Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

[Aslan10]

Yep, the Apostles taught all those points.

I say with all charity, but it would be ridiculous to think that the Apostles taught the Papal infallibility. They may have acknowledge Peter as the leader of the Apostles but that is exponentially different.

 

[Yago]

To Catholics it’s “I’m right, your wrong; join us because we’re the most Christian Christianity.” Whereas most ‘Protestant’ groups believe that other groups (including the Catholics) are quite alright.
.

I must say that this is wrong.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

uh, i didn’t get you?

Shhh. Don’t tell him that I knew that’s what he was doing. I’m just refusing to take the bait. I’ve been here long enough to know how it works.

Here’s the template:

Step 1) Catholic asks seemingly innocuous question to non-Catholics
Step 2) Non Catholic responds
Steps 3-1,000,000) Every Catholic here tells Non-Catholic how he or she is wrong.

Well, I think this thread is different.

 

[rcwitness]

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.

And none of them contradicted these dogmas, so there is no evidence they would not have.

Can you imagine today’s Catholic Church telling an ECF that he’s not Catholic if he doesn’t agree with those?

That’s an unfair situation. To suddenly bring much deeper development on a Church father hundreds of years ago and then try to portray them as not accepting. Remember what Jesus told the Apostles?

John 16:12 (RSVCE)

12 “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now"

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).

Because of the hardness of your heart, it is for your sake that the Church receives you.
Can you imagine the first Christians rejecting Bishops authority and appointing their own leaders?

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.

Yet Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are changes to the faith.

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

yes, I also see why it is not a barrier to me.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I say with all charity, but it would be ridiculous to think that the Apostles taught the Papal infallibility. They may have acknowledge Peter as the leader of the Apostles but that is exponentially different.

They, and all Christians, believe in more than infallibility of St. Peter. Indeed, they believe in the inerrancy of Apostolic writings that were canonized. And even beyond that, they believe that these writings were theopneustos.

We believe, based on the promises of Christ to St. Peter, that the Office of the successor to St. Peter holds the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and that what he (or all the Apostles in union with St. Peter) holds bound, will have been held bound in Heaven.

In short, we have faith in Jesus’ promises.

 

[rcwitness]

I say with all charity, but it would be ridiculous to think that the Apostles taught the Papal infallibility. They may have acknowledge Peter as the leader of the Apostles but that is exponentially different.

I personally do not believe that if Peter told the Church, be it at a council or privately to Apostles, that the Holy Spirit told him to deliver such and such a teaching, they would doubt that Jesus told him.

This is barring anything that would contradict what Christ taught them all.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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?

Certainly! Why not?

It’s happened before. As a result of conciliar decisions, humble Church members have always had to acquiesce to the Church.

St. Jerome even did this with regard to the OT canon.

 

[Seraphim73]

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.

Well that’s not entirely accurate. It just means from the whole. It certainly doesn’t mean universal.

 

[Yago]

I am also drawn to the Miraculous Medal/Mary. I have my deceased Grandmother’s medal and wonder if it is ok for a non Catholic to wear it?

Of course you may.

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.
.

The problem with this argument is that the CC never reverses an infalliable pronouncement and that all its doctrines are true.

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).

God exists.He founded Christianity. Many broke aweay from it. The original one is currently called CC to differentiate from those who broke away.

I would strive to become more and more like Christ.

Yes, you should.

I’d say NO to any teaching or practice that degrades Christ who is the image of the invisible God.

Catholicism doesnot degrade Christ.

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.

Catholicism does not have double standards.

Did the apostles and the early church teach all 3000 or so points of teaching in the current RC Cathecism?

We don’t have a cathecism. We have a catechism. Yes, apostles did teach everything in it including papal infallibility.

 

[gracepoole]

My best argument against becoming Catholic is the required acceptance of natural law, which philosophically is truly problematic.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Of course you may.
The problem with this argument is that the CC never reverses an **infalliable **pronouncement and that all its doctrines are true.

God exists.He founded Christianity. Many broke **aweay **from it. The original one is currently called CC to differentiate from those who broke away.
Yes, you should.
Catholicism doesnot degrade Christ.Catholicism does not have double standards.

There are no infalliable pronouncement. There are infallible pronouncements.

None broke aweay. Many broke away.

There’s a space between [does] and [not].

**We don’t have a cathecism. We have a catechism. **Yes, apostles did teach everything in it including papal infallibility.

 

[guanophore]

Catholics do not look like happy people, and they’re always yelling. Why would anyone want to do that to themselves?

LOL I grew up in a Catholic family like this, It is one of the reasons I wandered away from the faith.

I would venture to say that anyone who cannot, for whatever reason, assent to the doctrines of the Catholic Church should probably not become Catholic. The Church certainly has no need for more “cafeteria Catholics.”

This is so true Pastor Gary. The cafeteria Catholics really make the Church very ill and impotent. I used to be one of them.

If my memory is correct, them’s Episcopalians.

GKC

Well what was the POINT!?

Why would I do that? If you want to be Catholic, be a Catholic. If you don’t want to be Catholic, then don’t join.

Cause it is great grist for the discussion mill.

Jesus didn’t call His Disciples by any one denomination, and the Apostles never considered themselves labeled as ‘Catholic’.

I think this really is right on the mark. Jesus only founded One Church, and does not want denominations, but unity. I think it is also true that the label “Catholic” took a while to catch on. It was first used by Luke in Acts 9:31, and was in general use by the turn of the century after most of the Apostles had been martyred.

However, I did like the thread “What is the reason you’re not Catholic.” Because it was less in your face, and allowed people to give their perspective.

I think that is the most important thing.

Because God lets us be hurt unjustly, far worse than the penalty due us by our own sins, and therefore doesn’t protect us from pain and therefore doesn’t care about us.

This is a loaded response. If Jesus was hurt unjustly, why should we expect less when we follow in His footsteps?

And who gets to decide the penalty due us for sins? Isn’t that up to God?

I agree, we are not protected from pain, but that does not mean He doesn’t care, anymore than any parent does not always protect their child from pain. God allows our hurts and pain so that greater good can come from them.

 

[GKC]

Originally Posted by GKC:
If my memory is correct, them’s Episcopalians.

Well what was the POINT!?

I can say that my memory was correct, at least. That’s Holy Trinity, Wall Street.

As to the point, I don’t know. I don’t even know what that question means.

GKC

 

[probleman]

This is a loaded response. If Jesus was hurt unjustly, why should we expect less when we follow in His footsteps?

I was giving my wife’s response. I don’t agree with it or believe it. It was spoken by her while she was in pain and unequipped with how to handle pain in the Christian way. (She still is not very well equipped but so am I.)

I say with all charity, but it would be ridiculous to think that the Apostles taught the Papal infallibility. They may have acknowledge Peter as the leader of the Apostles but that is exponentially different.

Just because they didn’t use the exact words “papal infallibility” doesn’t mean they didn’t acknowledge it as a fact. Over the past two millennia, we’ve given new phrases to old meanings, but these concepts were always there, even if in the beginning we lacked phrases to express them, or had only very imprecise phrases.

 

[TxGodfollower]

Why I don’t become a Catholic?

1. Contradictions in teachings (over time, across books, etc.)
2. Factual mistakes in books the Catholics embrace as Scripture.

 

[Seraphim73]

Why I don’t become a Catholic?

1. Contradictions in teachings (over time, across books, etc.)
2. Factual mistakes in books the Catholics embrace as Scripture.

Well there are factual mistakes all through the New Testament. Is that what you are talking about?

 

[TxGodfollower]

Well there are factual mistakes all through the New Testament. Is that what you are talking about?

I have heard many claims of factual mistakes in the NT; all that I have researched led to no mistakes. No, I was referring to mistakes in the Apocrypha.

 

[Seraphim73]

I have heard many claims of factual mistakes in the NT; all that I have researched led to no mistakes. No, I was referring to mistakes in the Apocrypha.

Then you need to read a little closer. Factual inconsistencies are apparent even with the most cursory reading.

 

[TxGodfollower]

Then you need to read a little closer. Factual inconsistencies are apparent even with the most cursory reading.

Name some, then. It doesn’t make sense to me that God would give us Scripture that lies.

 

[JonNC]

I have heard many claims of factual mistakes in the NT; all that I have researched led to no mistakes. No, I was referring to mistakes in the Apocrypha.

Examples that affect Catholic doctrine?

Jon

 

[pablope]

I say with all charity, but it would be ridiculous to think that the Apostles taught the Papal infallibility. They may have acknowledge Peter as the leader of the Apostles but that is exponentially different.

Would it also be ridiculous to think that you know all that the Apostles taught? Can you cite were everything the Apostles taught was ever written down?