Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

[friardchips]

When Jesus says, “Call no one your father,” he doesn’t mean that we are supposed to imagine that we are the product of a virgin birth…

In one sense He does because, through the Incarnation we have become born anew to God and it is through this miracle we can call God, “Father”.

Before the life of Jesus, born through the virgin birth, in the OT, Jews did not know God as “Father”.

That Jesus was proven to have claim to call God, “Father”, and entitlement to revealing to us His “Father”, is strongly based on the knowledge of the Incarnation, from which we know He was both man and God, and so held divine authority to show and reveal such intimate a title.

 

[jmcrae]

Please provide support for this claim. There are degrees of accepting doctrines. There are degrees of doctrinal importance related to salvation. There are degrees of rejection of truth.

It all depends upon one’s attitude.

If one looks at the difficult doctrines, and one says, “I believe; help thou mine unbelief!” and then another looks at the difficult doctrines and rejects them outright because he wants Jesus on his own terms, then, we can see that outwardly, both of these individuals have the same questions and the same doubts, but only the first one can be saved. It is a question of being teachable.

 

[josie_L]

And I would like to add that appeals were sent to the Pope from all over the Church, for example, during the Monophysite controversy there were appeals made by both unorthodox and orthodox factions, i.e., Eutyches, Flavian, Theodosius . . etc., They called on the pope to either oppose or uphold decisions, Patriarch (saint) Flavian of Constantinople himself wrote to Pope St. Leo prior to the Robber Council:

“**For the matter only requires your influence and aid,
that by your co-operation the present confusion may
be changed to tranquillity and peace. For thus shall
the heresy which has risen up and the disturbance
consequent upon it be easily put an end to, God
working with us, through your sacred letter. More
over the Council which it is commonly rumoured there
is to be, will be prevented, and the most holy Churches
everywhere will escape the consequent confusion **”.

I and those with me salute all the brotherhood with
thee. Mayest thou be given to us in health and
offering up players in our behalf, most holy Father,
most dear to God."

I meant to write Theodoret not Theodosius. Sorry for that!

 

[jmcrae]

In one sense He does because, through the Incarnation we have become born anew to God and it is through this miracle we can call God, “Father”.

Right. And He speaks to us (albeit imperfectly) through our natural and spiritual fathers, who still (even though they are sons, and students, and apprentices, as well as sinners) merit the title “Father,” or “Daddy,” or “Papa,” or whatever other synonyms we have for these ever so important men in our lives.

Before the life of Jesus, born through the virgin birth, in the OT, Jews did not know God as “Father”.

The more I read of the Old Testament, the less I agree with that statement. The Jews understood (and today continue to understand) God as having a special family relationship with them that is unlike His relationship with the rest of humanity.

The Gentiles, by contrast, knew nothing of the Fatherhood of God, and it was they who were grafted in to the family of God by means of Baptism.

That Jesus was proven to have claim to call God, “Father”, and entitlement to revealing to us His “Father”, is strongly based on the knowledge of the Incarnation, from which we know He was both man and God, and so held divine authority to show and reveal such intimate a title.

I agree with you that Christ’s Incarnation signaled a massive paradigm shift in God’s relationship with the human race.

 

[pitbull]

Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

Thanks.

When I was a kid my Catholic friends were required to abstain from meat on Fridays.
The Catholic church forbids some people(priests) from marriage.
The Spirit has told us about such people.

4 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 1 Tim 4

 

[benjohnson]

Søren Kierkegaard among other Lutherans would, I think, agree with this sentiment - that we should fall to our knees and rejoice that God has given us even a faith the size of a mustard seed.

 

[rcwitness]

First we must ask what does “De Fide” mean:

“De Fide” means of the faith. That which is “De Fide” must be believed by Catholics.

From Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

§ 3. Mary’s Immaculate Conception

1. Dogma
   
   Mary was conceived without stain of original sin.
   (De Fide.)​
   **

IOW, the IC [must] be believed by Catholics.

Do you think someone can go through RCIA to become Catholic and be received into the Church if they don’t believe the IC to be true?

I back all of my responses with authoritative documents. Unless I am met under the same conditions, its all just opinions.

After looking into things a little, it appears we both may be a little right and a little wrong.

You may be right that entry into the Church may require assent of faith regarding the Marian Dogmas, though salvation itself would not be denied. This is a strange dilemma, I think.

Mardukm, in this thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=574840&highlight=marian+dogmas) seems to address the question we are talking about, and even touching on the Orthodox perspective as well.

The main point is that the Dogmas (not sure if all) do NOT issue an “anethema” or even an “excommunication” with them, but as you have said it certainly is a De Fide. But even in these documents clauses have been made regarding the necessity of belief. So only those who “obstinately maintain” and * “willfully deny or call into doubt.”* are subject to fault.

As for whether RCIA would, or better yet should, receive someone who does not believe these dogmas, I would be surprised to learn of any Priest or Bishop refusing acceptance of someone who struggles to accept these Teachings. OTOH, I’d understand strong measures and even excommunication for a member who is teaching contrary to what the Church has declared about Mary. I pesonally do not recall being “confronted” or instructed about these dogmas during my RCIA. Further, I honestly don’t recall ever hearing any homily bringing them up for that matter.

Though, I do believe them to be as they are Taught. But like you, I would see an issue if the Church Taught, when these dogmas were formally declared, that salvation is dependent on them.

 

[jmcrae]

When I was a kid my Catholic friends were required to abstain from meat on Fridays.
The Catholic church forbids some people(priests) from marriage.
The Spirit has told us about such people.

4 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 1 Tim 4

A man who has freely chosen to remain unmarried becomes eligible to seek the priesthood. This is a far cry from forbidding anyone to be married.

On the other hand, there have been non-Catholic forms of Bible-only Christianity where marriage was forbidden - anybody else remember the Shakers?

Giving up warm-blooded meat (carne) on Fridays in order to remember that Jesus gave up His flesh (carne) on the Cross for our sins on a Friday is not at all similar to Sharia Law or Kosher Law.

 

[friardchips]

Right. And He speaks to us (albeit imperfectly) through our natural and spiritual fathers, who still (even though they are sons, and students, and apprentices, as well as sinners) merit the title “Father,” or “Daddy,” or “Papa,” or whatever other synonyms we have for these ever so important men in our lives.

I see the point. Although I don’t call my mum “mother” because I believe Our Lady to be Mother. So I think I wouldn’t call a biological father “Father” for the reason that they are second to God. I call priests “Father” though, but that is because they are ordained into the position of Christ. I see that men have flaws so I would find it difficult to say those words to a human. I’d say ‘dad’ or call them by name.

The more I read of the Old Testament, the less I agree with that statement. The Jews understood (and today continue to understand) God as having a special family relationship with them that is unlike His relationship with the rest of humanity.

I agree with that to a point too. Great to hear that you have a deep sensitivity to the Hebrew Scriptures btw…I found when going deep into the OT myself how it was that the Jews could have gotten a bit lost in their own history and culture to the point of not seeing Jesus for who He was when He came, because the OT is such a rich world and experience of relationship. I couldn’t possibly know if they regarded God as Father or not apart from the fact that in Scripture it doesn’t say they did and I think the OT is a loving Testament to how they expressed their love for God. If you find in your exegesis that they may have thought of God in that way then great but I’d have to experience that for myself when studying in order to agree! I do think more intimacy came after Jesus was born though not to take anything away from what they might have believed or what you might have discovered was the case!

The Gentiles, by contrast, knew nothing of the Fatherhood of God, and it was they who were grafted in to the family of God by means of Baptism.

This is on the premise that the OT Jews did think of God that way. But I’d say that at this point it wasn’t just the gentiles who then benefitted from The Word of God. However, I do agree that half of the issue the many Jews would have had was accepting that Jesus was for ALL people not just them
.
I add to this, by saying that Jesus came to show us the Father. So, if this wasn’t the case then Scripture wouldn’t have said so. Jesus revealed the Father. But it could have been likely that they sensed a fatherly love which is maybe what you’re saying (?)

I agree with you that Christ’s Incarnation signaled a massive paradigm shift in God’s relationship with the human race.

God came and dwelt among us so yes, absolutely, in every way did everything change.

 

[friardchips]

…the sense or experience of ‘family’ - what you said - was an apt way to describe the OT.

 

[pitbull]

A man who has freely chosen to remain unmarried becomes eligible to seek the priesthood. This is a far cry from forbidding anyone to be married.

I quoted 1 Tim 4, go back a chapter to 1 Tin 3 where I think Paul’s talking about the guy who seeks the “priesthood”.

3 A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

Paul gives criteria for a bishop.

2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,

3 Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity.

5 But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

Paul’s bishops have a wife, kids and a well run household.
Do the bishops in the Catholic church have the same?
Do the rules in your church allow a bishop to be married or is that forbidden?

On the other hand, there have been non-Catholic forms of Bible-only Christianity where marriage was forbidden - anybody else remember the Shakers?

I don’t know many Shakers, but I’ve shown you what Paul says about those who forbid marriage so how can they be considered part of “Bible-only Christianity”?

Giving up warm-blooded meat (carne) on Fridays in order to remember that Jesus gave up His flesh (carne) on the Cross for our sins on a Friday is not at all similar to Sharia Law or Kosher Law.

It’s been a while since I was a kid but I’m pretty sure my Catholic friends believed they had been told by their church it was sin to eat meat on Friday. Those that would tell my friends such an awful lie are exactly the folks Paul is talking about.

4 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 1 Tim 4

 

[Cavaradossi]

Forgive me, Cavaradossi, but according to the acts of Chalcedon, right after the reading of the tome, these words were spoken by the assembled bishops:

Great. If you had access to and had read the full acts, instead of just excerpts, you would know that what comes next is precisely what I was talking about. The acts next mention that during the reading of the tome, bishops from Illyria and Palestine objected to certain passages in it.

Quoting from the Price Gaddis translation of the acts:

1. When there was being read the part of the aforesaid letter that contains the words, ‘For the payment of the debt owed by our nature divine nature was united to the passible nature, so that – this fitting our cure – one and the same, being the mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, would be able to die in respect of the one and would not be able to expire in respect of the other’, and the most devout Illyrian and Palestinian bishops raised an objection, Aetius the most devout archdeacon of imperial Constantinople read out the chapter of Cyril of sacred memory, the late bishop of the city of Alexandria, containing the words, ‘Since again his own body by the grace of God tasted death on behalf of everyone, as the apostle says, he himself is said to have suffered death on our behalf, not as though he entered into the experience of death in regard to his own nature (for to say or think that would be lunacy) but because, as I have just said, his own flesh tasted death.’
2. Likewise when there was being read the part that contains the words, ‘For each form performs what is proper to it in association with the other, the Word achieving what is the Word’s, while the body accomplishes what is the body’s; the one shines with miracles while the other has succumbed to outrages’, and the most devout Illyrian and Palestinian bishops raised an objection, Aetius archdeacon of the holy church of Constantinople read out the chapter of Cyril of sacred memory containing the words, ‘Some of the sayings are particularly fitting to God, some again are particularly fitting to man, while others occupy a middle position, revealing the Son of God as God and man simultaneously and at the same time.’
3. Likewise when there was being read from the same letter the part that contains the words, ‘Although indeed in the Lord Jesus Christ there is one person of God and man, nevertheless that because of which the outrage is common in both is one thing and that because of which the glory is common is another, for he has from us the humanity that is less than the Father, and he has from the Father the Godhead that is equal with the Father’, and the most devout Illyrian and Palestinian bishops raised an objection, Theodoret the most devout bishop of Cyrrhus said, ‘There is a similar instance in the blessed Cyril which contains the words, “He became man without shedding what was his own, for he remained what he was; he is certainly conceived as one dwelling in another, that is, the divine nature in what is human.”’

Yes, there were bishops who had read the tome beforehand, in fact, both Anatolius of Constantinople and Maximus of Antioch (patriarchs) signed the “Tome of Leo” prior to Chalcedon, as such, many came to accept it as orthodox. The amount of bishops per se who accepted it is not given, however, Pope St. Leo seemed quite convinced that it was a sufficient majority as he reconsidered convening a council (please read his letters to Emperor Marcian), which he had initially requested.

By the 4th session of the Council, we know that many bishops had signed it, but it is hard to know how many had signed before. Price seems to think that Patriarch Anatolius likely actively campaigned to have bishops sign the Tome in Nicaea while they waited for the Council to begin in Chalcedon. But if this were so, Pope Leo would not have been aware of these recently added signatures.

And from what regions were they from, i.e., those who interrupted?? Moreover, holding a position of supremacy does not imply mindless obedience, i.e., I hardly think that Pope St. Leo expected them to affirm the tome without any discussion on the part of his brother bishops. Your understanding of papal supremacy lacks unfortunately nuance, i.e., it is not an absolute form of supremacy that the Catholic Church teaches but one that that entails certain prerogatives for one who is head of the visible Church on earth and successor to Saint Peter.

See the above. I must add, however, that an ex Cathedra statement needs not the approval of the other bishops to be infallible, according to the official relatio. I therefore do not see how my view of papal supremacy and infallibility “lacks nuance”. There is no nuance to be had. Either the Tome was an ex Cathedra statement, and therefore irreformable before the council or it was not.

 

[PRmerger]

Paul’s bishops have a wife, kids and a well run household.

So Paul, in this alleged church that you are describing, couldn’t even be a bishop in his own church?

Unless you are aware of Paul having a wife and kids? If so, please cite your source.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Here is the session to which you refer:

There is nothing here which I have quoted from Chalcedon which comes close to discrediting the Tome of Leo has you have extracted from your own fevered imagination regarding this council.

No, actually, I was referring to session II. Specifically:

1. The most magnificent and glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘The hearing will be adjourned for five days, so that in the meantime your holinesses may meet in the residence of the most holy Archbishop Anatolius and deliberate together about the faith, so that the objectors may be instructed.’

It is interesting, however, that you quote what is likely a subtle insult against Rome from the Illyrian bishops (the implication of saying that Nestorian sympathizers should go to Rome is that they would be well-received there). I also must point out that far from me having a fevered imagination, it is you who have feverishly imagined that I said that the Council of Chalcedon “discredited” the Tome of Leo. The Acts of the Council clearly discredit the common perception of a bunch of bishops simply rubber-stamping a document knowing that it is from Rome. Rather, they debated it, and attempted to prove its concordance with the faith of the fathers.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Let me begin by saying “hogwash”, first, here’s Lucentius, papal legate to Pope St. Leo speaking at the council of Chalcedon:

I am sorry to hear that you think the Acts of the Second Council of Constantinople are ‘hogwash’, but they are clear as day in affirming that they felt authoritative without Vigilius. Similarly, I am sorry to hear that you think that widely attested historical events such as the schisms which occurred in Milan and Aquileia as a result of the Second Council of Constantinople are ‘hogwash’, but unless you should undertake a very serious attempt to revise history, I am afraid that those events shall remain accepted as actually having happened.

The Council in its 8th session specifically mentions the situation with Vigilius, referring to him dishonorably simply as ‘Vigilius’ (stripping him of all titles and honorifics), and rebuking him for his intransigent attempt to rule on the issue of the three chapters without the synod, by citing the example of the apostles and fathers who all worked synodally.

(3)It happened that Vigilius was staying in this imperial city and ought to have taken part in everything that was mooted concerning these Three Chapters, and had often condemned them both orally and in writing; afterwards he also agreed in writing to attend the council and discuss these Three Chapters together with us, so that we might all produce in common a decree corresponding to the orthodox faith. So our most pious emperor, in accordance with what had been resolved among us, urged both Vigilius and ourselves to meet together, since it is appropriate for priests to impose a common solution on common problems. Accordingly, we necessarily besought his reverence to fulfil his written promises, saying that it was not right that the cause of stumbling arising from these Three Chapters should increase and thereby unsettle the church of God. But when, although often invited both by us all and in addition by the most glorious officials sent to him by the most pious emperor, he postponed heeding these requests and admonitions and attending, we recalled to his memory the great example of the apostles and the traditions of the fathers. For even though individual apostles abounded with the grace of the Holy Spirit so that they did not need the advice of others over what had to be transacted, yet they had no wish to decide in any other way the question that was mooted, whether the Gentiles ought to be circumcised, before they met together and each of them confirmed his statements from the testimonies of the divine scriptures. Accordingly it was in common that they all pronounced judgement on the matter, writing to the Gentiles and stating in a declaration that ‘when we all assembled together it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose no other burden on you except these necessary things, that you abstain from what has been offered to idols, from blood, from what has been strangled, and from fornication.’

(4)The holy fathers also who convened at various times in the holy four councils followed ancient precedent and decreed in common on the heresies and problems that had arisen, since it is certain that it is through joint examination, where there is expounded what needs to be discussed on both sides, that the light of truth dispels the darkness of lies.

Now, please take note that Lucentius states in no uncertain terms that an “ecumenical” synod cannot take place without the authority of the Apostolic See, i.e., without his specific cooperation and/or consent a synod cannot be regarded as ecumenical, that is to say that of all the bishops throughout the world his confirmation and cooperation is absolutely necessary. Even Emperor Justinian is of a like mind when he said, and I quote:

The same Justinian who wrote, “We direct that all innovations shall be annulled and that the ancient customs, and the ecclesiastical canons, which have been in force to this day, shall also be observed throughout all the provinces of Illyria, and if any doubt arises, it should be referred to a church assembly and its holy judgment, with the knowledge of the reverend bishop of the holy faith, situated at Constantinople, which city enjoys the prerogative of Ancient Rome”(Cod. Justin. I.ii.6.)? Or what about where Justinian calls the Great Church in Constantinople the, “mother of all, head of others” (Cod. Justin. I.ii.24)? And what about this proclamation of Justinian, “Since therefore [Vigilius] has acted in this way, we have pronounced that his name is alien to Christians”? Do you agree with those statements of Justinian as well?

I would also like to add that those bishops present at Constantinople were demographically Eastern, i.e., there was no Western representation at the council, as such, how can a council be ecumenical when both East and West were needed to give it universal appeal, to quote Adrian Fortesque:
He then goes on to say:

What Fortescue writes is reasonable, because he specifically points out that the papal ratification is necessary in the sense that the Pope is a member of the college of bishops, as the Pope too needs the consent of the Church. He also does not seem to argue for the sufficiency of papal ratification. Of course, from the Orthodox perspective, the Pope is no longer a member of the college of bishops, so his ratification is neither necessary nor sufficient at present.

 

[guanophore]

First we must ask what does “De Fide” mean:

“De Fide” means of the faith. That which is “De Fide” must be believed by Catholics.

From Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

§ 3. Mary’s Immaculate Conception

1. Dogma
   
   Mary was conceived without stain of original sin.
   (De Fide.)​
   **

IOW, the IC [must] be believed by Catholics.

Do you think someone can go through RCIA to become Catholic and be received into the Church if they don’t believe the IC to be true?

yes, I think this happens all the time. RCIA is “initiation”. It is a starting point. Just like the believers baptized on Pentecost, they are beginning a journey and have everything to learn.

What one needs is an attitude of humility and teachablity. Like “newborn babes”, one must be open to understanding and learning more, and to the degree one has not arrived at de fide one must be willing and working to arrive there.

Many converts have difficulty with papal dogmas,the communion of saints, the role of Mary, etc. One must be persuaded that the fullness of Truth is found in the Church, and follow to the extent one is able.

 

[guanophore]

Indeed.

If one cannot conform one’s views to the Catholic Church, then one is creating a god in one’s own image.

I agree that we must study, pray, and seek to be conformed, but ultimately, it is the HS at work within us that brings about this “one mind” that the Church has. We are being grafted into God’s building by the HS, all we need to do is be willing and ready stones.

I think sometimes we rely too much on the rational process, to the neglect of faith. If one concentrates on remaining 'in Christ" (clinging to the vine) all of the rest will follow.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

What one needs is an attitude of humility and teachablity.

Guano. I don’t think you meant it like this attitude is exclusively found by entering the Catholic Church.

There is a lot of humility and teachability in other faiths as well.

 

[PRmerger]

I agree that we must study, pray, and seek to be conformed, but ultimately, it is the HS at work within us that brings about this “one mind” that the Church has. We are being grafted into God’s building by the HS, all we need to do is be willing and ready stones.

I would simply emend the above to: "I agree that we must study, pray, and seek to be conformed, -]but ultimately/-] AND ultimately, it is the HS at work within us that brings about this “one mind” that the Church has.

 

[Al_Gonkwin]

Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

Can we still address the original question? If so, here are my answers:

1.Infallibility. To defend the infallibility of the Popes and Councils requires doing obviously and significant violence to their teaching. Yes, without a doubt, a Catholic apologist can show that these historical teachings are not (very) technically contradictory, but everyone in the discussion knows quite well that the sense of the teachings is often contradictory. EENS is the classic example. One is left to wonder if the Holt Spirit usually seems to work in excruciatingly small details and technicalities.

2.Contradictions. A famous modern apostate, Magdi Allam, said he left the Church because it ‘contained everything and the opposite of everything’. Indeed. It contains naturalism and occasionalism (diametrically opposed fundamental philosophies of causality). It contains contradictory theologies of God and theodicies. It contains moral contradictions, with some saints literally decrying as sin any sex not intending conception (Jerome) and other saints literally calling for sex aimed at mutual pleasure (JPII). This is only a sampling of contradictions. There is nothing directly fatal to Catholicism about contradictions within it, but it convinces some people that it is not true.

3.A non-sensical relation to Judaism. There is no coherent interpretation of the law ‘not passing away’. There is no coherent theology of the relationship of the old and new covenants, only a variety of contradictory theories. There is no familial relationship of Christ to King David that a Jew will accept. The apostles had a hard time accepting the crucifixion for a good reason - it was not the anticipated nature of the messiah to die without achieving temporal order. This means the chosen people really had no idea what they were chosen for or how it would come about.

4.Gospel contradictions and historical inaccuracies. Where did the holy family reside? Why were they in Bethlehem? Who ordered the census? Which infants did Herod kill? Who was at the tomb? When did Jesus appear? When did Jesus ascend?

Those are a few.