Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

[guanophore]

 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

You have a lot to learn about your faith, Cube2, but you have come to the right place!

Doctrine is the Teaching that was handed down to us from the Apostles. There was a “once for all” divine deposit of faith that cannot be added to or subtracted from.

Dogmas are statements of faith that have developed over time to combat heresies. Dogmas are based upon the once for all divine deposit of faith.

Mary was always the Mother of God, even before the declaration was made by the council. She became the Theotokos when the angel Gabriel came to her.

In the same way, the Church always believed in the Trinity, though you will not find this word in your Bible, and it was not adopted by the Church until 325. The gradual development of doctrine and adoption of Dogma’s does not make them untrue. Other Dogma’s that are accepted by all Christians are the hypostatic union, the canon of Scripture, and Sunday observance. All of these developed over time. The 27 books of the NT did not “become” scripture when they were formalized into canon in 381. They were always Scripture from the moment they were penned.

 The Catholic teaching that Mary is in heaven is based on Rev 12. 1

No, Cube 2. None of the Catholic faith is 'based on" anything in the Bible. The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. On the contrary, the NT reflects what the CC believes because it was written by, for, and about Catholics.

The Teaching that Mary was assumed was given to the Church by the Apostles during their lifetime.

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.

Actuallly the book of Revelation, being apocalyptic literature, is multivalent in nature. The woman can also be understood to be Israel, from whom the remnant of faith was taken, and also the Church, who brings Christ to the world. These other possibilities notwithstanding, we do understand that Mary was given by Christ to be the Mother of the Church.

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.

The Catholic Church is not a “bible based” Church, and therefore, does not interpret verses individually as do ecclesial communities of this kind. Our faith was handed down to us by the Apostles, and we understand the Sacred Writings in the light of the faith we were given. We do not extract the doctrines of the faith from the Scriptures.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

Jesus never used the word “purgatory”, but as a Jew, Jesus would have been familiar with the concept of a state or place where those who die in God’s favor but not ready to enter heaven would be purified.

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.

Amen! Catholics love those verses. But they don’t disprove purgatory.

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.

Actually, perfection is a requirement for scripure says that noting impure will enter God’s presence. And purgatory is not a “middle ground”; it is a temporary state that enables purification to be completed.

What’s happening here is that you are presenting arguments against something that Catholics do not actually believe.

Why bother?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The word Catholic is not mentioned in the bible.

Are you sure?

“Catholic Church” in the Bible

Despite the historical evidence, many people argue that the Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Jesus Christ beginning with Peter and the Apostles. One argument often made is that the phrase “Catholic Church” does not appear within the pages of Scripture. Aside from the fact that this argument is weak since the words “trinity” and “Bible” are not contained in Holy Writ either, is it really true that the Catholic Church is not named in the Bible? Well, take a look at the following verse from the Acts of the Apostles, and decide for yourself:

Acts 9:31 (Greek)
ἡ μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ᾽ ὁλης της ιουδαιας και γαλιλαιας και σαμαρειας ειχεν ειρηνην οικοδομουμενη και πορευομενη τω φοβω του κυριου, και τη παρακλησει του ἁγιου πνευματος επληθυνοντο.

Act 9:31 (Transliteration)
aye men oon ekklaysiaye kath olays tays ioodayeas kaye galilayeas kaye samarayas aycon ayraynayn oikodomoomenaye kaye poryoomenaye tow fobow too kurioo kaye tay paraklaysay too agioo pnyoomatos eplaythunonto (russ.org/gtb/luke.html#a9)

Acts 9:31 (English)
So the Church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.

From this text, we can see the Greek word “kath olays” which is rendered “Catholic” in modern English and the word “ekklaysiaye” which becomes “ecclesia” in English and is commonly translated as “church”.

εκκλησια καθ᾽ ὁλης = ekklaysiaye kath olays = “the church throughout all” = Catholic Church.

 

[pablope]

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

Wrong here my friend…it starts with the Jews and our Jewish roots. This article traces the Jewish roots of the belief in Purgatory…
catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/purgatory-holy-fire.html

If you dare to read it…

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.

 

[GoDolphins]

εκκλησια καθ᾽ ὁλης = ekklaysiaye kath olays = “the church throughout all” = Catholic Church.

This is pretty thin since everyone knows this is modified by ‘of Judea’. If your idea was true then the Catholic Church would literally be onlythe Church in Judea. It’s a little like me saying my name is John Wayne Gacy and you deciding I must be a famous Western actor because you left out a part. Why not jsut be honest and admit that Catholics didn’t call themselves Catholics until after the Epistles were written and maybe not until the early 2nd century.

 

[guanophore]

This is pretty thin since everyone knows this is modified by 'of Judea'.  If your idea was true then the Catholic Church would literally be onlythe Church in Judea.

At the time, this was the central core of the Church founded by Christ. Jesus only founded One Church, and it was the same “throughout”. That is why the term “catholic” was used to describe it.

It's a little like me saying my name is John Wayne Gacy and you deciding I must be a famous Western actor because you left out a part.

Well this might be true if the early Church had not picked up on the modifier, and made it part of the proper name. History testifies that your scenario is not the case.

Why not jsut be honest and admit that Catholics didn't call themselves Catholics until after the Epistles were written and maybe not until the early 2nd century.

No problem there! Initially, the faith was called “The Way” and was considered a Jewish sect. Later, in Syria, the followers of Christ were first called “Christians”. By 107 AD we see that the use of the word “Catholic” had become part of the proper name, beyond that of the modifier used in the book of Acts.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is pretty thin since everyone knows this is modified by ‘of Judea’. If your idea was true then the Catholic Church would literally be onlythe Church in Judea. It’s a little like me saying my name is John Wayne Gacy and you deciding I must be a famous Western actor because you left out a part. Why not jsut be honest and admit that Catholics didn’t call themselves Catholics until after the Epistles were written and maybe not until the early 2nd century.

That would be my position.

However, it was asserted that “catholic church” does not appear in the Bible, and it does…kinda.

 

[OurLadysServant]

Hi Randy,

The Catholic Church has long taught the bible line (applied to catholics)
‘To he who has been given more’ (the Catholic fullness of truth handed down from Jesus Christ Himself) ‘will more be required.’
‘To him whom has been given more will more be required.’

As Jesus said to His apostles after He told the crowds, ‘I am the Living Bread of Life come down from Heaven, he who eats My body and drinks My blood (the Eucharist) has Me in him and him in Me and I will raise him up on the last day.’ As the crowds left unbelieving Jesus turned to His disciples and asked, ‘Will you too go away?’ To which they replied, ‘To whom shall we go? You have the message of eternal life.’ (Catholicism is the message of eternal life, but unchanged and as set down by Our Lord Himself. To be a catholic requires faith in Jesus True Presence in the Eucharist. As Jesus said, ‘This is My body which will be given for you. This is My blood, the blood of the New Covenent.’ ‘As often as you do this you proclaim my resurrection until I come again.’
It requires faith in all the Catholic Churches documented miracles. Such as the Miracle of Laciano Italy where the Eucharist turned into actual flesh and blood and has remained incorrupt 300 years later. It was tested by scientists and compared to another incorrupt Eucharistic miracle that took place 500 years earlier and both were proved to be human flesh, blood type AB, of the heart tissue, incorrupt, and to be blood of the same person (Jesus Christ) and the Shroud of Turin had the blood on it tested also, and it was proved to be blood type AB also, which is a blood type so rare that only 1% of the people of Italy have that blood type. Jesus is present in the Eucharist.
As Jesus asked his disciples after speaking of the Eucharist;
‘Will you too go away?’

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy,

The Catholic Church has long taught the bible line (applied to catholics)
‘To he who has been given more’ (the Catholic fullness of truth handed down from Jesus Christ Himself) ‘will more be required.’
‘To him whom has been given more will more be required.’

As Jesus said to His apostles after He told the crowds, ‘I am the Living Bread of Life come down from Heaven, he who eats My body and drinks My blood (the Eucharist) has Me in him and him in Me and I will raise him up on the last day.’

As the crowds left unbelieving Jesus turned to His disciples and asked, ‘Will you too go away?’ To which they replied, ‘To whom shall we go? You have the message of eternal life.’ (Catholicism is the message of eternal life, but unchanged and as set down by Our Lord Himself. To be a catholic requires faith in Jesus True Presence in the Eucharist. As Jesus said, ‘This is My body which will be given for you. This is My blood, the blood of the New Covenent.’ ‘As often as you do this you proclaim my resurrection until I come again.’

It requires faith in all the Catholic Churches documented miracles. Such as the Miracle of Laciano Italy where the Eucharist turned into actual flesh and blood and has remained incorrupt 300 years later. It was tested by scientists and compared to another incorrupt Eucharistic miracle that took place 500 years earlier and both were proved to be human flesh, blood type AB, of the heart tissue, incorrupt, and to be blood of the same person (Jesus Christ) and the Shroud of Turin had the blood on it tested also, and it was proved to be blood type AB also, which is a blood type so rare that only 1% of the people of Italy have that blood type. Jesus is present in the Eucharist.

As Jesus asked his disciples after speaking of the Eucharist;

‘Will you too go away?’

Amen!

 

[Shiranui117]

Yes. This is what I mean too. I don’t think on such serious matters, on views to be held by the whole Church, there is any doubt that the Pope will speak well inside the boundaries of Christian love. Maybe there is room for slight error with short-sightedness or whatever but I don’t think any issue would be so bad that it would end up as a big deal and not be righted eventually. I think they have things down slick and tidy in Vat City.

A valid point. Things were stickier during the medieval ages and the Renaissance, but the kinks seem to have worked themselves out for the most part.

There has to be room for the Pope to be Pope and Jesus to be Jesus, if you see what I mean.

Right. I was basically trying to understand what the role of the Pope is, using the role of Christ as a model, and toning His role down to meet a merely human level as necessary.

And I would imagine that the Pope if he saw fit might be able to take command of a diocese but then if he did how would he run everything else?He would have to be omnipresent!

Indeed. Hence the need for the Pope to let the regional synod appoint a locum tenens.

I thought of this when reading this line of your post: there is the unavoidable human element to being Pope too. He is younger by far than Benedict, I think. So how, apart from the holiness of the position, can Benedict and older Bishops see the Pope as their Holy ‘Father’? And I think the human character has a lot to do with it. Popes, as a rule, don’t come across as wimps (using an extreme to make a point). They have to have fervour, drive, motivation, fortitude, depths of wisdom, charisma, a strong character; in order to lead but also to serve with incredible compassion and humility. They have to be full of love but then smarter than a CEO (to use a past analogy) in many ways. Like an oracle and a Neo and Jesus all at the same time. Jesus was not timid. The Bishops know who the candidates are well before the election for a new Pope, (I reckon). So they know who has these attributes and who they can respect. To cut a very long story a tad bit shorter, I think they do respect him and love him as their Holy ‘Father’ not just older brother. Or maybe an older brother that they really look up to.

I would hope it’s the latter, especially among the Pope’s brother bishops–would it make sense for a younger brother to call their elder brother their father? I don’t think so. Among the laity, I can totally understand the Pope being viewed as the “Holy Father”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[prodromos]

Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

Thanks.

The papacy. It has led to the wholesale fragmentation of christendom.

 

[PRmerger]

The papacy. It has led to the wholesale fragmentation of christendom.

How so?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The papacy. It has led to the wholesale fragmentation of christendom.

And the Orthodox are one?

:nope:

Apart from communion with Rome, particular national churches can have no true unity. As those familiar with Orthodoxy well know, there’s no such entity as the Eastern Orthodox Church. Soloviev explains that in the East there exists nothing but separate and isolated national churches. The unity that the separated Eastern Churches claim is “a unity based on a broad but hollow indifference, implying no organic bond and requiring no effective fellowship between particular Churches.” Consequently, Soloviev insists, among the Eastern Orthodox, the universal Church is merely a concept, an abstraction.

Not surprisingly, Soloviev’s position was not warmly accepted by his fellow Orthodox. The more aggressive among them attacked him fiercely. But he waved them off, along with their arguments. The Orthodox apologists, he said, had little interest in what East and West share in common. Rather, they’ve grown attached to the differences. For them the distinctive Russian religion seems to consist of mere denials of Catholic doctrine: the Immaculate Conception, the filioque, the papacy (at one point, he described Orthodoxy as “simply a national protest against the universal power of the pope”).

So the Orthodox are protesting against the universal jurisdiction of the pope? Protesting in the name of what? he asked. What alternative do they offer? An ecumenical council? Since breaking with Rome, the Eastern Churches haven’t been able to convoke an ecumenical council and probably never will be. And so the controversialists try to “confront the actual councils of the Catholic Church with a council that can never take place, and to maintain their cause with weapons that they have lost and under a flag of which they have been robbed.”

The controversialists Soloviev opposed had no problem seeing each bishop or priest as a vicar of Jesus Christ, and yet they denied that same quality to the successor of Peter. In doing so, they set limits to what Jesus could do in establishing His kingdom on earth. They readily granted that Christ has authority to act through His ministers in any part of His visible kingdom. And yet, they say, it’s just going too far to imagine that Jesus gave the keys of the whole kingdom to Peter.

Taken from:
Soloviev’s Amen - A Russian Orthodox Argument for the Papacy
catholicity.com/commentary/ryland/08198.html

 

[AveChriste11]

My best argument against becoming Catholic? I can’t, my heart has always been Catholic since I was chrismated into the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in 2011. Grace is fully present in the Orthodox churches as testified by her saints so there is no reason for me to jump churches. That’s not to say Orthodoxy is perfect. We have a lot of administrative problems. My parish has trouble keeping a priest and continues to switch to other priests. This creates a problem for me in the absence of a spiritual director.

From everything I have learned at Catholic Answers I have no major objections to the Roman Catholic Church. I see that our pride on both sides has kept us from bridging the gaps of misinformation, wounds and misunderstandings over the centuries. It will only be through prayer, fasting and humbling ourselves before God that we can resolve our differences. True ecumenical dialogue must involve our hearts. I do think that many saints such as Therese of Lisieux, Francis of Assisi and many God fearing Protestants such as William Tyndale and the Catholic martyrs of the English Reformation are in Heaven praying for us as an example for many.

 

[A_Lurker]

And the Orthodox are one?

:nope:

Apart from communion with Rome, particular national churches can have no true unity. As those familiar with Orthodoxy well know, there’s no such entity as the Eastern Orthodox Church. Soloviev explains that in the East there exists nothing but separate and isolated national churches. The unity that the separated Eastern Churches claim is “a unity based on a broad but hollow indifference, implying no organic bond and requiring no effective fellowship between particular Churches.” Consequently, Soloviev insists, among the Eastern Orthodox, the universal Church is merely a concept, an abstraction.

Not surprisingly, Soloviev’s position was not warmly accepted by his fellow Orthodox. The more aggressive among them attacked him fiercely. But he waved them off, along with their arguments. The Orthodox apologists, he said, had little interest in what East and West share in common. Rather, they’ve grown attached to the differences. For them the distinctive Russian religion seems to consist of mere denials of Catholic doctrine: the Immaculate Conception, the filioque, the papacy (at one point, he described Orthodoxy as “simply a national protest against the universal power of the pope”).

So the Orthodox are protesting against the universal jurisdiction of the pope? Protesting in the name of what? he asked. What alternative do they offer? An ecumenical council? Since breaking with Rome, the Eastern Churches haven’t been able to convoke an ecumenical council and probably never will be. And so the controversialists try to “confront the actual councils of the Catholic Church with a council that can never take place, and to maintain their cause with weapons that they have lost and under a flag of which they have been robbed.”

The controversialists Soloviev opposed had no problem seeing each bishop or priest as a vicar of Jesus Christ, and yet they denied that same quality to the successor of Peter. In doing so, they set limits to what Jesus could do in establishing His kingdom on earth. They readily granted that Christ has authority to act through His ministers in any part of His visible kingdom. And yet, they say, it’s just going too far to imagine that Jesus gave the keys of the whole kingdom to Peter.

Taken from:
Soloviev’s Amen - A Russian Orthodox Argument for the Papacy
catholicity.com/commentary/ryland/08198.html

I have been lurking on these posts a long time (hence my name) and following these discussions, and this post compelled me to register and reply.

We are one, Randy…A Russian can commune in a Greek Parish, a Greek can commune in Moscow, an Arab from Lebanon can commune in an America OCA parish and so forth…we have one Faith, one chalice…we disagree sometimes, as family does. Breaks in communion from time to time were common in the first Millenium, but reconciliation was always waiting on the back end…hence why we are still in communion today. Sure you can point to the Old Calendarists, but they are not proof of our “disunity” anymore than the SSPX or Old Catholics testify to your “disunity.” We can play that game all day, but where does it get us?

We have maintained the Faith, without the Bishop of Rome, who from our POV broke unity by attempting to claim powers that it didn’t have and had no right to. The Primacy then fell to the Patriarch of Costantinople…should that See schism or fall into error, the Primacy would go to the next in line. There is a mechanism to “right the ship” and the Conciliar model, which was how the Church was always governed, continues to operate.

Another common misconception is that we can’t have any Ecumenical Councils. We have had several Synods and Councils since the Schism, with another one being scheduled for 2016 (God willing). What makes a Council Ecumenical? Time…The number of Ecumenical Councils was debated in Rome, and your Church certainly had disputes over this as well so it isn’t always ironclad at the outset. Time and the Spirit determines whether a Council is Ecumenical…in addition, Local Synods also can have the “force” of Ecumenical Councils in the sense of it applying to the entire Church. For example, the Synod of Jeruselem in 1672 condemned Calvinism and the Protestant errors, and it’s decrees were accepted by the Church…yet it doesn’t carry the title of “Ecumenical.”

How many of the 7 Ecumenical Councils did the Pope call?

As you concede, Soloviev was a minority opinion (a tiny minority) and was enamoured with the West, and had his opinions. They do no reflect accurately on Orthodoxy, any more than dissident Catholics represent your teachings or views.

Prooftexting from our fringes will not win the argument.

We are One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

I don’t really want to say anything against that “ought not to be church-dividing” … but let me leave aside such fine words for the moment and focus on practical reality. On the one hand, if someone who is Catholic (ICWR) somehow comes to disagree with the Pope on the Immaculate Conception, or the filioque, or Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction, etc., then canon law makes it clear that the Pope can choose to excommunicate him/her, but he generally doesn’t do so excepting extreme cases (e.g. Matthew Fox). But on the other hand, if someone like yourself decided to depart Anglicanism and head Rome-ward … well that wouldn’t make much sense unless you were in agreement with us on dogmas.

 

[Peter_J]

if someone like yourself decided to depart Anglicanism and head Rome-ward

(And for the record, I don’t make any predictions about whether you’re going to do so or not at some point. You probably don’t need to be told that, but I thought I should say it, given the wide variety of people who may be reading this.)

 

[guanophore]

The papacy. It has led to the wholesale fragmentation of christendom.

I don’t think so. If all the popes had behaved as humbly and faithfully as Peter, there never would have been a Reformation.

Additionally, we see that the other Patriarchies have not caused any “wholesale fragmentation of christendom”, so clearly it is not the office, but the abuse of it that causes problems.

I would say this applies to all bishops and priests. The CC has also suffered from priests who have abused their office, causing the flock to be scattered.

 

[fred_conty]

My best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic is that I would have to give up “once saved always saved”. Right now as a protestant (which I’m not) I can do pretty much whatever I want to do and not have a thing to worry about…because I have it absolutely made. There is no worry at all. And I don’t have to do good works either although I’m not against them.

Hey, you tired out Catholics, eat your heart out.

 

[jmcrae]

As was the Trinity.

And the dual nature of Christ (which arises from the doctrine that Mary is the Mother of God, since it is only when we understand that the Person to whom Mary gave birth was God, we cannot even begin to fathom that Jesus is one Person with two Natures: human and divine).

It is what we understand about Mary that brings us closer to Christ.