Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

[rcwitness]

Where are all the young adult, devout Catholics? Maybe it’s a Canada problem.

Many of them may not be in church at all, while many are in a more “loose” and “less demanding” communion. Communions that offer “just Jesus” without focussing on His difficult Teachings, and duties.

I agree that there should be better faith formation for our youth. I hope to be more involved in this soon. I have participated in some healthy youth groups in my parents Evangelical Free church. I think many good natured people seek these “easier” and “fun” based communities because there is less “structure” and “sanction” in smaller churches, so more freedom.

:twocents:

 

[Kount_C]

Hi. What you think is helping you might be not be and what we don’t think is helping might be. This is what discernment is for and getting on with it and having faith.

Because faith isn’t all about feelings and religion isn’t all about picking the prettiest designed box in the Supermarket.

So we agree to disagree then. Excellent!

 

[benjohnson]

As I said, people seem to be on here to galvanise their present understanding.

I know for me, that may be partially true - but I’ve learned enough about Catholic thought to respect it, even if I don’t agree with it.

I’ve also learned a lot on pro-life issues that Catholic have bravely carried forward and brought that to my particular church.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I doesn’t matter if anybody has ever declared it to be infallible teaching. As per the definition of the First Vatican Council, it only matters if in the document the Roman Pontiff by virtue of his office defined a doctrine concerning faith or morals which must be held by the whole church.

:yup:

 

[Isaiah45_9]

As for Papal Infallibility, it seems murky at best as to when it’s actually been applied. My understanding of it is, “The Pope’s speaking infallibly when he talks all official-like and says something in line with the Tradition of the Church.” But with all the extra criteria that get added in, a lot of people say that the Pope has only spoken twice in recorded history, whereas others make up a way more massive list. The lack of agreement among Catholics as to when the Pope is infallibly speaking is pretty damning in my view.

This is probably the single most aggravating issue with infallibility. Give a definition and let the fallible people stamp it…

And Papal Supremacy and Papal Universal Jurisdiction seem in my eyes to be completely against what everyone knows to be the history of the Church. The way Vatican 1 words those two things is impossible to get around. I understand that subsequent Popes have explained that their supremacy and universal jurisdiction are in terms of love, encouragement, advisement and checking in on how things are going, but that is not at all what I see Vatican 1 saying. As a disclaimer,I do not in any way dispute Papal primacy. What I DO dispute, are the Vatican 1 dogmas of Papal Supremacy and Papal Universal Jurisdiction.

It did not exist until after Dictatus Papae ~1090AD.

The idea that a Pope can’t be contradicted or overruled by an Ecumenical Council flies in the face of history, so I cannot possibly accept that. We’ve seen Popes being reviewed by Ecumenical Councils (the Council of Chalcedon thoroughly read and discussed Pope St. Leo’s Tome before accepting it as orthodox; it was by no means automatically accepted as authoritative just because Pope Leo issued it), and an Ecumenical Council has both condemned a Pope (i.e. Honorius, but I don’t feel like re-opening that can of worms).

This was a big problem during the Papal Schism (Avignon Controversy), disputing Popes were looking into manipulating a Council in their favor. Conciliarism is then kicked out and another new development is born.

So no, I see neither evidence nor support for the ideas of Papal Supremacy or Papal Universal Jurisdiction–at least not how Vatican 1 explains them. If only what later Popes say on the matter was the dogmatic definition of these, and not the decrees of Vatican 1. If it wasn’t for the overly monarchical sense I get from these two dogmas, I might still be Catholic today. As it is now, everything’s in flux about whether or not I find my way back into communion with the Pope.

I’m in the same boat…

 

[rcwitness]

Can. 749

1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.
2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.
3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident

 

[clem456]

It’s interesting… the Catholic Church very seldom appeals to the concept of infallibility, almost never in fact, but non-Catholics are always looking for it, looking for proof of it, as if Jesus is going to hit them in the head with a book. Some are obsessed with infallibility (some Catholics as well to be fair).
I find that very interesting.

Obsessed with things Catholic, isn’t the next logical step to begin the RICA process and discover what it means to be the “servant of servants.”

 

[friardchips]

So we agree to disagree then. Excellent!

Not exactly. It is not picking and choosing it is about trusting that what is inside brings true nourishment. All Protestant belief, no matter how one views it, is Protestant because of ‘being in protest to (the R.C Church)’ rather than just getting on with it, getting in line and jumping back onto the ship that Christians started out on before Henry VIII, and Martin Luther, and goodness knows who else did all this damage. IMHO.

…however, this is probably never going to happen so we have to see the good in one another, and do good, and basically not make matters worse. If you love God then who am I to say otherwise?! I do have a love for the Church but this should not be in the place of trying to love others outside of the Catholic faith because otherwise what good is faith doing me?!

Do we still agree. If so, excellent!

 

[friardchips]

I know for me, that may be partially true - but I’ve learned enough about Catholic thought to respect it, even if I don’t agree with it.

I’ve also learned a lot on pro-life issues that Catholic have bravely carried forward and brought that to my particular church.

It sounds as if you have an open mind and heart. Pro life issues are all important and need everyone’s prayers and (name removed by moderator)ut from every Christian. If we can find solidarity in fighting for the same issues then this is good. If we are not against each other we are for each other and vice-versa.

 

[Shiranui117]

Hi Shiranui117; this is off topic from some of the points you have made, but you seem knowledgeable in this area and I’ve never seen a response to the following question.

In Luke 22 the Apostles are arguing over who is the greatest and while Jesus says to be more humble about it all eventually He turns to Peter and says

31 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, { The Greek word for b you b ( twice in this verse ) is plural; in verse 32, all four instances are singular } that he might sift you like wheat,

32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers. "

---

What’s “sift you like wheat”? And Jesus seemed to pray specifically for Peter while Satan demanded to sift all of them.

Satan wants to tempt us, hammer us with his assaults and destroy us by separating us from God.

According to St. Cyil of Alexandria in his 144th sermon in his second volume of homilies on St. Luke’s Gospel, Jesus prays for Peter because Peter was both the leader of the Apostles (hence Jesus admonishing the Apostles not to lord power over one another, nor to set themselves up over each other, but rather to place themselves under each other and serve one another in love). Peter was also very faithful–it was his confession of faith in Christ that served as the rock upon which Jesus would build His Church (this is according to several Saints, such as St. Augustine and Pope St. Gregory the Great, who I’ll be quoting here shortly). Because of Peter’s strong faith, Satan wanted to come at him especially hard, much like how Satan wanted to attack Job. And because Satan was going to come at Peter especially hard, He prayed for Peter specifically.

And we know that, when tempted, Peter denied Christ three times. It wasn’t until later that he was reconciled to Christ and readmitted to his former position when Christ asked Peter if he loved him three times. And when Peter was strengthened after being reconciled to Christ, that is when he really came into his role as chief of the Apostles, speaking on their behalf. And yet, even after all that, Peter still gets rebuked later on by St. Paul for kowtowing to the Judaizers. He then comes to his senses and joins the others in condemning Judaizing as a heresy at the Council of Jerusalem.

You can find the sermon I mentioned if you scroll waaaaayyyyyy down and look for Sermon CXLIV. It’ll start on page 674.

Catholics often say this is proof of Peter holding the Church together while the Apostles will have division.

The passage says nothing about the Apostles being divided. It does imply that they’ll need some encouragement and strengthening. St. Cyril says that Peter’s “brethren” are all those who come to faith in Christ–we’re the ones who need strengthening.

Plus, what do you do about St. Gregory the Great’s quote that there are three Petrine sees?

Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand.** But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair who occupies Peter’s chair. And, though special honour to myself in no wise delights me, yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me. For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven Matthew 16:19. And again it is said to him, And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren (xxii. 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me? Feed my sheep John 21:17. Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one.** For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.

St. Gregory refers to Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria as the successor of Peter who sits on Peter’s Chair.

St. Gregory also says that Peter gets his name from the soundness of his faith, which is the rock.

And St. Gregory’s last point is that the See of Peter is in three places–which we know to be Antioch, Alexandria and Rome.

 

[jmcrae]

I would like to add to what was said by Barrett with my own observation. Like Barrett I don’t know if this is a statistic or just anecdotal.

When I was becoming Catholic there were no young people there, except for some kids (11-17ish) with their parents. I didn’t see the pews packed with young adults.

I then asked the Priest and looked online for some young adult groups. Bible studies, worship groups, anything really to meet young adult Catholics. I was very unlucky in my search.

Where are all the young adult, devout Catholics? Maybe it’s a Canada problem.

Do a search for Catholic Christian Outreach; if you’re near a big city, there’s one near you. That’s where a great many of our young adults are, these days.

 

[clem456]

Some so radically misunderstand the concept of authority that the New Covenant becomes, for them, a contract between master and slave. Looking for declarations of infallibility around every corner robs one of the opportunity for growth, trust, and assent to something other than one’s self.

The Catholic conception of faith recognizes the gratuitous nature of it. It is not something we invent of our own intellect. It is a gift from God. A living faith is a two way street, part of the covenant relationship. Faith is not a legal proof. Faith is not proven by declarations of authority. Genuine authority springs from the divine-human relationship. Christ became flesh to give us a share of himself not to bind us in slavery to his infallibility (which exists).

 

[Shiranui117]

Its a weak argument to use the fact that bishops have disobeyed popes as proof that they don’t have universal authority. It just means that they were insubordinate, and in many cases, the popes were humble enough to not allow that to cause greater schism.

So numerous Saints and Ecumenical Councils were insubordinate?

Ecumenical Councils have gotten Popes to change their ruling about what is orthodox and what is not. The Fifth Ecumenical Council forced Pope Vigilius to condemn the Three Chapters as heretical, when the Pope had previously defended them as orthodox.

Numerous people forced the Pope to lift an excommunication he placed against the Quartodecimians, including people in his own church, and therefore, people who were under his authority.

Insubordination is one thing. Forcing the Pope to change his position on a doctrinal matter is a whole other ball game that we must face and deal with.

The fact is, in reality the pope has as much authority as we allow him. Yet Jesus gave Peter the authority to bind and lose whatever. So to not respect the popes authority has consequences of not respecting Christ’s authority.

The power of binding and loosing belongs to all the Apostles, not just Peter, even though Peter is the first among equals.

 

[friardchips]

Some so radically misunderstand the concept of authority that the New Covenant becomes, for them, a contract between master and slave. Looking for declarations of infallibility around every corner relieves one of the responsibility for growth, trust, and assent to something other than one’s self.

The Catholic conception of faith recognizes the gratuitous nature of it. It is not something we invent of our own intellect. It is a gift from God. A living faith is a two way street, part of the covenant relationship. Faith is not a legal proof. Faith is not proven by declarations of authority. Genuine authority springs from the divine-human relationship. Christ became flesh to give us a share of himself not to bind us in slavery to his infallibility (which exists).

• someone here is well on the ball!

:ballspin:

 

[rcwitness]

Some so radically misunderstand the concept of authority that the New Covenant becomes, for them, a contract between master and slave. Looking for declarations of infallibility around every corner robs one of the opportunity for growth, trust, and assent to something other than one’s self.

The Catholic conception of faith recognizes the gratuitous nature of it. It is not something we invent of our own intellect. It is a gift from God. A living faith is a two way street, part of the covenant relationship. Faith is not a legal proof. Faith is not proven by declarations of authority. Genuine authority springs from the divine-human relationship. Christ became flesh to give us a share of himself not to bind us in slavery to his infallibility (which exists).

Well said

 

[Randy_Carson]

The problem is that the IC is really public revelation, after it has been clearly stated that public revelation died with the last Apostle.

Not really. Luke recorded the angel’s greeting to Mary, “Hail, full of grace.” That became public revelation. Over time, as men thought and prayed about what these words mean and about who Jesus was, the implications of what had been revealed in that four-word greeting became clear.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I doesn’t matter if anybody has ever declared it to be infallible teaching. As per the definition of the First Vatican Council, it only matters if in the document the Roman Pontiff by virtue of his office defined a doctrine concerning faith or morals which must be held by the whole church.

Hi, Cav.

It’s been awhile since our last…chat.

I may have been unclear in my meaning. You are correct, it would not have been necessary for someone ELSE to declare the document infallible. If it were infallible, it would be obvious from the text itself that the author intended it to be so.

No, what I meant was that I am unaware of any Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic apologist making an appeal to this document as an infallible teaching of the Church. If there were any hay to be made from this, surely, some non-Catholic would have brought it up in a professional debate, book or blog somewhere along the way.

Instead, it does not appear that any knowledgeable non-Catholic apologist has sought to reference this work as an example of infallibility gone awry; consequently, I have been unable to find any Catholic apologist defending or explaining it.

This leads me, a rank amateur, to believe that the big boys don’t think there’s anything there to argue about.

So, I’m not going to argue about it, either.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

Many of them may not be in church at all, while many are in a more “loose” and “less demanding” communion. Communions that offer “just Jesus” without focussing on His difficult Teachings, and duties.

I agree that there should be better faith formation for our youth. I hope to be more involved in this soon. I have participated in some healthy youth groups in my parents Evangelical Free church. I think many good natured people seek these “easier” and “fun” based communities because there is less “structure” and “sanction” in smaller churches, so more freedom.

:twocents:

Respectfully, I disagree with the idea that relatively devout young Catholics are attracted to Protestantism and/or Evangelicalism because it is easy and free. To the contrary, I believe (and think that I have observed) something very much else- specifically, in the “easy” and “free” types of churches, there is a much greater emphasis on things like turning from sin and living for righteousness, abandoning sin and living for Christ, reforming one’s lifestyle actions and inclinations in order to live a life free from sin. Granted, the Catholic Church is in favor of all those things, but when you compare a Catholic homily to a range of Protestant sermons, you notice that these actual phrases and groups of words are frequently vocalized and preached by Protestants while, by way of contrast, they are buried somewhere in the Catholic literature and not actually formed as words and emphasized from the pulpit (or lectern).

In short, I would argue that lapsed Catholics who practice nothing in particular are the lazy ones, whereas the young Catholics who are attracted to Protestantism are actually quite committed to being challenged and meeting that challenge, especially when it comes to their faith informing their praxis in their daily lives. They seek out this type of challenge and then they pick the Protestant church that best helps them to meet it and carry it out. Granted, these young people may not be as well-catechized as they could be, and it may be that they haven’t engaged with the right Catholic people in order to find the same results within Catholicism. But at some level, I believe the trend is not one of seeking out what’s easy- in this specific sense, it’s a trend where young Catholic people are trying to do something hard, namely be a devout Christian in a post-Christian secular environment that largely tends to be virtually identical to the present-day Catholic secular environment. That’s not a typo- I’m suggesting that many Protestant churches are comparatively better at setting themselves apart as called-out people, and young Catholics who are serious about their faith find that the people who frequently emphasize things like “turning from sin” and “living for righteousness” are the people they want to try being around, and they don’t see as much of it as they would hope to in their Catholic parish.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There’s a lot of arguments against- lots and lots of bad ones, but there are several stronger ones that could be developed a bit. I will pick just one.

That’s basically it, I’m throwing it out there. I will see how all of you fine Catholics respond to the concept of a grown-person conversion experience which is generally the basis of one’s Christian identity for those who are not Catholic- and, generally, for those who are converts to Catholicism as well. I’m curious to see what comes back from this.

:clapping:

Nicely done.

I’m not sure that I disagree with anything you wrote - just your implied conclusion which, I believe, is that since Protestants have that date, time & place kind of conversion experience (though not universally), they are somehow…hmmm…stronger? Christians as a result.

I think that is only ONE type of conversion…we’ll call that the Pauline-type in reference to Paul’s Damascus Road experience.

But there is another type that is perhaps FAR more common, and I will call that the Timothy-type of conversion in reference to the fact that Paul tells us that Timothy grew up in a believing household and had known the scriptures since infancy.

Let me note for our Catholic listening audience that we could refer to the Augustine-type conversion (big sinner to big saint), the Terese of Liseaux-type of conversion (Terese grew up in a devout Christian home and was in love with God from her earliest memories.) and the Teresa of Avila-type of conversion (wherein one starts off strong, cools for a long period, and then catches fire again). ALL THREE are doctors of the Church.

Protestants make a big deal over the Pauline/Augustinian type of conversions because they are so dramatic. The town drunk becomes a deacon in the Baptist Church, etc. But a lot of us grew up in Christian (Catholic) homes and were familiar with the gospel story from infancy.

Additionally, the Catholic Church sees conversion/salvation as a process and not as an event. Basing their views solidly on scripture Catholics believe “I was saved, I am being saved, and I hope to be saved.” Some evangelicals, as you know, believe that “once-saved, always saved” - though the scriptures do NOT support this theology.

So, yeah, I think Catholics would benefit from being knocked off their horses – if that is appropriate. On the other hand, I wouldn’t deny the faith of the quiet Baptist lady who has been singing in the choir since she was a girl, either. If she can’t remember a date and time when she first met Jesus, I don’t think her love for Him is any less real.

 

[clem456]

Respectfully, I disagree with the idea that relatively devout young Catholics are attracted to Protestantism and/or Evangelicalism because it is easy and free. To the contrary, I believe (and think that I have observed) something very much else- specifically, in the “easy” and “free” types of churches, there is a much greater emphasis on things like turning from sin and living for righteousness, abandoning sin and living for Christ, reforming one’s lifestyle actions and inclinations in order to live a life free from sin. Granted, the Catholic Church is in favor of all those things, but when you compare a Catholic homily to a range of Protestant sermons, you notice that these actual phrases and groups of words are frequently vocalized and preached by Protestants while, by way of contrast, they are buried somewhere in the Catholic literature and not actually formed as words and emphasized from the pulpit (or lectern).

In short, I would argue that lapsed Catholics who practice nothing in particular are the lazy ones, whereas the young Catholics who are attracted to Protestantism are actually quite committed to being challenged and meeting that challenge, especially when it comes to their faith informing their praxis in their daily lives. They seek out this type of challenge and then they pick the Protestant church that best helps them to meet it and carry it out. Granted, these young people may not be as well-catechized as they could be, and it may be that they haven’t engaged with the right Catholic people in order to find the same results within Catholicism. But at some level, I believe the trend is not one of seeking out what’s easy- in this specific sense, it’s a trend where young Catholic people are trying to do something hard, namely be a devout Christian in a post-Christian secular environment that largely tends to be virtually identical to the present-day Catholic secular environment. That’s not a typo- I’m suggesting that many Protestant churches are comparatively better at setting themselves apart as called-out people, and young Catholics who are serious about their faith find that the people who frequently emphasize things like “turning from sin” and “living for righteousness” are the people they want to try being around, and they don’t see as much of it as they would hope to in their Catholic parish.

These are good points. Catholic pastoral approach can be a bit too innocuous.