Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

[prodromos]

How so?

Around the 11th century, Rome seperated from the Church in the East.
500 years later that seperation bore fruit in the reformation, first in Germany, then Switzerland followed by England.
Today that fruit has seen Christendom splintering into 100’s of sects and the rebirth of many of the ancient heresies which had been put to an end by the Church Councils prior to the great schism.
This is the legacy of the papacy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

A RUSSIAN WHO CHALLENGED ORTHODOXY TO RECONCILE WITH ROME
ewtn.com/library/Theology/ZSOLOVIE.HTM

Q: Who was Vladimir Soloviev and why he is notable today?

Father Ryland: Vladimir Soloviev was a Russian philosopher, political thinker, theologian, literary critic, poet and mystic. His mind ranged far and wide among Western and even Eastern philosophies — not to be eclectic, but to extract from many different systems of thought the truth they contained.

Hans Urs von Balthasar paid tribute to Soloviev’s “skill in the technique of integrating all partial truths in one vision.” **Von Balthasar ranked Soloviev second to Thomas Aquinas as “the greatest artist of order and organization in the history of thought.” **

**Pope John Paul called attention to Soloviev in 1998’s “Fides et Ratio” as standing in a line of distinguished Christian philosophers. A couple of years later, the Holy Father declared that Soloviev’s “prophetic” work makes him one of our era’s great “witnesses of the faith and illustrious Christian thinkers.” **

Recently an international gathering of scholars from East and West met in the Ukraine to discuss Soloviev’s book, “Russia and the Universal Church.” Soloviev always referred to the Roman Catholic Church as “the universal Church.” The first half of that book, which deals specifically with the relation of the Russian Church to the Roman Catholic Church, has been issued under the title, “The Russian Church and the Papacy.”

+++

It appears that minority is growing.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Around the 11th century, Rome seperated from the Church in the East.
500 years later that seperation bore fruit in the reformation, first in Germany, then Switzerland followed by England.
Today that fruit has seen Christendom splintering into 100’s of sects and the rebirth of many of the ancient heresies which had been put to an end by the Church Councils prior to the great schism.
This is the legacy of the papacy.

Around the 11th century, the partiarchs of the east refused to accept that THEY were not the Royal Steward and Chief Shepherd of Christ’s flock. 500 years later, other groups did the same.

So did the Arians, the Nestorians, the Pelagians, the Waldensians…

 

[ClearWater]

This is a really long thread. I was only able to skim some of it.

I guess I’ve been wrestling with my faith, in crisis right now.

I once walked away from the Catholic Church, because I went to confession, here in Mexico, and a fairly common penance is walking on one’s knees across the entire length of the church.

If one doesn’t do the penance, one is said to be not forgiven. So, I did this…on these stone tiles…it was REALLY painful, and by the time I got done, I was actually bleeding.

I left the Church for about a solid 10 years after that.

I had a friend of mine who said 1 church was nothing, that once, he was told to knee walk across SEVEN churches. Now, admittedly, he was no saint, but still.

I once had a priest refuse to allow me to confess, because I was living with my “husband”. However, for the last 3 years of our “marriage”, we were living as brother and sister.

He had threatened me, and at one point I had moved out into our unfinished mother-in-law suite that had no water, a/c, bathroom, etc., etc.

I had another time, one priest who was talking to someone, saying “LEAVE …pretender”…“Go right now!”

I once had where I was in a rosary group. I took over another person’s group, was leading, and the sacristan didn’t want that group.

For months, she made our lives quite miserable, would go to the members, tell us we couldn’t pray in the church, itself, had to go to the crying room.

Once, I spoke to the pastor, got permission, and on Thanksgiving Day, the sacristan told me she would not give us permission to do the rosary, and she essentially threw me out of the church.

I’ve had people of other faiths look at all these incidents, tell me that this kind of thing has happened again and again, that if it keeps happening to consider another denomination.

I go to the churches here, and they are extremely…for lack of a better word, “cold”.

We go, say our prayers, and leave. There is a lack of fellowship.

On the forum, there a tremendous viciousness. Now, admittedly, other faiths probably have that, too, but people can go down their rule book, deliver the news, but without the slightest compassion, empathy, even with unbridled sarcasm, venom. viciousness, and yet all the while think this attitude is helpful.

When I have had problems, I haven’t felt I could go to the pastor. My sister told me to go to the pastor, ask if some parishioners could help me. She told me that’s what the Church is for, but no. I’d not feel, in a Catholic Church, I could do that.

In a protestant one, I might, though.

I think I want to remain Catholic, despite all the above, but it’s just a weakness of our Church, or several.

On the forum, I can think, “With ‘friends’ like these, who needs enemies?”

 

[Cube2]

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 like to use citations from the bible as the canon. Reason is because it contains the actual words of Jesus, and of the immediate apostles who spent time with him learning about the kingdom of God. The citations you have quoted are not even available for reference.

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

Lets use the words of Christ himself ONLY and compare the differences.

Jesus words:
John3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Catholic teaching on The Fifteen Promises of Mary
5. The soul which recommends itself to me (Mary) by the recitation of the Rosary, shall not perish.
Catholic teaching on the Scapular of Mt. Camel
“Whoever dies clothed in this scapular shall not suffer eternal fire”

Jesus words:
John14:14: If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
Catholic teaching on The Fifteen Promises of Mary
11. You shall obtain all you ask of me (Mary) by the recitation of the Rosary.

Jesus words
Acts1:8: But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Catholic teaching
3. The Rosary shall be a powerful armor against hell, it will destroy vice, decrease sin, and defeat heresies.

The examples are very many. I wonder which is better than the other.

 

[ClearWater]

Correction…in my thread, I said the priest would not hear my confession that time I was “married”, but on recollection, he would but said he would not absolve me.

I went to another priest, explained this story, and he said that as long as we were living as brother and sister, that we were fine. I asked what the Church’s position was on this, and he said that WAS its position.

The other priest said he would not only listen to my confession but absolve me.

It reminds me a little bit about Christ’s story about the “Good Samaritan” who wasn’t even Jewish but did the Father’s will just the same.

So, I think it’s about loving, doing God’s will, and sometimes, I don’t know if we, with our backbiting, sarcasm, holier-than-thou attitudes, …if we are doing God’s will…is all.

HOWEVER…even now, fortunately, I still have some Catholics I know who are WONDERFUL folks…overflowing with virtues…patience, kindness, compassion, empathy.

I have a blind lady here who is my supervisor at work, Catholic, and she heard I was here, as a foreigner, all by myself. She told me she has “adopted” me…and not only me, but anyone at San Felipe, who is without family.

She invites these family—less folks yearly to her house for Christmas, so that they don’t spend Christmas alone.

Oh, and my blind supervisor has a blind husband and almost-blind daughter…VERY low vision. Yet, even so, they can open their home, yearly, despite the fact they also probably don´t have much money.

 

[A_Lurker]

Around the 11th century, the partiarchs of the east refused to accept that THEY were not the Royal Steward and Chief Shepherd of Christ’s flock. 500 years later, other groups did the same.

So did the Arians, the Nestorians, the Pelagians, the Waldensians…

You yourself concede that this Royal Steward argument was not found in the First Millennium, but you dismiss that as irrelevant and posit two theories:

1.) That the Church Fathers “missed it.”
2.) That they believed it, but didn’t write about it.

Both of these are absurd.

You also admit that you don’t know a lot about Councils and Canons, and it shows in your argumentation. You display a shaky knowledge of the Fathers as well, beyond what proof texts you can glean from out of context quotes.

Your attitude is that the Roman Catholic Church has “moved beyond” the Early Church Fathers.

Theology is not a science. Christianity is a relationship with Christ, with Theosis as the ultimate goal. Asceticism and Prayer are the key, and the Desert Fathers showed us the way. These truths are once and for all time…to imply that a 19th Century Protestant theologian has a better understanding of Theology than St. John of Damascus or any of those Desert Fathers is nonsense.

 

[PRmerger]

Around the 11th century, Rome seperated from the Church in the East.
500 years later that seperation bore fruit in the reformation, first in Germany, then Switzerland followed by England.
Today that fruit has seen Christendom splintering into 100’s of sects and the rebirth of many of the ancient heresies which had been put to an end by the Church Councils prior to the great schism.
This is the legacy of the papacy.

Let’s see how you respond to this:

“Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic”

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

Response:
How so?

Answer:
Around the 4th century, Arius separated from the Church.
Several years later that separation bore fruit in the reformation, first in Germany, then Switzerland followed by England.
Today that fruit has seen Christendom splintering into 100’s of sects and the rebirth of many of the ancient heresies which had been put to an end by the Church Councils prior to the great schism.
This is the legacy of the Trinity.

What say you, prodromos? Does the argument above as I have presented it have merit?

 

[PRmerger]

This is a really long thread. I was only able to skim some of it.

I guess I’ve been wrestling with my faith, in crisis right now.

I once walked away from the Catholic Church, because I went to confession, here in Mexico, and a fairly common penance is walking on one’s knees across the entire length of the church.

If one doesn’t do the penance, one is said to be not forgiven. So, I did this…on these stone tiles…it was REALLY painful, and by the time I got done, I was actually bleeding.

I left the Church for about a solid 10 years after that.

I had a friend of mine who said 1 church was nothing, that once, he was told to knee walk across SEVEN churches. Now, admittedly, he was no saint, but still.

I once had a priest refuse to allow me to confess, because I was living with my “husband”. However, for the last 3 years of our “marriage”, we were living as brother and sister.

He had threatened me, and at one point I had moved out into our unfinished mother-in-law suite that had no water, a/c, bathroom, etc., etc.

I had another time, one priest who was talking to someone, saying “LEAVE …pretender”…“Go right now!”

I once had where I was in a rosary group. I took over another person’s group, was leading, and the sacristan didn’t want that group.

For months, she made our lives quite miserable, would go to the members, tell us we couldn’t pray in the church, itself, had to go to the crying room.

Once, I spoke to the pastor, got permission, and on Thanksgiving Day, the sacristan told me she would not give us permission to do the rosary, and she essentially threw me out of the church.

I’ve had people of other faiths look at all these incidents, tell me that this kind of thing has happened again and again, that if it keeps happening to consider another denomination.

I go to the churches here, and they are extremely…for lack of a better word, “cold”.

We go, say our prayers, and leave. There is a lack of fellowship.

On the forum, there a tremendous viciousness. Now, admittedly, other faiths probably have that, too, but people can go down their rule book, deliver the news, but without the slightest compassion, empathy, even with unbridled sarcasm, venom. viciousness, and yet all the while think this attitude is helpful.

When I have had problems, I haven’t felt I could go to the pastor. My sister told me to go to the pastor, ask if some parishioners could help me. She told me that’s what the Church is for, but no. I’d not feel, in a Catholic Church, I could do that.

In a protestant one, I might, though.

I think I want to remain Catholic, despite all the above, but it’s just a weakness of our Church, or several.

On the forum, I can think, “With ‘friends’ like these, who needs enemies?”

I am so sorry that you have had experiences with bad representatives of the Catholic faith.

However, just as it would not be a good idea to leave Jesus because of Judas, I don’t think it’s a good reason to leave the Catholic Church because of folks you’ve encountered.

Find the Church Christ established (and there is only 1!) and then conform your views to what the Church has decreed.

Don’t church shop for a church that matches all of your own ideas.

For that is the essence of creating a god in your own image.

 

[PRmerger]

Catholic teaching on The Fifteen Promises of Mary
5. The soul which recommends itself to me (Mary) by the recitation of the Rosary, shall not perish.
Catholic teaching on the Scapular of Mt. Camel
“Whoever dies clothed in this scapular shall not suffer eternal fire”

The Catholic Church sees the Catechism as the sure norm for the faith.

Do you find the above in the Catechism?

If so, please cite where it is to be found there. Thanks.

 

[Cube2]

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.

Where is it?
The citation in I Cor 3:15, is about work being tested. Lets look ate every word of it;
The ones who will go to heaven, before they are rewarded, each person’s work will be judged, but the person will be saved as he will be in heaven already.

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 will have any works purged from them that do not have their origin in God.

About the book of life, it is a Catholic teaching but less emphasized.
If you look at the 15 promises of Mary, You will not see the book of life.
If you look at the scapular, you will not see the book of life.
If you look at the dogmas, there is none that says of the book of life

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

Another assumption. The doctrine of Purgatory was introduced in Catholic in 1439AD.
A question; Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be with him in paradise the same day. Why not after he went to purgatory as his sins were not cleansed fully?

 

[Cube2]

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.

Mary was declared as the Mother of God in 431AD. By that declaration, the whole of the Roman Empire whose official religion was catholic, had to adopt the view. Initially due to persecution only afew people were Christians.
If the title Mother of God was in use by the Apostles, at least one of them would have mentioned it in the 27 books of the NT.
Where Jesus is recorded to have had brothers and sisters, the catholic church strongly refutes that whereas citation of the Jesus brothers are more than 10. Even Apostle Paul who preached more than the other apostles mentions of a brother to Jesus.
Gal1:18: Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. Gal1:19: But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.

The doctrine of the Trinity is verifiable in the Bible. The father sent Jesus, after Jesus the Holy Spirit. There are ,many citations in the bible.

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.

I doubt this! Peter, the first pope according to Catholic, wrote 2 letters. He never mentioned some of the doctrines we have today in Catholic. If they were handed down from the Apostles, he would have mentioned at least one of them in his writings.

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.

But the catholic church declared a dogma that the woman is Mary in heaven. The dogma does not give room for other interpretations. You had said:
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.
So, would you say that the other views are heresies?

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.

Nevertheless, I wonder why the description of the woman is narrowed to one verse whereas there are many other verses expounding on the woman’s identity. The 1260 days repeated twice in connection to the woman are not explained. The same number (1260) is repeated many other times in the book of Revelation, but nothing is said about it.

 

[PRmerger]

If the title Mother of God was in use by the Apostles, at least one of them would have mentioned it in the 27 books of the NT.

This is a man-made tradition you’ve been duped into believing, Cube.

You can read Genesis through Revelation, and not a single page will you ever read:
“If something was in use by the Apostles, at least one of them would have mentioned it in the 27 books of the NT.”

In fact, I could ask you: where does one of the Apostles mention that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the inspired Word of God?

Yet, I presume, you believe with every fiber of your being that Hebrews is inspired, yes?

Where does this belief come from?

 

[ClearWater]

I am so sorry that you have had experiences with bad representatives of the Catholic faith.

However, just as it would not be a good idea to leave Jesus because of Judas, I don’t think it’s a good reason to leave the Catholic Church because of folks you’ve encountered.

Find the Church Christ established (and there is only 1!) and then conform your views to what the Church has decreed.

Don’t church shop for a church that matches all of your own ideas.

For that is the essence of creating a god in your own image.

I haven’t left the Church. It’s just hard right now, especially.

 

[ClearWater]

Sometimes in the Catholic Church, it can seem without love is all, that is focuses on a rule book, forgets that love is to be in there.

Yet God was saying if we did all that, even handed our bodies over to be burned, that if we did it without love, that we’d be like a clanging symbol., nothing more.

 

[PRmerger]

I haven’t left the Church. It’s just hard right now, especially.

I understand that.

I just caution you against 2 things:
-leaving because of people. If they are not following the teachings of the Church, then why leave because of them?

-trying to find a church that matches your own ideas.

Incidentally, it’s NOT a teaching of the Church that penance must include going to 7 churches to walk on one’s knees.

 

[PRmerger]

Sometimes in the Catholic Church, it can seem without love is all, that is focuses on a rule book, forgets that love is to be in there.

Yet God was saying if we did all that, even handed our bodies over to be burned, that if we did it without love, that we’d be like a clanging symbol., nothing more.

Amen! Love is the key!

But love must be grounded in truth, no?

If someone says, “But I love him! That’s all that matters!”…
that wouldn’t be a good thing, just because love is involved…

if she’s already married to someone else, right?

Because the truth is: you cannot commit adultery. Even if you love someone.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You yourself concede that this Royal Steward argument was not found in the First Millennium, but you dismiss that as irrelevant and posit two theories:

1.) That the Church Fathers “missed it.”
2.) That they believed it, but didn’t write about it.

Both of these are absurd.

You also admit that you don’t know a lot about Councils and Canons, and it shows in your argumentation. You display a shaky knowledge of the Fathers as well, beyond what proof texts you can glean from out of context quotes.

Your attitude is that the Roman Catholic Church has “moved beyond” the Early Church Fathers.

Theology is not a science. Christianity is a relationship with Christ, with Theosis as the ultimate goal. Asceticism and Prayer are the key, and the Desert Fathers showed us the way. These truths are once and for all time…to imply that a 19th Century Protestant theologian has a better understanding of Theology than St. John of Damascus or any of those Desert Fathers is nonsense.

I’ve started a new thread specifically for Orthodox discussion of these issues.

It was inevitable.

See ya there.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Let’s see how you respond to this:

“Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic”

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

Response:
How so?

Answer:
Around the 4th century, Arius separated from the Church.
Several years later that separation bore fruit in the reformation, first in Germany, then Switzerland followed by England.
Today that fruit has seen Christendom splintering into 100’s of sects and the rebirth of many of the ancient heresies which had been put to an end by the Church Councils prior to the great schism.
This is the legacy of the Trinity.

What say you, prodromos? Does the argument above as I have presented it have merit?

 

[PRmerger]

Let’s see how you respond to this:

“Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic”

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

Response:
How so?

Answer:
Around the 4th century, Arius separated from the Church.
Several years later that separation bore fruit in the reformation, first in Germany, then Switzerland followed by England.
Today that fruit has seen Christendom splintering into 100’s of sects and the rebirth of many of the ancient heresies which had been put to an end by the Church Councils prior to the great schism.
This is the legacy of the Trinity.

What say you, prodromos? Does the argument above as I have presented it have merit?

Actually, the above was supposed to say: The TRINITY. Not “The papacy”.

Me culpa!

Corrected version:

“Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic”

Answer:
The TRINITY. It has led to the wholesale fragmentation of christendom.

Response:
How so?

Answer:
Around the 4th century, Arius separated from the Church.
Several years later that separation bore fruit in the reformation, first in Germany, then Switzerland followed by England.
Today that fruit has seen Christendom splintering into 100’s of sects and the rebirth of many of the ancient heresies which had been put to an end by the Church Councils prior to the great schism.
This is the legacy of the Trinity.