Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

[rcwitness]

Could a Catholic have the fullness of truth in 1869 if he denied the infalliblity of the Pope?

No, not if he rejects a truth. Yet the Church still contained and delivered that truth.

How about in 1949 if he denied the assumption of Mary?

No, and still the Church had this truth hidden within the Deposit of Faith.

How do you know that you have the fullness of truth today when tomorrow the faith might be more full?

Because I accept that His Church contains all truth within His Eucharist. The faith does not become more full, more more fully realized.

The Church obviously does not claim to have revealed every single aspect of Truth. For example, ther are things in heaven which she does not claim to have knowledge of. All these things, the Father has not revealed to her. The entire faith which the Father does wish the faithfull to accept is given to His Catholic Church.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

Thanks.

The top job’s already taken.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What if the Church gets it wrong, like in Exurge Domine article 33?

The Catholic Church is infallible when teaching formally on matters of faith and morals. Scripture is clear on this. So, no worries.

Jesus didn’t had down an acorn to believers, he handed down the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. No additions necessary.

True. Not one thing will be added.

However, we come understand that faith more completely the longer we pray about it, and thus, our understanding DEVELOPS over time.

Matthew 13:31-32
31 He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32 Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches.”

Jesus left behind a seedling Church that has grown to cover the earth: the Catholic Church.

God is infinite so never. But fortunately there is no new information that God is waiting to spring on us about himself or the faith.

Yes and No. Public revelation has ended. However, we are still mining the riches of what we have been given.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Could a Catholic have the fullness of truth in 1869 if he denied the infalliblity of the Pope? How about in 1949 if he denied the assumption of Mary?

How do you know that you have the fullness of truth today when tomorrow the faith might be more full?

Yes and no. Objectively, he would not have the “fullness of truth” since something was missing. But, yes, he could still be professing the fullness of the faith as defined at that time.

Someone in 1869 may have not known about the infallibility of the Pope OR EVEN DENIED IT. In 1870, that same person would be obligated to submit to the formal teaching of an infallible teaching.

Same with the Assumption.

And for any doctrine that may be defined in the future.

Now, can you honestly say that YOU know everything there is to know about God today? :nope:

Does the Lutheran Church have theologians? Why bother?

There’s nothing new since the Book of Concord, and you aren’t interested in anything they may have to say anyway…

 

[Randy_Carson]

The top job’s already taken.

Hence they go elsewhere where they can be “Pope” of their own church of two or three gathered in His name.

 

[Peter_J]

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?

As Cardinal Newman wrote " … the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum".

 

[clem456]

Could a Catholic have the fullness of truth in 1869 if he denied the infalliblity of the Pope? How about in 1949 if he denied the assumption of Mary?

How do you know that you have the fullness of truth today when tomorrow the faith might be more full?

How can a person deny what he can’t know?
If a doctor didn’t give a sick person penicillin in the 15th century, was the doctor in rebellion? Can this doctor be considered as deceiving himself and others?
No of course not. Penicillin had not yet been understood.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

How can a person deny what he can’t know?
If a doctor didn’t give a sick person penicillin in the 15th century, was the doctor in rebellion? Can this doctor be considered as deceiving himself and others?
No of course not. Penicillin had not yet been understood.

Nobody knew that the Pope was infallible until 1870? Why would it take that long for people to learn such a doctrine?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Yes and no. Objectively, he would not have the “fullness of truth” since something was missing. But, yes, he could still be professing the fullness of the faith as defined at that time.

Someone in 1869 may have not known about the infallibility of the Pope OR EVEN DENIED IT. In 1870, that same person would be obligated to submit to the formal teaching of an infallible teaching.

Same with the Assumption.

And for any doctrine that may be defined in the future.

Now, can you honestly say that YOU know everything there is to know about God today? :nope:

Does the Lutheran Church have theologians? Why bother?

There’s nothing new since the Book of Concord, and you aren’t interested in anything they may have to say anyway…

Who said I wasn’t interested? Lutherans have loads of theologians.

The difference is that Lutherans don’t take theological speculation and turn it into dogma and doctrine over time, thereby adding to the faith.

Tommorow there could be a new Catholic doctrine. Tomorrow there isn’t going to be a new Lutheran doctrine.

 

[clem456]

Who said I wasn’t interested? Lutherans have loads of theologians.

The difference is that Lutherans don’t take theological speculation and turn it into dogma and doctrine over time, thereby adding to the faith.

Tommorow there could be a new Catholic doctrine. Tomorrow there isn’t going to be a new Lutheran doctrine.

So you believe a human being, at a particular time, is capable of knowing God in the fullest sense? Face to face, mind to mind, will to will?
So in other words, when Simon met Christ at the dock and shook His hand, Christ transmitted all the fullness of the faith to him?

Why aren’t infants given steak, why don’t we harvest grapes from saplings, and why didn’t 15th century Europe drive cars?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

So you believe a human being, at a particular time, is capable of knowing God in the fullest sense? Face to face, mind to mind, will to will?
So in other words, when Simon met Christ at the dock and shook His hand, Christ transmitted all the fullness of the faith to him?

Why aren’t infants given steak, why don’t we harvest grapes from saplings, and why didn’t 15th century Europe drive cars?

No, as I said before in this thread, God is infiinite we are finite. We can never fully comprehend God.

Fortunately, God isnt transmitted any new knowledge about himself or the faith. Tomorrow there isn’t going to be some knew doctrine to know about God.

 

[SteveVH]

Who said I wasn’t interested? Lutherans have loads of theologians.

The difference is that Lutherans don’t take theological speculation and turn it into dogma and doctrine over time, thereby adding to the faith.

Tommorow there could be a new Catholic doctrine. Tomorrow there isn’t going to be a new Lutheran doctrine.

Why do you keep saying this when it has been proven to you time and again that it isn’t true?

Name a doctrine and tell us, specifically, how it has changed, or name a theological speculation that has turned into doctrine “over time”, or refrain from making this false charge against the Church.

 

[clem456]

No, as I said before in this thread, God is infiinite we are finite. We can never fully comprehend God.

Fortunately, God isnt transmitted any new knowledge about himself or the faith. Tomorrow there isn’t going to be some knew doctrine to know about God.

ok. ?

Not sure what we are discussing then.

 

[clem456]

HH
When Simon meets Christ at the dock, does Simon understand the fullness of revelation with the handshake? He is meeting Christ himself, so…? Could Simon give the fullest expression of Christ at that moment?
If that’s the case, why did Christ even bother becoming human, if he could infuse full understanding into us instantaneously? He could have given us an instruction booklet, end of story.

When you were born, did you understand the fullness of revelation?
Could you give full expression to your faith at age 10?

How do you handle these questions?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Nobody knew that the Pope was infallible until 1870? Why would it take that long for people to learn such a doctrine?

It was understood previously but not formally defined.

I’d like to ask: are you trolling or genuinely ignorant?

If the latter, we’re happy to clear things up for you. If the former, you won’t get very far with this line of reasoning.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Who said I wasn’t interested? Lutherans have loads of theologians.

Why? What exactly do Lutheran theologians do all day?

The difference is that Lutherans don’t take theological speculation and turn it into dogma and doctrine over time, thereby adding to the faith.

Your error lies here. When the Church reaches a point at which a theological truth can be defined, that is not adding to the faith. That is clarifying faith that was previously held with less certainty.

My in-laws were alive in 1950 when the Assumption was defined. I asked them about how they felt. They said, “Well, it’s what we always believed, so we were happy to hear the news, but it was really nothing new.”

Mull that over.

Tommorow there could be a new Catholic doctrine. Tomorrow there isn’t going to be a new Lutheran doctrine.

Yes or No:

Does doctrine develop?

Has the Lutheran Church has ossified?

 

[benjohnson]

It was understood previously but not formally defined.

I’d like to ask: are you trolling or genuinely ignorant?

Why do you assume HH is trolling? It’s a genuine concern for those of faith that they not build their houses on shifting sand.

For example that HH isn’t making stuff up just to be difficult: There were Catholics at the time who had the same view of the new dogma of Papal Infalibilty and retained the older teaching

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church

 

[benjohnson]

Yes or No:

Does doctrine develop?

Not to speak for anybody, but as I understand it, the Lutheran expectation follows Hebrews 1:1-2

“In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.”

In that, the faith received through God is sufficient, and needs no expounding.

As such, we are to be very careful - for historically most of the heresies of the church has come from it’s own bishops and priests.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No, as I said before in this thread, God is infiinite we are finite. We can never fully comprehend God.

Fortunately, God isnt transmitted any new knowledge about himself or the faith. Tomorrow there isn’t going to be some knew doctrine to know about God.

Why do you keep saying this when it has been proven to you time and again that it isn’t true?

Name a doctrine and tell us, specifically, how it has changed, or name a theological speculation that has turned into doctrine “over time”, or refrain from making this false charge against the Church.

ok. ?

Not sure what we are discussing then.

Gentlemen:

House does not understand the difference between “adding to” the faith (which we would all disapprove of) and the legitimate development of doctrine.

Consequently, he rejects dogmas that were defined as a result of development because he mistakenly sees them as additions.

One natural question, however, is this: At what point in Church history did acceptable development end? Because the hypostatic union and the Trinity were NOT fully understood until long after the era of enscripturation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not to speak for anybody, but as I understand it, the Lutheran expectation follows Hebrews 1:1-2

“In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.”

In that, the faith received through God is sufficient, and needs no expounding.

Ben-

We know that is false because scripture explicitly says so:

2 Peter 3:16
16 [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Clearly, Peter believes that some scripture needs clarification.