Give me your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic.

[guanophore]

Yes understand "merit" as to be worthy. Also understand "grace" as unmerited favor. Hence "oxymoron".

I understand how it might seem to be, but on the contrary, when we receive his unmerited favor, we are transfomed by it, and when we walk in the ways He has prescribed fo us, the worth of Chrsit is poured into our souls, and it produces the deeds that befit repentance. It has it’s source and process in grace.

Also understand your good point of “growing”, that is, one work leading to another, even bigger works /responsibilities, the works we were predestined to do since before the foundation of the world. A bit like David first killing a lion and bear, before Goliath. The reverse also happens . Each of Peter’s three denials increased in passion…But thanks, thinking on your point.

He did say that greater works would we do…does not walking in grace and virtue make us more useful to the Kingdom.

 

[guanophore]

Understanding a prior teaching more deeply is certainly within the realm acceptability. Refutation of prior teaching is problematic, to put it mildly.

Vatican II was a blessing and remains to be so! And if that is a reason to play games by jumping religions based on a shopping concept for what suits their own supposed likes and dislikes rather than what is simply good and true then they seriously need to go back and rediscover what faith is all about. Faith is a challenge not a back rub!

“In certain circumstances, it is allowable, indeed desirable, that Catholics join in prayer with their separated brethren.”-Unitatis Redintegratio

Now, compare this with:

“If any clergyman or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meetings of heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of Communion.” III Council of Constantinople

"Is it permitted for Catholics to be present at, or take part in, conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim to associate together under a single agreement all who in any way lay claim to the name of Christian? In the negative! It is clear, therefore, why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics. There is only one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from her."Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos

What interesting to note is that Pius XI stated in the same document that doing the above as “abandonment of the Divinely revealed religion.”

Praying in public with non Catholics has been part and parcel of the post Vatican II clergy, including all of the popes. JPII stated that praying in this way was called for by VII. This certainly looks to be a rupture with prior magisterial teaching to me.

Clearly you are confusing disciplines and canon laws with “teaching”. The Doctrines of the faith cannot be changed. They were committed once for all by Christ to the Church through the Apostles. This once for all time deposit of faith cannot be subtacted from, or added to by any “development”.

Canon laws and disciplines, such as you cite here, change with circumstances.

 

[guanophore]

So it is that Protestantism for many (x)- Catholics actually makes Catholic seeds, principles flower. Tough to say then that Protestantism is “unnecessary” then. Kind of like the Sanhedrin saying Jesus was unnecessary for the blind man because he should have availed himself fully of the methods of purification, healing , miracles already present within Judaism.

This was the case for me. It was during a three year stint in a Protestant seminary that I finally understood the truth of the Catholic faith.

Paul wrote that there must be divisions, so that the Truth might be known. I am not sure I understand this saying, but clearly, it is our differences that clarify it.

 

[friardchips]

Hi Butzi. Thanks for your responses:

I don’t think I said anything was unclear. What I said (or was trying to say) is that there was certainly not universal agreement about the doctrine of papal infallibility amongst Roman Catholics. For example, Torquemada, the head inquisitor of the Church and great theologian, did not believe in papal infallibility.

Well, if that was the case, then that was his issue to take to God.

Understanding a prior teaching more deeply is certainly within the realm acceptability. Refutation of prior teaching is problematic, to put it mildly.

Who else was refuting. I think a post later answers this succinctly - what is it that you term as a ‘teaching’?

“In certain circumstances, it is allowable, indeed desirable, that Catholics join in prayer with their separated brethren.”-Unitatis Redintegratio

Now, compare this with:

“If any clergyman or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meetings of heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of Communion.” III Council of Constantinople

"Is it permitted for Catholics to be present at, or take part in, conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim to associate together under a single agreement all who in any way lay claim to the name of Christian? In the negative! It is clear, therefore, why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics. There is only one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from her."Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos

What interesting to note is that Pius XI stated in the same document that doing the above as “abandonment of the Divinely revealed religion.”

Praying in public with non Catholics has been part and parcel of the post Vatican II clergy, including all of the popes. JPII stated that praying in this way was called for by VII. This certainly looks to be a rupture with prior magisterial teaching to me.

Thank you for this. It is certainly interesting but I did answer this in my previous posts. Mercy has always been mercy (Christ); however, as the Church develops from its doctrines and in its understanding of who mercy is - the extent of His love, it would be unacceptable to say there is no room for development as times are so radically different. As times progress we see the barriers of separation come down as mercy is understood in its fuller meaning. So, for example, Christ said when there are not people turning up for the feast to go out and get them. This is the Holy Spirit guiding the Church through its always dangerous periods. He also said that “if they are not against us they are for us”. The Church has always been held on a knife-edge (she was formed on the blood of martyrs -this is her foundation) and so responding to the needs of the dangerous and tempestuous times is always a part of the faith of the Church which the Popes responded as they could see it and tried to steer us through. Dogmas could be likened to Truths written in spiritual stone! - perfect Truths, one might say. But doctrines have room for development because humanity, according to its era, grows in its understanding of the revelation of Christ in Scripture who IS Mercy…

Sure He does. They are called covenants.

A ‘deal’ is not a ‘covenant’. God does not do deals. He has proclaimed His covenant which draws us into relationship with Him. God has given His gifts. We say “thank you” - there are no deals - a deal is a two-way promise. Only God can do promises! Humans cannot, and Christians are told not to, promise anything.

 

[friardchips]

This was the case for me. It was during a three year stint in a Protestant seminary that I finally understood the truth of the Catholic faith.

Paul wrote that there must be divisions, so that the Truth might be known. I am not sure I understand this saying, but clearly, it is our differences that clarify it.

It would be interesting if we could have the quote from St. Paul here as it is relevant?!

How would you clearly define the difference between a teaching and a doctrine because doctrines clearly do develop / unfold / fruit grows from (what we are witnessing now); otherwise; they would be stagnant and dry?!

 

[friardchips]

gcnuss:

I would venture to say that anyone who cannot, for whatever reason, assent to the doctrines of the Catholic Church should probably not become Catholic. The Church certainly has no need for more “cafeteria Catholics.”

Isaiah45_9:

This ^

And fear of drinking and eating judgement by partaking of the Eucharist with the knowledge that there is no assent to the doctrines of the Church.

‘Cafeteria Catholics’, if receiving the gift of Holy Communion - the body and blood of Jesus Christ - would, if praying, assent to the doctrines of the Church:

'Matthew 7:7 - Effective Prayer

“Ask, and it will given to you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you”…’

 

[Butzi]

Hi Butzi. Thanks for your responses:

I’m sorry, but it appears you’re missing the point. Development does not come at the cost of contradiction. Mercy does not come at the price of reversing what the Catholic faith has taught. This is not a discipline reversal. Let me quote verbatim and you’ll see very clearly what Pius XI said in Mortalium Animos:

**8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their [non Catholics] assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth. Jesus Christ sent His Apostles into the whole world in order that they might permeate all nations with the Gospel faith, and, lest they should err, He willed beforehand that they should be taught by the Holy Ghost. **

Which “enterprises” is he referring to? He tells us before hand:

And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: “That they all may be one… And there shall be one fold and one shepherd,”[14] with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal. They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils. Controversies therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers. The manifold churches or communities, if united in some kind of universal federation, would then be in a position to oppose strongly and with success the progress of irreligion. This, Venerable Brethren, is what is commonly said

10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: “The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”[20] The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that “this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills.”[21] For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one,[22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23] it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.

What’s key to all of this is that Pius XI identified this as as divinely revealed. How? By stating that the Apostolic See “has never allowed” praying with or assembling with non Catholics under a single banner. This is “Tradition”. The canon from the 3rd Council of Constantinople dogmatically confirms this. What’s more, Pius XI, in his opening remarks of this largely ignored encyclical today says this:

Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.

Pius XI is telling us that what he is teaching to the Church here is divinely revealed. This is not a canonical issue, nor a discipline that subsequent popes are free to change. According to Catholic teaching, a pope can indeed change canon law, as he is above them, and disciplines. But he is not above divine law. Pius XI re-iterates what has always been known in the Roman Church.

 

[friardchips]

I’m sorry, but it appears you’re missing the point. Development does not come at the cost of contradiction. Mercy does not come at the price of reversing what the Catholic faith has taught. This is not a discipline reversal. Let me quote verbatim and you’ll see very clearly what Pius XI said in Mortalium Animos:

]Pius XI is telling us that what he is teaching to the Church here is divinely revealed. This is not a canonical issue, nor a discipline that subsequent popes are free to change. According to Catholic teaching, a pope can indeed change canon law, as he is above them, and disciplines. But he is not above divine law. Pius XI re-iterates what has always been known in the Roman Church.

I read the post and I am missing your point I think, but am trying not to. Maybe we are just looking at this topic with different perspectives. And I don’t mean to come across as pedantic, but this inspection is necessary: you use the word reversing? Who is reversing anything? To reverse is to go backwards! How is the Catholic faith reversing what has been taught? To develop means to bring out, to go forward. This is what the Church is doing. It has to go forward because it can’t go back in time. I don’t see where the contradiction is. Are you saying, that because this Pope Pius XI stated that something he taught was divinely revealed and is now being apparently contradicted, that this is reversing ‘known dogmas’, because where is the Dogma (a Dogma should be able to be summed up in one sentence) in that passage? I don’t see it. So the contradiction as you see it is that the Catholic Church now is wanting to merge the Christian churches together? Because I think the R.C Church is more concerned about looking at what we have in common with other religions than merging together at the sacrifice of any attribute of the Catholic faith.

 

[guanophore]

I’m sorry, but it appears you’re missing the point. Development does not come at the cost of contradiction. Mercy does not come at the price of reversing what the Catholic faith has taught. This is not a discipline reversal.

I guess I am not seeing where the “reversal” lies. When I read Mortalium Animos I see the Sacred Tradition that was handed down to us from the Apostles.

I do agree that the Church needs more catechesis on how that position relates to the documents of Vatican 2, but nothing in the current ecumenism suggests that Catholics should abandon the faith in order to fit in and get along with others.

Ecumenism, and calling those home who have drifted from the One Faith is a huge challenge. Our current leaders are providing guidance and direction into how so many factions that have fallen into heresies (some of them ancient) can return to the One Faith.

 

[Butzi]

I guess I am not seeing where the “reversal” lies. When I read Mortalium Animos I see the Sacred Tradition that was handed down to us from the Apostles.

I do agree that the Church needs more catechesis on how that position relates to the documents of Vatican 2, but nothing in the current ecumenism suggests that Catholics should abandon the faith in order to fit in and get along with others.

Ecumenism, and calling those home who have drifted from the One Faith is a huge challenge. Our current leaders are providing guidance and direction into how so many factions that have fallen into heresies (some of them ancient) can return to the One Faith.

Edit. I will post a response later.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

‘Cafeteria Catholics’, if receiving the gift of Holy Communion - the body and blood of Jesus Christ - would, if praying, assent to the doctrines of the Church:

'Matthew 7:7 - Effective Prayer

“Ask, and it will given to you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you”…’

You realize that no is an answer?

 

[friardchips]

You realize that no is an answer?

:newidea:

Knock louder: :hammering:

 

[clem456]

‘Cafeteria Catholics’, if receiving the gift of Holy Communion - the body and blood of Jesus Christ - would, if praying, assent to the doctrines of the Church:

'Matthew 7:7 - Effective Prayer

“Ask, and it will given to you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you”…’

Interesting point.
It’s important to point out again a frequent and basic misunderstanding of what it means “to assent”, or to give the assent of faith.
Is assent the same thing as simple agreement or “like-mindedness”?
No.
It’s interesting that before the Catechism of the Catholic Church gets wound up about doctrine and dogma, it makes a statement about what faith asks of us:

PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

SECTION ONE
“I BELIEVE” - “WE BELIEVE”

CHAPTER THREE
MAN’S **RESPONSE TO **GOD

142 By his Revelation, "the invisible God, from the fullness of his love, addresses men as his friends, and moves among them, in order to invite and receive them into his own company."1 The adequate response to this invitation is faith.

143 By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God.2 With his whole being man **gives his assent to God **the revealer. Sacred Scripture calls this human response to God, the author of revelation, “the obedience of faith”.3

Clearly faith is a personal relationship with God and others that involves personal elements.
Catholicism proposes this whole and unified truth, that faith is not -merely- understanding and agreeing to concepts on a page, it is giving submission and obedience (ob-audiere, to listen") to Christ and his Body. Without this no explanations can ever suffice.

 

[Seraphim73]

Well do we need works to get to heaven, but more specifically here, for justification, key word being “for” as opposed to "because of " ? Or to stay in grace ? To continue to be washed of sin ?

I don’t understand what you are talking about.

 

[benhur]

This was the case for me. It was during a three year stint in a Protestant seminary that I finally understood the truth of the Catholic faith.

Paul wrote that there must be divisions, so that the Truth might be known. I am not sure I understand this saying, but clearly, it is our differences that clarify it.

“for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.” 1Cor. 11:19

The verse has two edges . The one you imply. The other is that factions are "made’’ so as to declare our faction “genuine”, and that the more universal (less legalistic/dogmatic) faction, perhaps are the more truthful and spiritual. It is like a group of brethren sticking together because they are “similar” in faith or practice. They then look at other brethren who are different and think their way is better. It then goes to justifying or proving their superior thought or practice, with trying to get " brethren converts’’ because after all, they are the “genuine” thing.

 

[benhur]

I don’t understand what you are talking about.

You posted, “I appreciate you being sad for me but it does beg the question. If we agree** works are necessary** what are we discussing?”. I posted back asking what are works necessary for, specifically, and gave some examples ( for salvation, justification ?) .

 

[benhur]

I understand how it might seem to be, but on the contrary, when we receive his unmerited favor, we are transfomed by it, and when we walk in the ways He has prescribed fo us, the worth of Chrsit is poured into our souls, and it produces the deeds that befit repentance. It has it’s source and process in grace.

Can you receive it before you are “transformed” ? Do not see the word "merit’’ used by you here. What we discuss here are just what are* His ways He has prescribed for us *in order to receive His grace. Just want to make sure how conditional you make grace.

He did say that greater works would we do…does not walking in grace and virtue make us more useful to the Kingdom

.Sometimes. Some get the same favor whether they have 4 works as like the one who has 8 works. Yes walking in the Spirit is always best.

 

[jmcrae]

Again, to be saved or because of already being justified ? We “inherit” the kingdom or do we earn it ?

Even an inheritance can only be given to the child who remains within the family bosom, and does the things that the family members are expected to do. If a child has disgraced himself and gotten disowned, or if he has estranged himself from the family because of something he disagrees with in the family code of conduct, he won’t get anything.

We are the sum of our behaviour. Someone who does bad things cannot be considered “good.”

 

[friardchips]

Even an inheritance can only be given to the child who remains within the family bosom, and does the things that the family members are expected to do. If a child has disgraced himself and gotten disowned, or if he has estranged himself from the family because of something he disagrees with in the family code of conduct, he won’t get anything.

We are the sum of our behaviour. Someone who does bad things cannot be considered “good.”

Mark 10:18

“…No one is good but God alone”.

This is why we have confession and penance. The Pharisees didn’t see this. The door is always open.

 

[Sy_Noe]

For me at this stage of my faith journey, I can’t become a practicing Catholic because I feel smothered when confined to what would be expected of me. I believe all humans have limitations in knowing the one ultimate truth so I just accept life’s mysteries and the mysteries that come with faith. I personally am more at peace when things are not arranged so neatly in a box of black and white. I like more gray. But that’s how God made me to tick. I understand others though have a different make-up and need more black and white and the need to believe they know the truth. And that’s fine. I just breathe better in a looser gray tee than in a tight fitting black or white one and just prefer wearing gray socks but others prefer wearing black or white ones. It’s just at what stage each of us are along our faith journeys. And may God bless us all as we journey in peace.