Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

[PRmerger]

For instance, how God commands not to worship any graven images…yet I would see in Catholic churches graven images and see people kissing or kneeling down to them…idolatry much?

Kissing can’t be worship! Say it ain’t so!

Is there a Bible verse that says that kissing is worship? I hope not because I really like kissing…my husband…my children. I hate to think they are being worshipped!

And kneeling down before something doesn’t necessarily equate to worship…unless you think these people at an altar call are worshipping a box of kleenex?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

But if you’re saying that everything can’t be found in the bible…then that means man is making up their own rituals and traditions.

No. I think that every Catholic doctrine can be supported from scripture. But it doesn’t HAVE to be because the Church which existed before the Bible was written still exists today. That Church is preserved from teaching error and there are verses in the Bible to support that!

Even if someone quotes a verse from the bible…it comes from the catechism or Catholic bible. Would that mean that the catholic bible is vastly different from the holy bible?

The Catholic Bible is essentially the same as yours (the NT is EXACTLY the same). Unfortunately, 1500 years after Jesus, Martin Luther took seven books out of YOUR Bible. Sorry 'bout that.

This goes for any denomination. If I ask a Mormon why they reject the Trinity (if I’m not mistaken)…they’d bring out their Book of Mormon and I’m sure it’ll be there as to why they reject it. I know that every church (denomination) has it’s own traditions and beliefs. I wouldn’t consider myself to be a bible-only type person but there’s some things I’ve given the side eye.

Well, the Book of Mormon is an entirely new gospel. The Catholic Bible and your bible are almost identical. In fact, I use the NIV most of the time, so I’m reading the same book you are.

For instance, how God commands not to worship any graven images…yet I would see in Catholic churches graven images and see people kissing or kneeling down to them…idolatry much? I know someone may ask me "didn’t you kiss your dolls when you were younger…didn’t you kneel or bow your head in respect of your elders? Of course I did! But I didn’t pray to it nor felt that kneeling to it would give me some sort of comfort that it’s my hearing prayers.

Uh…you have sort of answered your own question. If I kneel down before a statue of Jesus, I’m praying to Jesus and not the statue. It’s just there to help me focus my attention.

The things I never understood about Catholicism is to me it seemed too ritualistic i.e pray to the rosary, say 10 Hail Mary, confess sins to priest, babies must be baptize during infancy, goods works can help your way to heaven…

I could address all these…but let’s be fair…I’ve already addressed several of your questions and instead of interacting with my posts, you’re just throwing out more questions. Do you really want answers???

 

[guanophore]

Maybe the God that we Catholics worship to be all-loving really isn't that loving after all. Most Catholics are self-righteous people anyway, how do you reconcile the people who worships the true God to be so full of themselves and so full of it.

It is human nature to be full of ourselves. I am sorry that your experience has been that “most Catholics are self righteous people”. This has not been mine. But I think that it is imcumbent upon us to set the example, and make sure that we get the log out of our own eyes first, so to the extent that we carry any self-righteousness, this is where our work begins.

Not sure what you mean by “so full of it” in this sentence but without doubt we carry our treasure in earthen vessels.

If you bring out the argument that we shouldn’t judge a religion by its members, then what should we use to assess the validity of the said religion

It should be first judged by the TEachings, and then by those that follow them, which in this case, would be saints, not the self-righteous.

Moreover, don’t we always say that we need to “test the spirit”? And a lot of how we do it is to assess it by the fruits that are produced. Many Catholics are ill-informed and adhere only to what they think is right, no matter what kind of evidence are brought up against what they think is right.

This is very true. We are to judge by the fruits. You are also right that there are very many ill informed and disobedient Catholics.

What is the use of Tradition and Magisterium then? What kind of fruits are these? Rotten fruits I would say.

Can you clarify this? How do you define Tradition here, and what is "rotten about it?

How do you define “magisterium” and what is “rotten” about it?

And the Spirit, our Holy Spirit produces such rot? Highly unlikely. Protestantism and atheism is thriving. One of the main factors are these “Catholics”.

I agree that the poor witness of Catholics does drive people away from the Church. How does a poorly formed Catholic attract anyone?

 

[eirene101]

No.

Well, the Book of Mormon is an entirely new gospel. The Catholic Bible and your bible are almost identical. In fact, I use the NIV most of the time, so I’m reading the same book you are.

Uh…you have sort of answered your own question. If I kneel down before a statue of Jesus, I’m praying to Jesus and not the statue. It’s just there to help me focus my attention.

I could address all these…but let’s be fair…I’ve already addressed several of your questions and instead of interacting with my posts, you’re just throwing out more questions. Do you really want answers???

Um, not really…

I’m not posing more questions…I’m stating the facts here. And unfortunately growing up, if I didn’t do rituals of catholic I wasn’t considered a devout catholic. Not that I do today but I always felt that Catholic Churches focus too much on “trying to get right” by performing those rituals. For instance, going to confession and confessing to man that is a sinner just like me. What is he supposed to do? Yes, he can pray for me but it makes more sense to go directly to God and repent rather than intecessors.

 

[PRmerger]

Um, not really…

I’m not posing more questions…I’m stating the facts here.

You are not really responding to our responses.

For example, you’ve been asked if you ever ask others to pray for you and pray for others as well, or if you tell folks: you shouldn’t be asking me to pray for you. You should be going to God directly.

Do you do that?

And you’ve also been asked how you know that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the inspired Word of God.

And you’ve been asked what verse in Scripture the teaching of purgatory contradicts.

And you’ve been asked where the Bible proclaims that all we believe about God must be found in the Bible.

 

[Randy_Carson]

For instance, going to confession and confessing to man that is a sinner just like me. What is he supposed to do? Yes, he can pray for me but it makes more sense to go directly to God and repent rather than intecessors.

Confession and Forgiveness of Sin via the Priesthood Proved from Scripture

Some people object to the Sacrament of Reconciliation (commonly called “Confession”) on the basis that they only need to confess their sins directly to God rather than to a priest. Is this perspective correct? Let’s see what the Bible has to say.

Leviticus 5:5-6
5 " 'When anyone is guilty in any of these ways, he must confess in what way he has sinned 6 and, as a penalty for the sin he has committed, he must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.

Notice that the Word of God says, “the priest shall make atonement.” Clearly in the Old Testament, the priesthood existed to offer sacrifices and make atonement for the sins committed by the people. Does this idea continue in the New Testament?

Hebrews 10:1
1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves.

Here the author of Hebrews instructs us that the Old Testament prefigures and foreshadows New Testament truths; the Old is revealed more fully in the New. This seems to suggest that the role of the priest (ie, making atonement) as described in Leviticus should reveal something to us about the New Testament priesthood. So, what does the New Testament teach us about confession of sin?

1 John 1:9
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

We should confess our sins, and God will forgive us, but do we confess our sins to God alone? No!

James 5:13-16
13 Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. 14 Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed.

Here the word of God tells us to call the elders (the Greek word is presbuteroi, or “presbyter”, from which the English word “priest” is derived). So, in this context, James is telling us to send for the priests who will pray over someone who is sick, and if he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Recalling the passage from Leviticus above, we see there is a strong parallel between the priests of the Old Testament who made atonement for sin and the presbyters or priests of the New Testament to whom we confess sins for forgiveness. But this sounds like blasphemy! Can men really forgive sins? This same question is asked in the New Testament.

Mark 2:5-7
5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7"Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Who can forgive sins but God alone? This question is often asked by those who seek to deny the sacrament of confession. However, note that this question is asked by the scribes who did not accept Jesus. Those who quote this passage find themselves on the side of those who rejected the Messiah. There’s more to the story, however; let’s consider the same incident from the book of Matthew.

Matthew 9:1-7
1 Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” 3 At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!” 4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” 7And the man got up and went home. 8When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.

The Bible teaches that God had given the authority to forgive sins “to men”. Note that this is not “to a man” but “to men” – plural. So, it is not only Jesus who has authority to forgive sins – “men” have this authority, also. This sounds like a “hard teaching”…is there confirmation of this in the Bible?

John 20:21-23
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

How did God send Jesus into the world? With the authority to forgive sins as we saw in Matthew 9:6. How does Jesus send the Apostles? In the same way that the Father had sent Him…with the authority to forgive sins as we have just seen in John 20:23. How could the Apostles obey the commandment of Jesus to forgive sins unless they heard these sins confessed? Thus, scripture records that people did confess their sins aloud.

Acts 19:18 (New International Version)
18Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds.

Finally, we find that the Apostle Paul himself forgave the sins of others acting in persona Christi or “in the person of Christ” – just as the Catholic Church teaches concerning the sacrament of reconciliation.

2 Corinthians 2:10
10To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; (KJV)

And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ. (Douay Rheims)

Can we go directly to God for the forgiveness of our sins? Of course, but the scriptures just presented suggest that the normative means of forgiveness is by confession to a priest, and while it is true that only God can forgive sins, the Bible teaches that He has chosen to do so through the ordained priesthood and the Sacrament of Reconciliation that He Himself instituted.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Randy Carson;12449856:

I could address all these…but let’s be fair…I’ve already addressed several of your questions and instead of interacting with my posts, you’re just throwing out more questions. Do you really want answers???

Um, not really…

Did you really mean this? You don’t want answers? :bigyikes:

Think about what THAT means!!!

I’m not posing more questions…I’m stating the facts here.

Facts with false premises.

That can be cured, but you need to engage in a dialogue with those who here have sought to mildly, respectfully correct them.

 

[MaryT777]

Um, not really…

I’m not posing more questions…I’m stating the facts here. And unfortunately growing up, if I didn’t do rituals of catholic I wasn’t considered a devout catholic. Not that I do today but I always felt that Catholic Churches focus too much on “trying to get right” by performing those rituals. For instance, going to confession and confessing to man that is a sinner just like me. What is he supposed to do? Yes, he can pray for me but it makes more sense to go directly to God and repent rather than intecessors.

I thought this was Catholic ANSWERS forums…not state the facts “as you see them”
hmmmm…

 

[guanophore]

Welcome to CAF!

Thank you for participating in the conversation.

I'm answering from my phone so the replies may come in slowly. Well purgatory is not in the bible.

Clearly we read it differently. It seems you do not accept what is written.

Do you believe everything about your faith must be found in the Bible? If so, where do you find that principle written in the Bible?

If purgatory is a temporary place to cleanse our sins, then why did Jesus die on the cross if we can given a “second chance” after death?

I am glad that you misunderstand the Teaching on purgatory. At least you are objecting to something that does not exist,

Purgatory is not a “place”, since it exists outside the space/time continuum, I think you will agree that nothing unclean can enter heaven?

there are no 'second chances". One either dies “in the Lord” or not.

After death, it's either you go to heaven or hell after judgment. (Hebrews 9:27)

And between now and the judgment?

Now Mary, she was a godly woman but I wouldn’t say she was sinless, as Jesus is the only sinless Man.

Are you saying that your best argument not to become Catholic is that you think the Mother of God committed sins?

Do you believe it is possible to be righteous and blameless before God?

If she hears all prayers, then that’s saying she’s omniscient.

Those in heaven can only hear what God wants them to hear. And hearing prayers does not make anyone omniscient. If I ask you to pray for me, does that make you omniscient? Remember the person who appeared to Paul asking him to come to Macedonia? Does that make Paul omnisicent? I don’t think so.

So wouldn’t that be saying that she is the same as God? Why would I need to ask Mary to guide me to her Son when I am supposed to ask directly to Jesus?

Are you saying you have no spiritual guides that know The Way better than you? Mary was the first disciple, and followed her son from his conception to his ascension. Don’t you think she might have learned a few things?

 

[Contarini]

The best reason not to become Catholic (for a Protestant) is the same as one of the best reasons to become Catholic: because the divisions of the Reformation ought not to be church-dividing.

A secondary and less legitimate reason is annoyance with the bizarre things that Catholics say, even after they have been refuted over and over, like “there was no Bible for 300 years”. . . .

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

A secondary and less legitimate reason is annoyance with the bizarre things that Catholics say, even after they have been refuted over and over, like “there was no Bible for 300 years”. . . .

Edwin

Well, that’s a reference to me.

And it’s a rather rude thing to say to a friend. There is nothing bizarre at all about this. It’s a simple fact. And if it’s been refuted, then point me to a discussion you and I had where you limned this error to me.

Think about this, irene: there was no Bible for 300 years. 300 years! That’s the time from when the Pilgrims arrived on Plymouth Rock to about present day. No Bible.

How do you think the Christians proclaimed the gospel with the Bible? Were they making up their own rituals and traditions?

 

[PRmerger]

Well, that’s a reference to me.

And it’s a rather rude thing to say to a friend. There is nothing bizarre at all about this. It’s a simple fact.

To wit:

“The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the N. T. existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history.”

“So at the close of the first decade of the fifth century the entire Western Church was in possession of the full Canon of the N. T”.–ibid

No foundation in history.

QED.

So I erred and said 300 years when I should have said 400 years. Mea culpa. I was too generous I suppose.

 

[guanophore]

A secondary and less legitimate reason is annoyance with the bizarre things that Catholics say, even after they have been refuted over and over, like “there was no Bible for 300 years”. . . .

Edwin

Yeah, that irritates me too. I think the Apostles preached the Gospel fully using the Septuagint, and that most of the Christian communities had the bulk of the NT by the turn of the century.

That does not minimize the Apostolic teaching (kerygma), but it is clear from the Early Fathers that the LXX and the NT “memoirs” and epistles were considered authorative.

To wit:

“The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the N. T. existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history.”

“So at the close of the first decade of the fifth century the entire Western Church was in possession of the full Canon of the N. T”.–ibid

No foundation in history.

You are right on that most “bible christians” have no idea how the canon developed, and it is a very important point to make.

 

[Cube2]

Purgatory isn’t a “second chance” - Jesus certainly died on the Cross for our sins which is how Purgatory even becomes possible. Purgatory is for believers who are not yet perfected.

The doctrine of Purgatory is not based on Christ’s or Apostolic teaching but rather on assumptions.
Rev 20:12: says: And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. Rev 20:15: And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
The qualification to enter heaven is not on assumed perfection, but on whether ones name is written in the book of life. There is no middle ground of purgatory.
Just look at another verse by Jesus himself.
Luk 10:20: …rejoice not that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

Are you the same as God if someone asks you for help and you give it? Mary is in Heaven. She is the perfect version of herself. She can see and hear and do things. This does not make her God.

The Marian doctrines were introduced in the church gradually. They were not originally part of the 1st Christian faith or practice.
Mary was declared the Mother of God in 431 AD.
Prayer to Mary & saints was introduced on the 2nd council of Nicea in 788AD
Assumption of Mary was declared in 1950AD

The Catholic teaching that Mary is in heaven is based on Rev 12. 1
Rev 12:1: And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
Rev 12:3: And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

The 2 appearing are in heaven. The Catholic teaching says that the woman is Mary and is coming from the Tabernacle in heaven, but does not say where the dragon is coming from while both of them appear within a short time space.

Rev 12:6: And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
Rev 12:13: And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.
Rev 12:14: And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

These verses says that the woman went to “her place” in the wilderness where she stayed for 1260 days. The Catholic teaching is completely silent on these verses. Verse 12 says that the dragon persecuted the woman while on the earth, and does not say that the woman went back to heaven, rather she went into the wilderness which is on the earth.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

OP: I’ll toss a couple out there.

Disclaimer: These aren’t things I hold as heart felt and are certainly not in sync with proper teaching, but I do know this is the impression Catholics often give to some others and often to me.

On what basis should I invite someone to be a part of our group when I honestly think that too often …

1.) Catholics don’t know the difference between listen to Jesus’s teachings and following human tradition. More generally they become anxious and angry and desperate over things that are in no way salient.

Example: look at any argument over Communion in the Hand.

2.) Catholics are judgmental and are every bit as loud and screechy as any group of heathens when it comes to politics.

Question: did Jesus tell us to go to the law so they would force others to refrain from sinning, or did He say to work on the plank in our own eye?

Comment: I guess we invite people to become Catholic because of what it can do for them, not whether it seems to be working for others.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

PRmerger;12450917:

To wit:

“The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the N. T. existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history.”

“So at the close of the first decade of the fifth century the entire Western Church was in possession of the full Canon of the N. T”.–ibid

No foundation in history.

QED.

So I erred and said 300 years when I should have said 400 years. Mea culpa. I was too generous I suppose.

You are right on that most “bible christians” have no idea how the canon developed, and it is a very important point to make.

 

[PRmerger]

The Marian doctrines were introduced in the church gradually.

As was the Trinity.

 

[guanophore]

The word Catholic is not mentioned in the bible.

On the contrary, Luke first describes “the Church throughout” (universal) using the word “catholic” in Acts 9:31, and this word was in common use by AD 107 when Ignatius used it in his epistle to the Smyrneans.

“The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself or by some person authorized by him [that is, a duly ordained priest]. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be, just as wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church” (Ignatius Letter to the Smyrneans, 8:1, 2).

The word Catholic comes from the Greek compound word katholokos, related to the Greek term katrholou (kathos + holos), which literally means “for the whole”. In other words, we believe, preach, and teach the whole of Jesus Christ.We ( Catholics ) have been commanded to bring the “whole teachings and salvation” of Christ to the “whole world”.

All other ecclesial communities were considered apostates, or heretics. Every Christian on earth was Catholic until the Schism of 1054.

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.

Do you see “double standards” in the Catholic Church?

 

[guanophore]

The doctrine of Purgatory is not based on Christ's or Apostolic teaching but rather on assumptions.

Cube2, you are mistaken. As Jesus said, “salvation is of the Jews”, and this is one of the Sacred Traditions that we have received from the Jewish faith, through Christ, and the Apostles. They did not call it “purgatory”, which is a Latin term that describes the purification of the soul, the burning away of all that is not of God.

…14If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. I Cor. 3:15

Purgatory is not a “place” but a state in which all that is not from God is purified from us, since nothing unclean can enter heaven. The “assumptions” for this doctrine are Scriptural - that there are some of effects of sin that cling to the soul, and the soul must be purified to be in heaven.

Rev 20:12: says: And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. Rev 20:15: And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
The qualification to enter heaven is not on assumed perfection, but on whether ones name is written in the book of life. There is no middle ground of purgatory.

This is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Purgatory is not some kind of “middle ground”, but preparation to enter His presence. Indeed we are judged by our works, and those whose names are written in the book of life willl have any works purged from them that do not have their origin in God.

 Just look at another verse by Jesus himself.

Luk 10:20: …rejoice not that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

No one can benefit from the purging who is not destined for heaven.