Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But it seems difficult to know for sure exactly which Christian group today best expresses the “true” ideas Jesus had in mind to make the church that he said he wanted to build that day.
DaddyGirl-

I’m going to give you a longer than normal answer, because I think it will help you to see that the Catholic Church today IS the Church that Jesus built beginning with Peter, the rock.

The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

For the early Fathers, “the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’” (ibid.).

Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be “profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field” (ibid., 41).

Here are two examples of the writings of the Early Church Fathers

Clement of Rome (fourth pope of the Catholic Church)

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Irenaeus

“3The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen from the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that He still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded; and Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who also was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus; after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us.” (Against Heresies 3.3.3, [A.D. 180])

See? We know who the successors of Peter were…all the way down to Pope Francis today.
 
Can a person remain honest and assent to something that person doesn’t truly believe?
It depends on what you mean by “believe”.

One reason to believe is because we have faith in the source:

2Ti 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it

You don’t need to understand it fully to know it’s true, based on faith in the person that told you.

Even St. Peter, speaking for ALL the Apostles, had trouble with a revealed truth about the Eucharist:

Joh 6:65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

So, St. Peter said that he will choose to believe, based not on his senses or his sensibilities, but on the basis of the Word of God.

Some things can be like that for us. Jesus told us that He would guide His Church into all truth, and based on that, we can believe.
 
Indeed. I think Dominus Iesus does a magnificent job at explaining it.
Indeed. Paragraph 17 is quite powerful in my view.
Because they clearly follow an Apostolic line of thinking and Church history. When compared to the Assumption, there is silence and an absence of it being a matter of The Way, The Faith necessary for Salvation.
The Papacy in its present form, for example, was born out of division. Without the Whole Church.
I would say, rather, that the Papacy, in its present form, was present if latent all along precisely in anticipation of division. 😛
The whatever is later given to the whole and not a sole individual. Meaning the whatever is attached to the whole - not the divided whole.
How can this be true? Not all of Jesus’ followers were given this authority - only the twelve. Therefore, the whole church did not receive that authority - only the leadership. Now if you want to say that the authority was given to the Church through the apostles…well, okay, but who has that authority now if not their successors, the bishops?

Moreover, while the Eleven received real authority as apostles, only one was given the keys of the office of Royal Steward and only that one, Peter, was told to feed and tend and strengthen all of the other sheep in the flock. There may have been 12 steward total, but only one was the chief steward with the keys to prove it.
Really? Can I please have a list of infallible teaching declared by the Church? If there is none, then what’s the point?
The list would be too long for everything taught infallibly by the Ordinary Magisterium is considered infallible. However, what addresses your concern directly is the fact that if you have a specific issue, that issue CAN be taken to the Pope for a final ruling. (Fat chance, but the mechanism is there when it is truly necessary.)
It’s a stone in my shoe!
Well, I’m glad to have been able to free you from this annoyance.

Go in peace. :signofcross:
 
How do you know that they are Saints? Just because Roman Catholic Church said so? ? I don’t find that they are, nor that they look like Saints – for example, what about the fact that John Pope II kissed a Quran? I cannot imagine that an Apostle, for example, would kiss a Quran.
Yes.

This is all we need to know.
 
As did Paul, James and others throughout history.
As do Bishops today. Yet they are accountable now, as they were then, to the holder of the office of St. Peter.
Again, I have no problem with Peter’s primacy and leadership. But the exercise of that leadership has drastically changed. (By the way, my first language is Spanish and we use the word: Apacienta in all three instances - apacienta means to lead and to care).
Yes; this highlights the problem of translations. They are imperfect. The Gospels record Jesus’ as using different words, with different meanings. It is the originals that are theopneustos.
I don’t think it was one Bishop to rule them all 😉 But one Bishop to lead them all.
The Greek implies BOTH.
There is a big difference between a leader and a ruler:
A ruler practically owns his subjects, as the subjects are accountable to their ruler, but the ruler isn’t necessarily accountable to them.
As are sheep to the shepherd, as Jesus appointed St. Peter to be.
Which is contrary to the “Who is the greatest” argument the Apostles had and Christ’s response.
On the contrary, it is completely in-line with His response.
Mt 20:25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.
26 It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant,
27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave;
28 even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Notice that Jesus didn’t deny that there would be a leader; in fact, he assumes that. He just wants to admonish them that they shouldn’t take advantage of the authority they will be given. But that in itself presupposes that they DO have authority. After all, He is giving Himself as the model, and I think we can all agree that, although He exercises it mercifully, He has Authority.
A leader is someone that carries a collective, basically a prime navigator. This is much more in line with the NT and Early Church history. Peter leads the Council of Jerusalem and James reaches a decision based on Peter’s lead.
Sorry, no.

St. Peter reaches the decision.
St. James then, as the Bishop of the local diocese, sends out a pastoral letter on how to implement St. Peter’s decision.
That is nowhere near what is now practiced after Dictatus Papae and the documents and canon that follows.
Not as thoroughly documented, but with the very same effect.
 
I don’t know…I don’t know how this quote works as a solid reason, though.
When he said those words, there wasn’t a church yet–they were a small group of Jews with some new ideas.
And? I take it you believe in prophecy? And I take it you believe that Jesus IS God? And that He knew He had a mission from the Father? So what don’t you still understand about this text?
And then, during the first 3-4 centuries after he died, there were all sorts of ideas and beliefs as to what it meant to be “Christian”. (even disciple Paul sometimes contradicted himself in what he thought, right?)
Not really.
When Constantine chose which “group” to follow in the 300s, there were several he could have chosen from, as per history books on early Christianity.
The group he chose–which eventually became the group called “Catholic”–took shape over a long time via decisions made by new people, long after the apostles/disciples were gone.
But had Constantine chosen differently and spread a different kind of Christianity over the Roman Empire, what we call “Catholic” today might look very different than as we know it.
I don’t know where you got this from. Have you got the source link or book please?
When you say “one true church” I assume you mean the church Jesus meant to build, as per the quote you cite from the Christian canon.
From the Catholic Bible. Yes, it is in there for all to see.
But it seems difficult to know for sure exactly which Christian group today best expresses the “true” ideas Jesus had in mind to make the church that he said he wanted to build that day.
The true Church is the Church handed down through the Popes from Peter commissioned by Jesus Himself. Admittedly, this takes trust, and not a case of just picking our own ideas as if faith is merely a nice bit of clothing hanging on rail in a shop which suits our tastes. Faith is a narrow path and a difficult one which we all fail at walking along from time to time but this doesn’t mean trying to shape God and the Christian belief to what best suits our own limited ideas about what suits us best, which is exactly the case outside of the Roman Catholic Church, because if one is to research how the other branches of Christianity started you will see they had no such authority from Christ to rebel.

🤷🙂
 
I left the Church and shortly after, my belief in God in my very early 30’s. It was a life changing time of my life.

The argument that worked on me, was I simply came to realize that there was absolutely no evidence that God was real, that no one heard my prayers, that the real presence was a fiction, that so much of the belief system fell apart under scrutiny and the only way I’d ever be free, was to open my eyes and accept the truth.

God is not real.
 
Do you mind drawing me a map on how you reached this conclusion with what I’m saying?

Right. That is not what I am arguing. Can you truly understand the Trinity and how exactly it works? I know I can’t. But I believe it.

It deals with the nature of God and His revelation to us through the Church.

That is an entirely different level than the assumption.

So just submit and lie to yourself and the Church? Got it.

I believe in the Assumption…

The question remains unanswered,… (Other than, Why not and Just Because)

Why is it necessary for Salvation and Communion with Rome if it doesn’t change anything in the salvific mystery of Christ?
 
I left the Church and shortly after, my belief in God in my very early 30’s. It was a life changing time of my life.

The argument that worked on me, was I simply came to realize that there was absolutely no evidence that God was real, that no one heard my prayers, that the real presence was a fiction, that so much of the belief system fell apart under scrutiny and the only way I’d ever be free, was to open my eyes and accept the truth.

God is not real.
https://www.discountpostersale.com/...ad---Nietzsche----Nietzsche-is-Dead---God.jpg

😃

On the other hand, my experience has been the complete opposite to yours. I am sorry about your suffering. I pray that Christ reveals Himself to you.
 
I left the Church and shortly after, my belief in God in my very early 30’s. It was a life changing time of my life.

The argument that worked on me, was I simply came to realize that there was absolutely no evidence that God was real, that no one heard my prayers, that the real presence was a fiction, that so much of the belief system fell apart under scrutiny and the only way I’d ever be free, was to open my eyes and accept the truth.

God is not real.
I disagree with every fibre of my being.

Sometimes we have to persist even if we ‘feel’ or experience what we think of as nothing. This can change at any time because God made life as we know it out of nothing. Some people experience more than others and this is the way it is. Maybe some people experience more because they need that closeness in a particular way at that time. There could have been X-number of reasons why you were not to ‘feel’ *those things * as strongly as others, or at all, and I feel sad you gave up, but wish you well in your life’s journey and hope you come to believe and rightfully claim the inheritance that you have. If you are living a life of kindness then there is no reason why you cannot.

‘You may have given up on God but He never gives up on you’.

God bless. 🙂
 
Several people in the thread pointed to the person as the source of the teaching… but Paul clearly says that he could err, and even that an angel from Heaven could err (we already know a third did). The message was what was checked. If Paul, an Apostle, or an angel preached a different gospel, then it was a big fail. There were already those in the church trying to teach false teaching.
 
Do you mind drawing me a map on how you reached this conclusion with what I’m saying?
I think he did. 🙂
I believe in the Assumption…
The question remains unanswered,… (Other than, Why not and Just Because)
Why is it necessary for Salvation and Communion with Rome if it doesn’t change anything in the salvific mystery of Christ?
I’ll answer your question if you can first tell me why it’s necessary to believe in the Virgin Birth.

Or, don’t you think it’s necessary?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top