Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

[Randy_Carson]

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.

I don’t. That’s why I asked.

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

House is a former Catholic. Possibly with an axe to grind.

I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he seems less open to correction and dialogue than other Lutherans who are active on this board.

Why? Former Catholic. Remember that.

 

[clem456]

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.

And the whole point of the Christian faith is that we did not know God very well. Hence the full revelation of God in the Incarnation.
We did not understand God for centuries, so he had to “come down here” in human flesh, in the person of Jesus Christ. Christ is God’s final word personified, but God’s own action tells us that our understanding of God’s person develops. He already gave us the book, and we did not “develop it”. God gives us a relationship with a real person. Our relationship with God and the expression of it develops even though God is who he is from all eternity. He does not change, we on the other hand do (hopefully)

 

[seanman611]

Let me first say that there is so much that I love about the Catholic Church, I strongly considered Catholicism before being confirmed in the Episcopal Church.

However, here is a small list (in no order):

1. The Pope has the ability to speak infallibly.
2. Contraception. Despite all the explanations I have heard, I don’t see any difference between NFP and a condom. I don’t need to see a bunch more explanations, I have seen, read, and heard it all.
3. Married vs. un-Married priests. The Catholic Church allows married priests in certain circumstances, like ex-Anglican/Episcopal priests. I can’t figure out why the RCC won’t open the priesthood to married men while leaving the Episcopate to celibate men.
4. Divorce and re-marriage. This is perhaps the biggest reason for family and myself. My wife was previously married to an abusive cheater and absolutely has grounds for an annulment. That being said, the idea of re-living the abuse and torment is something she absolutely refuses to go through. She also fears having him involved in her life again. Everybody can sit here and judge if they want to, but putting a women through 1.5-2 years of pain just to find out that the marriage wasn’t valid is something that would be sick. I’m not saying that the RCC needs to change its position on divorce and re-marriage, but they do need to take a serious look at the annulment process and they do need to recognize that some women (and men) simply cannot re-live their abuse over the 1.5-2 years it can take to get an annulment. Some even fear for their safety. Mercy and forgiveness needs to fit into the equation at some point.
5. Catholic Church seems to be trending liberal on all fronts these days. I simply don’t want to trade the liberal Episcopal headache for the liberal Catholic headache. The RCC is quite progressive liberal when it comes to economics/government and some high-ranking church officials have even claimed that libertarianism and Catholicism are incompatible. Considering the number of brilliant and devout libertarian Catholics out there (Jeff Tucker, Tom Woods), it is shocking that they could use the Church as a political weapon against those who they disagree with. The Pope is dangerously naive when it comes to economics, IMHO. Also, while the Church has not changed its official teachings on the matters, the RCC is softening on gay issues. Some may not be alarmed by these things, but social liberals did the same thing in the Episcopal Church. Start off small and then keep chipping away. Social liberals will certainly have the backing of the average parishioner as most lay Catholics are social liberals.

Outside of #4 and #5, I don’t have that many good arguments against becoming Catholic. I love the Catholic Church and if the current trend continues in the Episcopal Church, I will certainly be looking elsewhere.

 

[CaliLobo]

Let me first say that there is so much that I love about the Catholic Church, I strongly considered Catholicism before being confirmed in the Episcopal Church.

However, here is a small list (in no order):

1. The Pope has the ability to speak infallibly.
2. Contraception. Despite all the explanations I have heard, I don’t see any difference between NFP and a condom. I don’t need to see a bunch more explanations, I have seen, read, and heard it all.
3. Married vs. un-Married priests. The Catholic Church allows married priests in certain circumstances, like ex-Anglican/Episcopal priests. I can’t figure out why the RCC won’t open the priesthood to married men while leaving the Episcopate to celibate men.
4. Divorce and re-marriage. This is perhaps the biggest reason for family and myself. My wife was previously married to an abusive cheater and absolutely has grounds for an annulment. That being said, the idea of re-living the abuse and torment is something she absolutely refuses to go through. She also fears having him involved in her life again. Everybody can sit here and judge if they want to, but putting a women through 1.5-2 years of pain just to find out that the marriage wasn’t valid is something that would be sick. I’m not saying that the RCC needs to change its position on divorce and re-marriage, but they do need to take a serious look at the annulment process and they do need to recognize that some women (and men) simply cannot re-live their abuse over the 1.5-2 years it can take to get an annulment. Some even fear for their safety. Mercy and forgiveness needs to fit into the equation at some point.
5. Catholic Church seems to be trending liberal on all fronts these days. I simply don’t want to trade the liberal Episcopal headache for the liberal Catholic headache. The RCC is quite progressive liberal when it comes to economics/government and some high-ranking church officials have even claimed that libertarianism and Catholicism are incompatible. Considering the number of brilliant and devout libertarian Catholics out there (Jeff Tucker, Tom Woods), it is shocking that they could use the Church as a political weapon against those who they disagree with. The Pope is dangerously naive when it comes to economics, IMHO. Also, while the Church has not changed its official teachings on the matters, the RCC is softening on gay issues. Some may not be alarmed by these things, but social liberals did the same thing in the Episcopal Church. Start off small and then keep chipping away. Social liberals will certainly have the backing of the average parishioner as most lay Catholics are social liberals.

Outside of #4 and #5, I don’t have that many good arguments against becoming Catholic. I love the Catholic Church and if the current trend continues in the Episcopal Church, I will certainly be looking elsewhere.

Yes especially #4 and #5. Also the CC needs to do much more clarification regarding #2.

Anyone want to reply to my posts #134 and #141 about guiltmongering and once saved always saved?

 

[CrossofChrist]

For non-Catholics: Why are you non-Catholic and what, in your opinion, is the biggest strength of the Catholic Church?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

House is a former Catholic. Possibly with an axe to grind.

I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he seems less open to correction and dialogue than other Lutherans who are active on this board.

Why? Former Catholic. Remember that.

So let’s go ad hominem instead of dealing with the subject?

How about we deal with the subject and not the person for a change:

1. If it was already believed, why did it become a dogma?
2. How does it change Christ’s salvific work?
3. If it wasn’t a requirement for the faith for over 1,800 years why add it?
4. If it was possible for Catholics to achieve salvation without this dogma, why is it necessary now?

How about you address a fellow Catholic and not get personal?

You are correct when you say that there is a difference between adding to the faith and developing the faith. The difference is in the eye of the beholder. Of course, the common come back argument is: The Catholic Church says it.

Another question:

1. What happens when 2 or more that can bind and lose disagree? Where do you take it? To the Church or to Peter? We know the answer to that and that is what happened for the first 1,000 years. Our Catholic development happened after without all the Church, only the West agreed with the Papacy as it is today. I left the subject go at your request on another thread. This looks to be a thread prime to go over the subject. What say you?

Arguments from silence are not compelling and a 2-way street, btw

 

[Kliska]

For non-Catholics: Why are you non-Catholic and what, in your opinion, is the biggest strength of the Catholic Church?

I’ve talked a lot about the first bit, the second bit is interesting to me, though. The biggest strength, that’s tough. I think there is a definite pull for many non-denominational protestants like me that it would be a relief if we actually believed that the pope was infallible and could just tell us what to do, believe, etc… Kind of like having a leader in an army and everything they say goes, only they were never wrong when issuing direct orders. I also like the connected idea that each parish (in theory) is on the same page, so you can go in any RCC parish and (theoretically) have the same beliefs and actions present.

I’ve always felt that protestants do a good, clear, concise job presenting the gospel, and putting the emphasis on a direct relationship with God, but where we struggle is with the “now what?” lol

 

[Kliska]

So let’s go ad hominem instead of dealing with the subject?

How about we deal with the subject and not the person for a change:

1. If it was already believed, why did it become a dogma?
2. How does it change Christ’s salvific work?
3. If it wasn’t a requirement for the faith for over 1,800 years why add it?
4. If it was possible for Catholics to achieve salvation without this dogma, why is it necessary now?

How about you address a fellow Catholic and not get personal?

You are correct when you say that there is a difference between adding to the faith and developing the faith. The difference is in the eye of the beholder. Of course, the common come back argument is: The Catholic Church says it.

Another question:

1. What happens when 2 or more that can bind and lose disagree? Where do you take it? To the Church or to Peter? We know the answer to that and that is what happened for the first 1,000 years. Our Catholic development happened after without all the Church, only the West agreed with the Papacy as it is today. I left the subject go at your request on another thread. This looks to be a thread prime to go over the subject. What say you?

Arguments from silence are not compelling and a 2-way street, btw

I have to underscore, that from one outside of the RCC, that has never been in the RCC, this is a serious topic that needs addressed for those of us looking in and trying to respectfully and truly seek truth (and unity).

 

[clem456]

1. If it was already believed, why did it become a dogma?
2. How does it change Christ’s salvific work?
3. If it wasn’t a requirement for the faith for over 1,800 years why add it?
4. If it was possible for Catholics to achieve salvation without this dogma, why is it necessary now?

Why is even the tiniest piece of Christianity necessary?
This whole denial of the human and organic elements of the Church makes it easy to say “no” to anything. The Church is composed of living people with imperfect understanding. Really, what else can you say? If you don’t trust the divine-human relationship then Christianity is pointless. It’s everybody for himself. There is no such thing as authority. These issues are not as complex as the discussion makes it seem.

You are correct when you say that there is a difference between adding to the faith and developing the faith. The difference is in the eye of the beholder. Of course, the common come back argument is: The Catholic Church says it.

That is the valid argument in the end. There can be lots of discussion about the philosophical and theological underpinnings, but the argument to authority (a gift from Christ) is the nut of it.

 

[clem456]

I have to underscore, that from one outside of the RCC, that has never been in the RCC, this is a serious topic that needs addressed for those of us looking in and trying to respectfully and truly seek truth (and unity).

Consider for a second the word unity.
Unity of what? Of words and ideas? Or is it substantially a union of persons? Is heaven being in communion with a book, or a person, with other persons?
If it were just unity of words and ideas, God would have thrown a giant bible from the sky and there would be no ambiguity whatsoever in what unity consists of. As it is, we need each other to have a fully living faith. That includes recognition of the authority that Christ gifts to his Church.

 

[Kliska]

Consider for a second the word unity.
Unity of what? Of words and ideas? Or is it substantially a union of persons? Is heaven being in communion with a book, or a person, with other persons?
If it were just unity of words and ideas, God would have thrown a giant bible from the sky and there would be no ambiguity whatsoever in what unity consists of. As it is, we need each other to have a fully living faith. That includes recognition of the authority that Christ gifts to his Church.

We are given the unity model; Father, Son, Holy Spirit, three yet one. God did give us scripture, starting with Moses. There is a reason it was written and a reason Jesus constantly referred to the written word. Unity was the mark of the disciples and Jesus was clear; they will know you are my disciples if you love one another. How often we fail at that, and what a mark on our witness it is. The whole law can be summed up thus; Love the Lord and love your neighbor as yourself. We can’t even get that right most days.

 

[Vadim244]

I think that it would be good to start with a question “why you aren’t Orthodox Catholic, but why you are Roman Catholic?”. Can you provide, for example, some list of books which would prove to Orthodox Catholics that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church? No. Because I once asked via e-mail Roman Catholic expert, who translated acts of Fourth and Fifth Ecumenical Councils into English, Professor Fr Richard Price this question, and he replied:
Me: “Fr Richard, which books or articles would you recommend, after reading
of which an Orthodox believer will know enough information in order
to make the right choice between Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic
Church?”
Fr Richard: “I wouldn’t use the language of a ‘right choice’ between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches. Each is a part of the one Church of Christ our God. The ‘right choice’ for an individual, if he really faces such a ‘choice’, will depend on his particular culture and situation.”

 

[benjohnson]

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.

You’re correct!

I defiantly chose the wrong word - I was trying not to be acerbic. The Gospel does need teaching… but Lutheran’s don’t expect to see new dogma anytime soon.

 

[clem456]

We are given the unity model; Father, Son, Holy Spirit, three yet one. God did give us scripture, starting with Moses. There is a reason it was written and a reason Jesus constantly referred to the written word. Unity was the mark of the disciples and Jesus was clear; they will know you are my disciples if you love one another. How often we fail at that, and what a mark on our witness it is. The whole law can be summed up thus; Love the Lord and love your neighbor as yourself. We can’t even get that right most days.

How true.
The Trinity is the perfect model. Three persons in loving communion. Scripture does express this, although not explicitly. We needed development of doctrine to understand and express what “is”. Yet it existed before we expressed and understood it. Did the Church add a reality to the faith or simply express what already exists more fully?

In this day and age when we devalue personhood, I don’t think it’s any accident that we also misunderstand authority.

 

[Vadim244]

I think that the best arguments is that Roman Catholics themselves cannot explain why they aren’t Orthodox Catholics, but why they are Roman Catholics. Can you provide, for example, some list of books which would prove to Orthodox Catholics that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church? No. Because I once asked via e-mail Roman Catholic expert, who translated acts of Fourth and Fifth Ecumenical Councils into English, Professor Fr Richard Price this question, and he replied:
Me: “Fr Richard, which books or articles would you recommend, after reading
of which an Orthodox believer will know enough information in order
to make the right choice between Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic
Church?”
Fr Richard: “I wouldn’t use the language of a ‘right choice’ between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches. Each is a part of the one Church of Christ our God. The ‘right choice’ for an individual, if he really faces such a ‘choice’, will depend on his particular culture and situation.”

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Why is even the tiniest piece of Christianity necessary?
This whole denial of the human and organic elements of the Church makes it easy to say “no” to anything. The Church is composed of living people with imperfect understanding. Really, what else can you say? If you don’t trust the divine-human relationship then Christianity is pointless. It’s everybody for himself. There is no such thing as authority. These issues are not as complex as the discussion makes it seem.

That doesn’t address the very specific questions I asked. We are not pondering relationship, we are addressing very specific points that have driven a wedge on that relationship.

That is the valid argument in the end. There can be lots of discussion about the philosophical and theological underpinnings, but the argument to authority (a gift from Christ) is the nut of it.

Authority was shared among the Apostles, each had the authority from the Church not from only one of the Apostles. A Catholic has narrowed down that communion with Rome is needed in order to be in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. But that is not the case for others that also have Apostolic Faith.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

How true.
The Trinity is the perfect model. Three persons in loving communion. Scripture does express this, although not explicitly. We needed development of doctrine to understand and express what “is”. Yet it existed before we expressed and understood it. Did the Church add a reality to the faith or simply express what already exists more fully?

In this day and age when we devalue personhood, I don’t think it’s any accident that we also misunderstand authority.

Different circumstances.

The very essence of God was at question here. This is that fine line between development and addition.

 

[SteveVH]

I think that the best arguments is that Roman Catholics themselves cannot explain why they aren’t Orthodox Catholics, but why they are Roman Catholics.

Please, there is no such thing as “Roman Catholics”. There is the Catholic Church that comprises a variety of rites. And why they aren’t “Orthodox” is because they are in union with the successor of Peter.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So let’s go ad hominem instead of dealing with the subject?

I’m not attacking House; I’m explaining why House might have reasons to hold the views that he has.

How about we deal with the subject and not the person for a change:

Oh. Like I don’t deal with subject matter on a daily basis? Have you read many of my posts and threads? There are few who provide as much substantive material in their responses as I do.

1. If it was already believed, why did it become a dogma?

If it was already believed, then why NOT?

1. How does it change Christ’s salvific work?

It doesn’t.

1. If it wasn’t a requirement for the faith for over 1,800 years why add it?

Because it is now certain.

1. If it was possible for Catholics to achieve salvation without this dogma, why is it necessary now?

Since it was already believed, where is the problem?

Since those same Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is infallible, where is the problem?

But the answer, again, is because now it is certain.

How about you address a fellow Catholic and not get personal?

I will follow your kind example.

You are correct when you say that there is a difference between adding to the faith and developing the faith. The difference is in the eye of the beholder. Of course, the common come back argument is: The Catholic Church says it.

Is the Catholic Church infallible?

Another question:

1. What happens when 2 or more that can bind and lose disagree? Where do you take it? To the Church or to Peter? We know the answer to that and that is what happened for the first 1,000 years. Our Catholic development happened after without all the Church, only the West agreed with the Papacy as it is today. I left the subject go at your request on another thread. This looks to be a thread prime to go over the subject. What say you?

Arguments from silence are not compelling and a 2-way street, btw

Um…okay. What are we going to be discussing in the new thread?

And now a question for you: What is the meaning of “catolico”?

 

[TxGodfollower]

Catholicism is not “Roman”, HH, and it is not a denomination. All the denominations have been taken out of her - each defined by which parts, and to what extent Catholic doctrine is denied. Catholics did not “denominate” from anyone.

Denomination: a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices.

Sounds like the Catholic Church qualifies as a denomination to me