Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

[Randy_Carson]

This trend, on average, is not an encouraging one considering that an American who joins the Catholic Church in the United States can largely expect to find that the most devout Catholics they can hope to meet will also be converts, there are not very many of these converts compared to the number of cradle Catholics, and if you do stick with it and raise some kids in this particular religious environment, you always have this thought in the back of your mind- what will it be like for my kids if they come up in this environment? And as they’re being raised around a bunch of other Catholic kids, am I going to feel like their way of being brought up is something I want to emulate- or am I going to feel more like the person who quietly believes most of them can learn a lot more from me?

Another thought comes to mind…the story of the prodigal son.

Did the prodigal know the father’s love upon his return? Do you think he spent every day of the rest of his life being grateful for what he had once taken for granted? Probably.

But what about the older son? Was he any less loved by the Father? Doesn’t the father say to him, “All that I have is yours”?

So, I’m not convinced it is necessary for everyone to go off to a foreign land before the light bulb goes on. The older son needs to learn the father’s love right where he is.

Similarly, I agree that converts are fired-up Catholics, and they are coming into the Church in droves (especially your ministers who have really studied…wow!). I’m sure you see some enthusiastic former Catholics in your church, also. But as these ex-Catholics start to drift back into our churches (we call them reverts), they encourage us with their stories of how they came to realize that Catholicism was telling them the truth all along.

It just took some time with the pigs for them to come to their senses.

Kidding. Juuust kidding.

 

[rcwitness]

So numerous Saints and Ecumenical Councils were insubordinate?

I dont think any Councils have, but some saints have. One antipope is even a saint, because he reconciled with Rome in the end. St. Hyppolytus (sp?)

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.

I dont think forced. Pursuaded out of the stubborness of their desire to put a lesser tradition above a higher one. **Who prevailed in the end??? The Church came around to accepting what two popes had been attempting to peacfully bring the whole church into. **

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.

you’ll have to provide an example of “forcing a pope” because St Anicetus and St Victor are definitely not supporting your cause. The Church finally followed their desire by dissolving the tradition of the asian Churches and upheld the Tradition given to Rome.

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

No disagreement here

 

[Randy_Carson]

Essentially, the argument is this- imagine someone who is raised Protestant and, largely because of their upbringing, this person becomes an extremely devout Christian who eventually decides that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth and so forth and so on.

So, technically, the Catholic Church has the fullness of the truth, but the Protestants are doing more with less?

Well, then why don’t you and some of your spirit-filled friends get your butts to mass on Sunday and set fire to the rest of us? Before you know it, the Orthodox will want in!

And once the Church is one like Jesus prayed, then the non-believing world will know that He really was sent by the Father.

The divisions we now know are not from God.

 

[schaeffer]

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.

I’ve noticed this as well.

Catholic homilies tend to be about how to be a good Catholic. Which makes sense, I’m not knocking that. The emphasis is on being the best Catholic one can be. To follow Catholic teachings, because that is what one is bound to do under pain of Hell if one does not.

Protestant sermons/Sunday School tend towards living as a Christian in this world. Follow Christ…as opposed to follow the Church.

While the Catholic understanding is that the Catholic Church IS the body of Christ and therefore following it IS following Christ…sometimes that gets lost in translation and the idea that comes across is “do this because the Church says so” as opposed to “do this because it is what Christ teaches us to do.”

many Protestant young people, when asked why they are to behave in a particular way will point back to a particular teaching in the New Testament, many Catholic young people will say “because the Church says if I don’t I’ll go to Hell”

Many young Catholics think the Church made up a bunch of stuff one has to do and have no idea where those teachings and practices came from. They seem arbitrary.

They don’t know the connection between the ritual and practices of the faith and the Bible.

 

[Stilldreamn]

So, technically, the Catholic Church has the fullness of the truth, but the Protestants are doing more with less?

Well, then why don’t you and some of your spirit-filled friends get your butts to mass on Sunday and set fire to the rest of us? Before you know it, the Orthodox will want in!
And once the Church is one like Jesus prayed, then the non-believing world will know that He really was sent by the Father.

The divisions we now know are not from God.

Be careful what you wish for. I daresay many of these on-fire converts would be clamoring for a return to the traditional Mass.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

While the Catholic understanding is that the Catholic Church IS the body of Christ and therefore following it IS following Christ…sometimes that gets lost in translation and the idea that comes across is “do this because the Church says so” as opposed to “do this because it is what Christ teaches us to do.”

Maybe so, and we should do a better job of explaining this. Both to Catholic children and to Protestants.

many Protestant young people, when asked why they are to behave in a particular way will point back to a particular teaching in the New Testament, many Catholic young people will say “because the Church says if I don’t I’ll go to Hell”

Well, I think you’ll get about the same percentage of protestants saying “because the Bible says if I don’t I’ll go to Hell”.

Many young Catholics think the Church made up a bunch of stuff one has to do and have no idea where those teachings and practices came from. They seem arbitrary.

Likewise, many young Protestants have no idea where the Bible came from.

They don’t know the connection between the ritual and practices of the faith and the Bible.

See?

 

[friardchips]

Be careful what you wish for. I daresay many of these on-fire converts would be clamoring for a return to the traditional Mass.

Not necessarily.

 

[PRmerger]

Protestant sermons/Sunday School tend towards living as a Christian in this world. Follow Christ…as opposed to follow the Church.

There is no “as opposed to” when it comes to Christ and His Church.

Is there any other way to follow Christ?

Without His Body, the CC, no one would know anything about Christ, except, perhaps, that he was condemned by a man named Pontius Pilate, lived in ancient Palestine, and was crucified and reported to have resurrected.

 

[PRmerger]

Its not for everyone. Why would someone want to join a faith, if it does not help them.
Why would anyone want to join a church, if they do not have a personal feeling of God when they go there?

Because it’s true.

 

[Shiranui117]

I dont think any Councils have, but some saints have. One antipope is even a saint, because he reconciled with Rome in the end. St. Hyppolytus (sp?)

And these Saints have been shown to win against the Pope. Plus, I list one such Council that contradicts the Pope on more than one count.

I dont think forced. Pursuaded out of the stubborness of their desire to put a lesser tradition above a higher one. **Who prevailed in the end??? The Church came around to accepting what two popes had been attempting to peacfully bring the whole church into. **

Do you call excommunicating numerous churches “peaceful”? A lot of people following a non-Quartodecimian dating method gave Rome a lot of flak for it. People within the Roman Church itself vehemently opposed the Pope in this regard, including by no less than St. Irenaeus.

This is what Eusebius says in his history of the Church:

Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. **But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. **Among them was Irenaeus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom."[10]

You can read more: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.iii.ii.html

Up until 1 Nicaea in 325, there were multiple different ways of calculating Pascha. Rome had one system, Alexandria had another, and the Quartodecimian method was just one among others in the mix.

you’ll have to provide an example of “forcing a pope” because St Anicetus and St Victor are definitely not supporting your cause. The Church finally followed their desire by dissolving the tradition of the asian Churches and upheld the Tradition given to Rome.

Actually, St. Victor is supporting my case. He excommunicated the Quartodecimians. Many churches were vehemently against this. Pope Victor caved to pressure and rescinded the excommunication without the Quartodecimians adopting another method of calculating Pascha.

But if you want another example, then you need look no further than Pope Vigilius being forced to reverse his earlier decision regarding the Three Chapters (at first he supported them, but later condemned them) under pressure from the Emperor. And then Vigilius has to rubber-stamp the Second Council of Constantinople, even though he didn’t even want the Council to happen, and even though that Council rejected his (name removed by moderator)ut:

Then an agreement was patched up and Vigilius agreed to a general council but soon withdrew his assent. Nevertheless, the council was held, and, after refusing to accept the “Constitutum” of Vigilius (see VIGILIUS, POPE), it then condemned the Three Chapters. Finally Vigilius succumbed, confirmed the council, and was set free.

Source: newadvent.org/cathen/14707b.htm

So we see an Ecumenical Council being held against the wishes of the Pope. His Constitutum was rejected by the Council, and Vigilius gave up and acquiesced to the rulings of the Council.

EDIT: Oh, and another Council that goes against the Pope: The First Council of Constantinople in 381 had St. Meletius as the head of the Council, even though St. Meletius wasn’t even in communion with the Pope, and the Pope was supporting St. Meletius’ rival claimants to the See of Antioch. As another historical note, it was St. Meletius’ line, not the Rome-backed Paulinian line, that won out in Antioch. Another nail in the Papal Supremacy coffin.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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.

Hallo

I must disagree on the bit about it being obvious. The First Vatican Council nowhere says that the intention to do so must be obvious. In fact, if one reads the official relatio, it should seem that the exact opposite was the intention of the bishops present at the council. Gasser argues, for example, that there is no set form that an ex-cathedra statement must take, nor is is it possible to restrict future ex-cathedra statements to conform to a set form.

 

[benhur]

Like I said before, I believe in the Assumption. But since the Assumption doesn’t change anything in Christ’s work it should not be something that is **forced **to be held on us as a condition for being in good standing with the Church as part of the Salvation plan.

Reminds me of Paul saying, “I believe there are factions amongst you so that you may know who is approved/genuine”( paraphrase). While many meanings, one of them could be that it is a kind of tongue in cheek Pauline statement. Like some folk don’t believe such and such a thing (eg -Assumption), so the believers of A form a faction that to garner support and dogmatize the thing, and "show up " those that don’t believe in A, and legitimize themselves as the true troopers. Approved. Genuine. There is absolute truth on the matter, just as there is wisdom in love and unity…Reminds me of Lincoln movie:
Thadeus Stevens wanted Lincoln to go further in rationale for the 13 th amendment, to publicly proclaim blacks as 100 % equal , and said a compass points to a true North, come on tell it like it is, no compromise. Lincoln pushed against that responding that a compass gives you True North, but not wisdom to travel the terrain on your journey. Like where are the swamps and cliffs. First things first going North, get the amendment passed, and then continue to proceed True North. The amendment would never have passed if Lincoln was a hard line Truth lover apart from Wisdom. While both did not publicly proclaim that blacks are totally equal with whites during the debate, they set freedom for blacks in stone, ending slavery. That was the light that was shining brightest at the time (slavery was evil and un-Godly as practiced then).

 

[benhur]

Is this sin ?

Yes, The action was not a bull’s eye. Not right. Not perfect.

Have you ever read Munificentissimus Deus, the document in which the Assumption is infallibly defined?

Yes I have thank you.

 

[SteveVH]

Yes I have thank you.

And you were duly impressed, apparently.

 

[Peter_J]

And you were duly impressed, apparently.

Hopefull dully impressed, at the least.

 

[guanophore]

This (hypothetical) argument seems to be spun out of little more than thin air. This is precisely the problem that lots of Protestants have with mariology in general.

Yes, I think you are right. Once the Sacred Tradition is rejected, all that is left is human “spin”, often out of thin air.

 

[guanophore]

Which Lutheran distinctive dogmas do you find to be false?

[7] ](http://bookofconcord.org/treatise.php)In the first place, therefore, let us show from the [holy] Gospel that the Roman bishop is not by divine right above other bishops and pastors.

24] In addition to this, it is necessary to acknowledge that the keys belong not to the person of one particular man, but to the Church, as many most clear and firm arguments testify. For Christ, speaking concerning the keys adds, Matt. 18:19: If two or three of you shall agree on earth, etc. Therefore he grants the keys principally and immediately to the Church, just as also for this reason the Church has principally the right of calling.

41] This being the case, all Christians ought to beware of becoming partakers of the godless doctrine, blasphemies, and unjust cruelty of the Pope. On this account they ought to desert and execrate the Pope with his adherents as the kingdom of Antichrist; … And he says, 2 Cor. 6:14: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what communion hath light with darkness?

just for starters…

 

[guanophore]

It may have been believed for a time before but certainly not as early as the 2nd century when Irenaeus opposed Victor to his face. Irenaeus must not have heard that Victor was actually infallible and had universal authority which he can excercise at any time in the care of souls. Irenaues didn’t know about that because that doctrine didn’t exist yet. It would centuries before it was added on.

The gift of infallibility does not equate to impeccability. Just as Peter could infallibly act to heal and preside over the Church, and write inspired and inerrant Scripture yet still make mistakes, so does every current successor of Peter.

If the authority of the successor of Peter were not recognized, then Irenaeus and so many others would not have contacted him about his point of view!

 

[SteveVH]

Hopefull dully impressed, at the least.

 

[guanophore]

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.

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

I have never heard this said. Which Catholics are those?

I think we can all agree that it is the Spirit who holds the Church together. I don’t see where the Apostles are divided, either. The conflicts in the early Church about pastoral practices do not result from a difference of doctrine. The first Council in Jerusalem was about how to absorb the Gentiles amicably. Do you think they had disputes about what Jesus taught?

I do think that Peter was intended to be the visible sign of unity in the Church. When Jesus prays for Peter (singular) to me it means that everyone who wants to get in on the prayer of Jesus better get in with Peter! In the early Church this was also called being in the barque or boat of Peter.