, Giving One Teaching.

The word Catholic is not mentioned in the bible.

I beg to differ. In Acts 9:31, we see the Whole Church being described as “Katha olos” in the original Greek. In the Very next verse, we see how Peter’s universal pastoring was practiced in the Church. This was described as a time of building up and being led by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Don’t you love how these guys disappear when asked hard questions?

 

[Stilldreamn]

Well, it depends. If the thing you’re abandoning is not the Truth, and the thing you’re fleeing to is the Truth, then there’s no real problem with other people seeing it. For example, compare this to St. Augustine’s conversion. He was a teacher who taught lies, and he knew it. But when he converted to Christianity, he abandoned his teaching position a mere week later, completely and utterly.

Now, that’s all assuming the person is fleeing from lies and to the Truth.

That said, from the Lutheran position, there’s really no significant difference whether you’re Catholic or Lutheran, because they’re both basically true, although in varying degrees (with the Lutheranism being closer to the truth), and any difference is not significant enough to cost you salvation. Thus, defecting from Lutheranism to Catholicism could indeed be a scandal – if Lutheranism was indeed correct (which I don’t hold to be true) – if it misleads and confuses others in the same Lutheran parish, especially if the defector is their pastor.

I see what you are saying; but when you leave, you also lose your voice in that community. Speaking for myself, and my situation only, my conscience tells me that I need to wait for the Holy Spirit to finish filling up my boat before I row it across the Tiber.

or the Bosphorus

So I am not really_ answering_ the OP’s question as much as amending it - Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic — NOW

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Please don’t make statements such as this without giving us some evidence of just what new “dogma” the Church has added, from time to time.

Thanks.

Steve

The evidence IMO is simple. Did the apostles and the early church teach all 3000 or so points of teaching in the current RC Cathecism? If not then new teaching has been added. In a couple years there is going to be even more points that have been added on. I cannot assent to teaching that may be added on at some point in the future.

 

[Aslan10]

Last year, as I contemplated the decision to become Catholic, I had a discussion with a Protestant Friend(s). These were some of the points that came about:

• Sola Scripture
  • Real Presence, Rosary, ‘Traditions,’ “Praying to Saints/Mary/Angels”

They seem to think that all of this is a load of hogwash, and when you try to debate ANYTHING, and I mean ANYTHING with Protestants, here is the GUARANTEED line(s) you will get:

Protestant: “And where is that in the Bible?”
Catholic: “It isn’t stated specifically, although Council of XXX determined it.”
Protestant: “If it isn’t in the Bible, it is unbiblical, therefore, it is untrue and Catholics are unbiblical and going to hell.”

Catholic: Quotes scripture regarding some matter of doctrine
Protestant: “That verse has been taken out of context.”
Catholic: Red faced, storms off.

I’m sorry that this was your experience. Just as some Catholics can be ignorant, so can Protestants. Like an above poster said, the key to finding a good Catholic v Protestant debate, is to find good Catholics and Protestants. Especially those that can do it with an open mind and charitably.

 

[probleman]

The evidence IMO is simple. Did the apostles and the early church teach all 3000 or so points of teaching in the current RC Cathecism? If not then new teaching has been added. In a couple years there is going to be even more points that have been added on. I cannot assent to teaching that may be added on at some point in the future.

Yep, the Apostles taught all those points.

 

[steido01]

Please don’t make statements such as this without giving us some evidence of just what new “dogma” the Church has added, from time to time.

Evidence of new dogmas added from time to time: The Immaculate Conception of Mary (1854), Papal Infallibility (perhaps 1302, certainly 1870), the Assumption of Mary (1950).

None of these three was required belief for Roman Catholics before those dates. Catholics who lived before those pious beliefs were made dogma were free to believe or disbelieve them. Now, it is required. Can you imagine today’s Catholic Church telling an ECF that he’s not Catholic if he doesn’t agree with those?

For a time, it was also assumed that the Pope held both the temporal and ecclesial swords (Unam Sanctam) -in other words, he was the kingmaker on earth- but that idea faded when his papal army dwindled and his political influence shrunk to just the Vatican City. It was also assumed that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church (Unam Sanctam). That is still technically believed, but the definition of “Catholic Church” has expanded to possibly cover each religion that holds a “ray of the truth” (Nostra Aetate). Protestants were once worth going to war with, now they “can rightly be called Christian” (CCC 818).

This does not happen in Lutheranism. We do not (cannot!) change matters of Faith because of current political situations. The Lutheran Confessions do not change. That’s what House is getting at.

Can you see why this sort of thing is a barrier to us converting to Roman Catholicism?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Evidence of new dogmas added from time to time: The Immaculate Conception of Mary (1854), Papal Infallibility (perhaps 1302, certainly 1870), the Assumption of Mary (1950).

None of these three was required belief for Roman Catholics before those dates. Catholics who lived before those pious beliefs were made dogma were free to believe or disbelieve them. Now, it is required. Can you imagine today’s Catholic Church telling an ECF that he’s not Catholic if he doesn’t agree with those?

For a time, it was also assumed that the Pope held both the temporal and ecclesial swords (Unam Sanctam) -in other words, he was the kingmaker on earth- but that idea faded when his papal army dwindled and his political influence shrunk to just the Vatican City. It was also assumed that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church (Unam Sanctam). That is still technically believed, but the definition of “Catholic Church” has expanded to possibly cover each religion that holds a “ray of the truth” (Nostra Aetate). Protestants were once worth going to war with, now they “can rightly be called Christian” (CCC 818).

This does not happen in Lutheranism. We do not (cannot!) change matters of Faith because of current political situations. The Lutheran Confessions do not change. That’s what House is getting at.

Can you see why this sort of thing is a barrier to us converting to Roman Catholicism?

I can see it, yes.

Plus what HH referred to was dogmas, not practices/disciplines. There is a big difference between them. So yes, we are not discussing whether there was a belief or a practice, but a dogma. So in that sense, HH is correct.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

There is no Lutheran church, it’s a confession, there are many churches which claim the confessions.

If a Lutheran church decided to depart from the confessions, there would be an exodus of Lutherans to start a new synod which will hold fast to them.

That IMO makes the confessional Lutherans some of the most traditional christians. Our catechism and confessions have not underwent alteration in 434 years. Other denominations such as the RCC update and add new dogma from time to time.

Interesting.
There is a Scandinavian Lutheran minister who posts here who claims that the Confessions are entirely in line with Catholic teachings & beliefs.

Therefore, according to your post, you could be a Catholic.

I believe that it is things beyond the Confessions that you object to, and not adherence to the Confessions themselves.