Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

[guanophore]

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.

No, he is genuine, but I think there is too much hurt and resentment for there to be much clearing for this particular former Catholic.

 

[Kliska]

But no living apostle COULD preach another gospel because they were prevented from doing so by the Holy Spirit.

That’s not what Paul says.

The angels fell not because of false teaching but because of rebellion. And they are not infallible.

Teaching isn’t just by word, but by deed. And that was also my point; angels are not infallible either.

 

[rcwitness]

Good stuff Guanophore!

 

[rcwitness]

That’s not what Paul says…

…Teaching isn’t just by word, but by deed. And that was also my point; angels are not infallible either.

Yes, there is teaching by example and Teaching by authority. Even Jesus distinguished between the two when He told the people to observe and do what those who “sit on the seat of Moses” teach, yet not what they do.

The Catholic Church likewise recognizes that she posseses and delivers the Teachings of Jesus through her authority in the Magisterium and the “Chair of Peter”. The Generation of Jesus (leadership) happened to be wicked. As a Church, we have had ugly generations. But there is always the Teachings which are trustworthy. Determining these “true” Teachings in a wicked generation, or leadership with a majority of poor Stewards, is an affliction for sure. Its a sure call to persecution and suffering. The Saints accept this suffering because they are fixed on Jesus in all they serve, so as not to compromise the Catholic Faith.

Interestingly enough, was that Peter did Confirm Paul’s Gospel, and gave him his right hand in fellowship. Also in his own epistle, Peter Confirmed to the Church that what Paul taught was worthy to be called the wisdom of Scripture!

2 Peter 3

“So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this[c] as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.”

This didnt “make” Paul’s epistles and Gospel Teachings innerant, yet Confirmed it so the Church could have assured knowledge and trust in Paul. Notice Peter gives Confirmation to ALL Paul’s letters. He was Confirming letters he had not even written yet as innerant!

 

[guanophore]

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.

I would not rule out that such documents exist, Vadim, just because one priest has this opinion. But the CCC says:

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

I came very near to becoming Orthodox, but in the end, I could not reject the importance of the Petrine Gifts, and seeing the divisions in the Church today, I could not reject the need for a visible sign of unity that I see in the successor of Peter.

 

[guanophore]

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

You did not cite your source, Tx, but I don’t think you just made this definition up out of the blue. If you look at the root origin of the word, it means to “take one’s name from” another source. The formation of denominations that represent a division of beliefs and practices is a modern innovation that began in the Reformation. It is based in the rejection of the authority appointed by Christ and the heresy of Sola Scriptura. At the Reformation, groups began to “denominate” from the Catholic Church. All modern Protestant congregations can be traced back to the Reformation. The CC did not “denominate” from anything.

 

[benhur]

Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

Thanks.

Because I was spiritually born protestant (that is non Catholic/Orthodox, though I thank them for any building blocks and seeds from the past) .

 

[guanophore]

Thanks, I’ll look at it. Next argument… Council of Apostles forbade to eat blood (Acts 15:29). But the Pope “cancelled” this prohibition at the Council of Florence, after the departure of Greeks. Therefore, we have direct contradiction between what Bible says and what Roman Catholic Church says. By the way, as a former Protestant you may find interesting that Luther also had problems with this, he said that Apostles ERRED when they forbade to eat blood.

It was a discipline intended to make the worship run smoother. In a mixed community of Jews and Gentiles, it was entirely too provacative to have the Gentiles eating blood. But we know from the writings of Paul that none of those dietary restrictions apply anymore. The Apostles were protecting those who were weak (new) in faith.

It is the same as the requirement for women to wear a veil in the Church. These disciplines were there to promote good order and unity. They are not doctrines, and therefore, can be changed, cancelled, or implemented in some places while not in others.
There is no “contradiction with the Bible”.

 

[friardchips]

Not right now; there have been at least 2 posters in this thread referring to proof of teaching being the person who said it rather than the teaching itself.

Why the rolling of the eyes? Sorry if my reply was confusing to you.

Galatians 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

As I mentioned; angels do err, just look at Satan and those angels he took with Him. (see Genesis, and Revelation for more detail).

Hi Kliska.

The angels who rebelled were given a choice at the start. After this initial fall, the angels that had remained in the light of God, cannot rebel. Angels are different to humans in this way. Our freewill is constant in this life, theirs was decided at the start.

Whether good angels can err, I don’t know. I’m not an angel. Generally being His messengers, I fail to see how they could, but hey, one day we’ll know… I would say that if St. Paul talked about angels erring then there are two ways he might have meant this, possibly: he might have been talking about fallen angels, and so to ignore them; the other reason is possibly that he was using something unlikely or impossible in order to make a point, e.g:- there’s more chance of the sun falling out of the sky than me misinforming you, type thing (not in the Bible - just giving you an example). So he could be saying: “There is more chance of an angel being wrong than me”. Most people don’t have long conversations with angels anyway so I fail to see the danger. But if this is not proof enough that St. Paul was, absolutely, speaking with total authority from Jesus Christ then, with all due respect, I don’t know what will…

So, to reiterate, St. Paul was driven by the Holy Spirit, as Randy Carson already said. Let’s remember St. Paul was commissioned by Christ Himself during a vision and so not someone to be taken lightly and certainly not to be dismissed. If his teaching seems to contradict anything we understand that we can be sure that we have got the context wrong and misunderstood him and he was probably dealing with certain things particular to his day on those occasions.

I remember with a fresh brain today the part in the Bible about St. Paul being a bit concerned over two followers and I remember him mentioning that he was casting them out into Satan’s hands for a while to teach them a lesson. I guess he meant casting them into the wilderness where they’d be at the mercy of Satan. Possibly the first example we have of excommunication.

 

[friardchips]

What tickles is that yesterday amongst heated debates someone had given the thread a lowly two-star rating but noticing it now someone has wacked it up to four! I’m just waiting now for someone to land a meteorite!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Because I was spiritually born protestant (that is non Catholic/Orthodox, though I thank them for any building blocks and seeds from the past) .

I was born a sinner, but I found my redeemer.
I was born in the North, but I found life in the South.
I was born a Protestant, but I found the Catholic Church.

All by the grace of God.

Perhaps you, too, might reconsider remaining where you were born.

 

[Randy_Carson]

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

**For the record, I am the person who decides what is and what is not proselytizing. Stay on the topic not each other. **

 

[SteveVH]

I agree with your point, but as most Catholics are baptized in infancy, they really don’t cognitively “realize” anything.

The meaning I was trying to convey with the word “realized” was “effectuated”, rather than a cognitive awareness. Looking back I see that it was I who changed the meaning of the word as it was being used in the discussion. Sorry for the confusion.

The moment that one professes and believes is more of a personal/experiential realization. Beyond the age of reason there may be many such moments of awareness of salvation, just as we profess in the daily Mass. It is a matter of laying hold of that which has laid hold of us.

I personally don’t like the construct of “losing” salvation. I don’t think we can lose that which we have not yet attained. In this life, we are working out our salvation in fear and trembling as long as we are in this life, and salvation is not “realized” in this world. Baptism does "save"us, and we are being saved, and will be saved.

Agreed.

 

[friardchips]

Kliska:
Dear Kliska,

I picked up on something you said to me about using this emoticon: - on my computer the eyes are not animated to roll so I don’t really use it as a rolling one’s eyes ‘sarcasm’ gesture; rather, I use that symbol as one way to take the heaviness off a debate - to take the edge off to show I’m relaxed. With that emoticon I use it to say (because the face looks this way): If you get me? If you understand my meaning? etc…I don’t think it is ever good to use any emoticon for making fun of someone. Miscommunication is a sure thing on a forum as one cannot see the other’s body language, so I find, after a short time on here, that it is better to show my disposition via emoticons. If one is angry, move away from the computer, take a breather and go back to it; or, fight the strain, take a deep breath, and use a smiley.

 

[benjohnson]

We Lutherans agree though we don’t demand agreement amongst ourselves. The trouble isn’t the theological truth… but making salvation contingent on this professing this truth.

We could theologically prove some other very meaningful truths, but I don’t think it’s quite nesessary to put more stumbling blocks in front of ourselves - we make enough of our own already.

Of course, this is all a moot point if one does not believe in the Immaculate Conception in the first place. Protestants are free to skim over all of the above.

Keep professing this truth too all, as it points to the nature of our Lord.

 

[Kliska]

Dear Kliska,

I picked up on something you said to me about using this emoticon: - on my computer the eyes are not animated to roll so I don’t really use it as a rolling one’s eyes ‘sarcasm’ gesture; rather, I use that symbol as one way to take the heaviness off a debate - to take the edge off to show I’m relaxed. With that emoticon I use it to say (because the face looks this way): If you get me? If you understand my meaning? etc…I don’t think it is ever good to use any emoticon for making fun of someone. Miscommunication is a sure thing on a forum as one cannot see the other’s body language, so I find, after a short time on here, that it is better to show my disposition via emoticons. If one is angry, move away from the computer, take a breather and go back to it; or, fight the strain, take a deep breath, and use a smiley.

lol Just goes to show how easy we can mess up communications for sure… I always say this would be a lot more fun and productive if we could all meet and discuss all of this over pie and coffee! Thank you for clarifying, I apologize for my assumption.

 

[friardchips]

lol Just goes to show how easy we can mess up communications for sure… I always say this would be a lot more fun and productive if we could all meet and discuss all of this over pie and coffee! Thank you for clarifying, I apologize for my assumption.

I’m having to back-tread a bit with (as another poster once put it) ‘hoof in mouth disease’!. I tend to be more chilled out during the day as opposed to midnight. So the apology stands, but must be from me. I could have been clearer and looking at the post again I do seem to have been a bit dismissive. I try to tame my posts with a smiley but I’m sure tinges of something came through in our case reading back over the post again and this would seem to be the case.

As for meeting, it would be easier for everyone, but the problem is that by the time I made it to the U.S. my pie and coffee would be cold!

Nice chatting with you.!

Sorry again!

 

[clem456]

What is the difference between
infallible or infallibility
and
authority, which proposes teaching for the assent of the faithful?

Some even more basic Christian questions:

What is Christian authority? Does it really exist?
If it exists, who has it and why? Who is subject to it?

What is obedience? Can a person be a Christian without giving obedience to an ecclesial body?

These are in my experience the two biggest arguments against Catholicism by non-Catholics and Catholics alike.

 

[friardchips]

What is the difference between
infallible or infallibility
and
authority, which proposes teaching for the assent of the faithful?

The Pope is infallible. He cannot err on matters of doctrine, faith and morals. Therefore, Catholics believe the R.C Church is always the authority over matters arising. Dogmas cannot be changed. Doctrines can develop - this is always led by the Pope when they do.

Those lower than the Pope but who do have authority in the Church can err although they are to be trusted, unless we are told not to trust them by a higher authority. In other words, there is a hierarchy. Mentioning obedience in another context to the one you were using it in later on, it is a good thing to show trusting obedience to one’s religious superiors - priests, Bishops etc…as this shows humility and trust in Christ’s providential care.

What is Christian authority? Does it really exist?

If you look back over a few pages there has been discussions dealing with this question. These discussions were centred mainly on the Scripture passage in which Jesus declares Peter the Rock on which His future Church is to be founded.

If it exists, who has it and why? Who is subject to it?

• And this.

What is obedience? Can a person be a Christian without giving obedience to an ecclesial body?

The answer given will depend on whether one is viewing the question as a Roman Catholic!