Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

[Servant19]

Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

Thanks.

It claims Apostolic succession through the “laying on hands” yet dismisses totally the “laying on hands” given by the succession found in Judaism.

If Judaic “laying on hands” can be superseded by Jesus Christ, then what stops the same being done with the Christian “laying on hands”?

.

 

[guanophore]

I will say that studying the teachings of the RCC, as well as interacting with knowledgeable individuals from many Christian denominations has really helped me grow as a Christian and to understand where others are coming from.

Reading your posts has done this for me as well, Kliska.

 

[guanophore]

Thanks for posting, epan.

(1) Because of the role of the Papacy and the Vatican politics in determining Catholic beliefs.

What exactly is the role of the Papacy and the Vatican politics in determining Catholic beliefs?

(2) Because even when they have done wrong, the leaders of the Catholic Church often do not have the courage to tell the truth, and admit publicly what they have done.

This seems strange to me. How does the betrayal of Judas invalidate everything else Jesus taught the Apostles?

It appears that you have not been watching much news about the leadership apologizing in public.

(3) Because when a moral act is required, the Catholic Church often appears to put that priority second to political convenience, and as a lower priority than appeasing public opinion.

I am curious about this too. Can you give an example?

Have you ever read the documents of the Conference of American Bishops?

 

[guanophore]

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

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

This is a good point, HH. If one does not trust Jesus, one will not be willing to abandon all to follow him, especially when one does not know what he will say/do tomorrow or next year.

If Jesus really did not promise to lead his Church into all Truth, then one cannot possibly entrust onself to the church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No. All the teachings of Lutheranism were laid down finally in 1580, nothing new has been added since. And the teachings of Lutheranism as laid down in 1580 were consistent with the teachings of the early church.

Well that’s demonstrably false. Maybe the subject for another thread.

:slapfight:

That’s a thread I want to watch.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

This is a good point, HH. If one does not trust Jesus, one will not be willing to abandon all to follow him, especially when one does not know what he will say/do tomorrow or next year.

If Jesus really did not promise to lead his Church into all Truth, then one cannot possibly entrust onself to the church.

You don’t know what dogma your denomination will define next, does it matter?

Did the RC denomination have the fullness of truth before 1870 when papal infalliblity was defined or after? How much more full than full can someone be?

IMO the RC claims to be the fullness of truth but full is never quite full there is always a little more filling that needs to happen. When is the RC denomination going to finally declare itself full?

 

[rcwitness]

When is the RC denomination going to finally declare itself full?

Hey House (i like the sound of that),
I understand your concern. My reply is just what I see as the Church understanding of your arguement.

It always has. Defining the deposit of faith is not the same as “gaining new faith” or “receiving a new Truth”

Your best arguement is probably the Marian Dogmas.

CCC:

84 The apostles entrusted the “Sacred deposit” of the faith (the depositum fidei),45 contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. “By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing, and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.”46 (857, 871, 2033)

The Magisterium of the Church

85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.”47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. (888-892, 2032-2040)

86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”48 (688)The fullness of Truth has always existed in the Catholic Church because of His Eucharist. Interpreting the life of Christ is given first to Peter and the Apostles.

1324 The Eucharist is “the source and summit of the Christian life.”136 “The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch.”

Colossians 2:2-3 (RSVCE)

“That their hearts may be encouraged as they are knit together in love, to have all the riches of assured understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, of Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”

 

[guanophore]

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

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

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

You make an excellent point probleman. I think you are right that ultimately one must follow one’s conscience.

Your point also gives me pause to wonder about those modern Lutherans who have departed from the Traditional faith. Recently I have read in several posts that it is problematic for Lutherans (and Anglicans) that the CC continues to develop doctrines and “come up with new things to believe” that did not apply to earlier Catholics. Yet in looking at what has occurred in Lutheranism in the last 45 years, it is clear that the Lutheran communion suffers the same assault from modernism that the CC does. The faithful are abandoning the traditional faith and being swept away by the culture of death.

Yet the Lutheran communion is not centered around any particular authorative body, holding the Confessions and SS as the anchors. So people who are poorly catechized (just as many Catholics are) have never read the confessions, and don’t even feel bound by them. They may also not grasp the concept that they have wandered away from the faith by not clinging to them.

 

[clem456]

“Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.”

I won’t accept that Christ became truly human.

Since Jesus did not really and substantially exist in the flesh, he could not have had true interactions with other human beings.

Since he did not interact with other human beings, he could not have given authority to anyone human.

If he did not truly reveal himself in the flesh and gift others with authority, my sole source of authority and revelation is words and ideas. Authority and revelation are separated from the human person. All I need to do is know Jesus in a way that is sensible to me.

Since I rely on my self and not other persons to know God, others who claim the gift of authority can only be trying to oppress me.

If others are trying to oppress me then I do not trust them.

Since I trust no one but myself, I owe obedience to nothing and no one.

Since I obey (listen to) no one but myself the concept of a church is meaningless. A church is only as true as the words and ideas I can understand, because I am unhinged from the Incarnation.
If church has no meaning, it probably doesn’t really exist, so the Catholic Church has no relevance in my life.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

“Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.”

I won’t accept that Christ became truly human.

Since Jesus did not really and substantially exist in the flesh, he could not have had true interactions with other human beings.

Since he did not interact with other human beings, he could not have given authority to anyone human.

If he did not truly reveal himself in the flesh and gift others with authority, my sole source of authority and revelation is words and ideas. Authority and revelation are separated from the human person. All I need to do is know Jesus in a way that is sensible to me.

Since I rely on my self and not other persons to know God, others who claim the gift of authority can only be trying to oppress me.

If others are trying to oppress me then I do not trust them.

Since I trust no one but myself, I owe obedience to nothing and no one.

Since I obey (listen to) no one but myself the concept of a church is meaningless. A church is only as true as the words and ideas I can understand, because I am unhinged from the Incarnation.
If church has no meaning, it probably doesn’t really exist, so the Catholic Church has no relevance in my life.

 

[rcwitness]

CCC
90 The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ.51 “In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or ‘hierarchy’ of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith.”52

Dogmas are “drawn” from the Deposit of Faith, which has it’s Supreme worth and foundation in the Eucharist and the Written Word. So as Dogmas are relavent Truths, which must be accepted, “must” becomes relative to its relation to the foundation.

Not accepting a Dogma which has much less relation to the foundation will not destroy the foundation, though that person will suffer loss in what was rejected.

So not accepting the Immaculate Assumption for example will not remove someone from the Foundation of the Gospel, but affect the construction of the house they have built for themselves. Though, it should not be something so strange considering this passage:

Matthew 27 (RSVCE)

The Death of Jesus

51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; 52 the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

 

[clem456]

%between%

Not sure where My Turtle is coming from or going there but it’s a neat graphic.
(keep in mind the thread asks for devil’s advocacy, not for truly held positions)

I’ve been through the RCIA process for about 6 years now with maybe 30-40 converts. The #1 obstacle for most of them is trusting a healthy authority and obedience. The understanding of authority and obedience have been so distorted in our culture as to be almost lost. They are equated with oppression and subservience respectively.

And this is the brilliance of RCIA. It is not just a series of lectures and handouts or scripture studies that demand obedience, it is a process through which people get to know people, and come to know Christ through human interaction and Christian witness, because Christ is a person, not a book.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Not sure where My Turtle is coming from or going there but it’s a neat graphic.
(keep in mind the thread asks for devil’s advocacy, not for truly held positions)

I’ve been through the RCIA process for about 6 years now with maybe 30-40 converts. The #1 obstacle for most of them is trusting a healthy authority and obedience. The understanding of authority and obedience have been so distorted in our culture as to be almost lost. They are equated with oppression and subservience respectively.

And this is the brilliance of RCIA. It is not just a series of lectures and handouts or scripture studies that demand obedience, it is a process through which people get to know people, and come to know Christ through human interaction and Christian witness, because Christ is a person, not a book.

Alas, I’ve met hundreds of Non-Catholic Christians that are obedient to their Pastors and/or Church body. And just an FYI there Orthodox are Non-Catholics and they are indeed obedient to their Church. Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians try to be obedient to their Churches as well. If you are going to point out at their denominations and branching out, you need to take a harder look and realize how many Catholics are leaving the Church as well and joining these communities. I would not be looking at their speck considering our plank.

The thread is directed to those who have an argument against becoming Catholic.

If you think about it, the whole reason why there are Non-Catholics is because Catholics themselves have a problem with authority. We are the ones that branched out of Rome.

I mostly enjoy your posts, but that one I did not like. Thus, Turtle

 

[clem456]

Alas, I’ve met hundreds of Non-Catholic Christians that are obedient to their Pastors and/or Church body. And just an FYI there Orthodox are Non-Catholics and they are indeed obedient to their Church. Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians try to be obedient to their Churches as well. If you are going to point out at their denominations and branching out, you need to take a harder look and realize how many Catholics are leaving the Church as well and joining these communities. I would not be looking at their speck considering our plank.

My post was not to point out differences between specific denominations but to illustrate a classic objection to Catholicism gleaned from practical experience. Catholicism is the object of this particular objection more than others because Catholicism proposes objective truths (at least in theory) more than other denominations.
Of course, Catholics are no different than anyone else. We are all rebellious.

The thread is directed to those who have an argument against becoming Catholic.

If you think about it, the whole reason why there are Non-Catholics is because Catholics themselves have a problem with authority. We are the ones that branched out of Rome.

Not sure what you mean by that. But yes, rebellion is part of the human condition.

 

[Stilldreamn]

My post was not to point out differences between specific denominations but to illustrate a classic objection to Catholicism gleaned from practical experience. Catholicism is the object of this particular objection more than others because Catholicism proposes objective truths (at least in theory) more than other denominations.
Of course, Catholics are no different than anyone else. We are all rebellious.

Not sure what you mean by that. But yes, rebellion is part of the human condition.

We have a few former Catholics in our LCMS congregation. What commonly broke them away from the Catholic church seems to be marriage-divorce-remarriage issues more than anything. Once you start with that, it’s easy to blame the church instead of your own sin.

My own marriage would be considered invalid in the Catholic church and it is very painful to acknowledge that.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

We have a few former Catholics in our LCMS congregation. What commonly broke them away from the Catholic church seems to be marriage-divorce-remarriage issues more than anything. Once you start with that, it’s easy to blame the church instead of your own sin.

I wouldn’t say that.

It’s not blaming the church and/or recognizing sin, necessarily. It’s the annulment process which brings up a canonical civil case (Just another court case really) that involves lawyers, psychologists, etc and having to re-live a painful experience all over again. In the end, you still have a divorce regardless of whether that marriage was valid or not. Well, it is valid under State law and Civil Law. It the wait process and that you are left behind while you wait, unless… you live as brother and sister. Which might just end up helping you get a 2nd or 3rd divorce… And where you have to pay for whoever needs to get involved in the process, even if it’s related to your ex.

In the end, you still were married and you still got divorced It’s like Sola Scriptura , it doesn’t make sense

My own marriage would be considered invalid in the Catholic church and it is very painful to acknowledge that.

A sin is a sin. It’s painful to admit and confess sin.

In reality, even if we look at someone else lustfully we commit adultery. Difference is that an adulterer and a serial killer can partake communion as long as they confess. A remarried Catholic cannot, unless you live as brother and sister. So… do I procreate as mandated or do I go against the mandate? On the one hand I disobey God and on the other I disobey the Church - It is the literal damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

The prospect for a remarried Catholic is Hell. That is a hell of a place to be.

 

[CaliLobo]

Simple answer: The guiltmongering.

Too many Catholics have been made to feel guilty for their sinful lives, and as a result they become former Catholics, as they are tired of being shamed and guilted for their sins.

Ask yourself, why don’t people go to confession? Perhaps it’s because confession, which is supposed to be an enlightening, healing experience, is rather a shameful, traumatic experience put on by priests!

Many escape to Evangelical Protestantism, where they feel they’ve found “freedom” from going through the motions of tradition, “freedom” from guilt and shame, and “freedom” from “being in Christ alone.”

I don’t think the synod will change any moral teachings. (Much ado about a bad translation!) But the synod will likely change the guiltmongering culture that the Catholic Church is known for.

It is a much needed synod to figure out how to let gays and divorcees, and others who have felt pushed away, feel at least welcomed in the Catholic Church.

Historically, those who were divorced and remarried without annulment were automatically excommunicated. While that may have deterred remarriage without annulment in the past, it no longer works as a deterrent in today’s world. Rather, it only pushes people away from the CC. That’s the kind of nuanced issue the synod is trying to address, in my opinion.

 

[MaryT777]

We have a few former Catholics in our LCMS congregation. What commonly broke them away from the Catholic church seems to be marriage-divorce-remarriage issues more than anything. Once you start with that, it’s easy to blame the church instead of your own sin.

My own marriage would be considered invalid in the Catholic church and it is very painful to acknowledge that.

My friend was a LCMS Pastor and the majority of Catholics he converted were Catholics that were divorced and remarried. They wanted no part of the annulment process and had left the Church.
Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

I wouldn’t say that.

It’s not blaming the church and/or recognizing sin, necessarily. It’s the annulment process which brings up a canonical civil case (Just another court case really) that involves lawyers, psychologists, etc and having to re-live a painful experience all over again. In the end, you still have a divorce regardless of whether that marriage was valid or not. Well, it is valid under State law and Civil Law. It the wait process and that you are left behind while you wait, unless… you live as brother and sister. Which might just end up helping you get a 2nd or 3rd divorce… And where you have to pay for whoever needs to get involved in the process, even if it’s related to your ex.

In the end, you still were married and you still got divorced It’s like Sola Scriptura , it doesn’t make sense

Good point.

A sin is a sin. It’s painful to admit and confess sin.

In reality, even if we look at someone else lustfully we commit adultery. Difference is that an adulterer and a serial killer can partake communion as long as they confess. A remarried Catholic cannot, unless you live as brother and sister. So… do I procreate as mandated or do I go against the mandate? On the one hand I disobey God and on the other I disobey the Church - It is the literal damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

The prospect for a remarried Catholic is Hell. That is a hell of a place to be.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You don’t know what dogma your denomination will define next, does it matter?

Yes and no. It matters in that I want to know. It doesn’t matter in that the Church is infallible, so it’s all good.

Did the RC denomination have the fullness of truth before 1870 when papal infalliblity was defined or after? How much more full than full can someone be?

Was an acorn full when it fell to the ground? Is the oak tree that sprang up full once the birds fill its branches. Same tree. Different look.

IMO the RC claims to be the fullness of truth but full is never quite full there is always a little more filling that needs to happen. When is the RC denomination going to finally declare itself full?

When do you think we will have learned everything there is to know about God?