Reasons not to be Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bettan89
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
cheese_sdc said:
Or, the early followers of Jesus were attempting to put meaning to a horrible, senseless death at the hands of the religious and political power structures of the day. šŸ™‚
Click to expand...
I did not create this thread to debate wheather Jesus is what he said to be or not. So if youā€™re not Christian, then please go to another thread where they debate apologetics instead.

I think Iā€™ve found out the answer to my original question: I see no good arguments not to be Catholic. All the arguments brought up here are only about, at least to me, less important issues thatā€™d not affect my faith. So Iā€™m pretty sure Iā€™ll convert one day.

Have a blessed Easter!
 
Bettan89 said:
I did not create this thread to debate wheather Jesus is what he said to be or not. So if youā€™re not Christian, then please go to another thread where they debate apologetics instead.

I think Iā€™ve found out the answer to my original question: I see no good arguments not to be Catholic. All the arguments brought up here are only about, at least to me, less important issues thatā€™d not affect my faith. So Iā€™m pretty sure Iā€™ll convert one day.

Have a blessed Easter!
Click to expand...
I happen to think the discussion is very appropriate, but hey, itā€™s your thread. šŸ˜ƒ Good luck on your journey. :clapping:
 
Bettan89 said:
Iā€™ve seen a lot of sites on the Internet arguing why one should not become a Catholic. But then Iā€™ve never seen what they think you should be instead. To me it seems like if the Catholic church is not the Church founded by Christ, then the Truth has not been preserved in any church. Because historically, the Catholic church is the first church, and everyone else have broken up from this one, at least thatā€™s my knowledge. So if I seek to find The Church and The Truth, and I for some reason have found the Catholic church not to be the One, then whitch church should I go to??

Therefore I wonder if anyone who is not a Catholic or anyone who has converted from the Catholic church to another church could tell me which church you believe is the true one? Because I strongly want to believe that Christ has preserved His Truth along history, and if the Catholic church bears the Truth, then I see no reasons why one should not belong to it.

A lot of people make their choice of church based on which church best suits their beliefs and interests. But IF their is a Truth, then does it really matter what I think? I would rather obey to the Truth of the Lord than seeking the church with the best priest, songs or people.
Click to expand...
The simple answer is there arent any.
 
Bettan89 said:
I did not create this thread to debate wheather Jesus is what he said to be or not. So if youā€™re not Christian, then please go to another thread where they debate apologetics instead.

I think Iā€™ve found out the answer to my original question: I see no good arguments not to be Catholic. All the arguments brought up here are only about, at least to me, less important issues thatā€™d not affect my faith. So Iā€™m pretty sure Iā€™ll convert one day.

Have a blessed Easter!
Click to expand...
It is indeed a prbl;em to disucss beliefs with people who dont have any.
 
=joe370;7797280]Hey Jon, hope you had a great Easter brother! šŸ™‚
Jon, if the Church universal, is the congregation of believers, regardless of denomination, where the word is preached then shouldnā€™t the sacraments, as well. be administered in the church universal, comprised of the congregation of believers, regardless of denomination?
Click to expand...
Thatā€™s what the Lutheran Confessions say.
If the Sacraments are not embraced by one particular church, are the members of that one particular church considered members of another church that does in fact embrace the Sacraments? I mean, are the members of these 2 separate churches considered the united congregation of believers even though one church sees no need for the Sacraments while another church does see a need for the Sacraments? :confused:
Click to expand...
I will tread lightly here, because only God finally decides, but Lutherans would find it heterdox not to recognize the sacraments, and heterdox beliefs have there dangers. Suffice it to say that Lutherans believe the Church has 2 roles, to preach the word and administer the sacraments. Both.

Jon
 
joe370 said:
Hi Rawbā€¦šŸ™‚
Click to expand...
I am happy for you. šŸ™‚ The beautiful thing is the fact that the holy Eucharist can be found in both the CC and the EOC. I was just wondering: If the CC is not a modern, historical church preserved by the Holy Spirit from any innovation for 2,000 Years, and was not founded by Jesus Christ, then who founded the CC and when? That would certainly help me make the same move you made to the EOC! :confused: I too, as a former protestant, considered the EOCā€¦

Who founded the Roman Catholic Church? I donā€™t know that I could point to a single person, but a rather large balance of the responsibility would have to fall, IMO, on Cardinal Humbert of Mourmoutiers. Some falls on the Popes who attempted to assert universal jurisdiction, some on the laity for going along with the novelty, and, I have to say, some on the Eastern Patriarchs for not acting in a respectful and brotherly manner towards their brother Bishop. Unlike most protestant churches, there isnā€™t really one single founder of Roman Catholicism, but that doesnā€™t mean itā€™s a perfect continuation of Christā€™s Church.
 
There are Protestants who truly believe that the Roman Catholic church itself was one of the first denominations from the church founded by the apostles. They believe that since the early church did not follow the bishop of Rome, he shouldnā€™t be held in higher authority. They believe that since the elders of the early church could be married, the pastors and priests of the modern church should be allowed to do so as well. Things lik that.

The point being, people believe the RCC is not the church founded in Acts.
 
Hey Rawbā€¦
Who founded the Roman Catholic Church? I donā€™t know that I could point to a single person, but a rather large balance of the responsibility would have to fall, IMO, on Cardinal Humbert of Mourmoutiers.
Click to expand...
I think I understand: you believe that the Catholic church Ignatius of Antioch referred to was not the same church Cardinal Humbert belonged to? Well, that, if it were true, would be a good reasons not to be Catholic, but there is no historical proof to support that claim, not that I am saying that you are making that claim.
 
AmateurPianist said:
Ummā€¦please explain from the wording of the my original post as to how it must be interpreted in this way. Otherwise I --really do not appreciate-- you putting words in my mouth and claiming to speak for me.
Click to expand...
I did not put words in your mouth!!! I put it in the form of a question with the hopes of an answer!!! šŸ™‚
 
JonNC said:
Thatā€™s what the Lutheran Confessions say.

I will tread lightly here, because only God finally decides, but Lutherans would find it heterdox not to recognize the sacraments, and heterdox beliefs have there dangers. Suffice it to say that Lutherans believe the Church has 2 roles, to preach the word and administer the sacraments. Both.

Jon
Click to expand...
But not all churches agree with the Lutheran church or the Catholic church, regarding the Sacraments, and those churches that do embrace the Sacraments do not always agree on the number of Sacraments, which was kind of my point regarding the notion that there is only one church where the Sacraments are found, but I digress as per the moderator. šŸ™‚
 
ConsciousCoward said:
There are Protestants who truly believe that the Roman Catholic church itself was one of the first denominations from the church founded by the apostles. They believe that since the early church did not follow the bishop of Rome, he shouldnā€™t be held in higher authority. They believe that since the elders of the early church could be married, the pastors and priests of the modern church should be allowed to do so as well. Things lik that.

The point being, people believe the RCC is not the church founded in Acts.
Click to expand...
If they are right about the RCC not being the church founded in Acts then that would leave just one other church: the Eastern Orthodox church. None of the Protestant churches were around when the book of Acts was written, or even when the east and the west split in the 11th century, so logically speaking, that leaves us with either the CC or the EOC - yes no maybe?
 
joe370 said:
If they are right about the RCC not being the church founded in Acts then that would leave just one other church: the Eastern Orthodox church. None of the Protestant churches were around when the book of Acts was written, or even when the east and the west split in the 11th century, so logically speaking, that leaves us with either the CC or the EOC - yes no maybe?
Click to expand...
Noā€“again youā€™re presenting a false choice. Did you listen the presentation by Fr. Groeschel that I referred you to?
 
Ok, I think Iā€™m still on topic. The OP wanted reasons why weā€™re not Catholic (in my case, anymore), and thatā€™s what Iā€™m doing. I donā€™t mean to go off-topic, so forgive me if I am.
I think I understand: you believe that the Catholic church Ignatius of Antioch referred to was not the same church Cardinal Humbert belonged to? Well, that, if it were true, would be a good reasons not to be Catholic, but there is no historical proof to support that claim, not that I am saying that you are making that claim.
Click to expand...
I think it should rather be said that the Catholic Church St. Ignatius of Antioch is referring to was not the Church Cardinal Humbert was creating. At that point in time I wouldnā€™t want to say, definitively, that the two were separate. Perhaps they were though, as the Bull had already been slammed upon the altar of the Hagia Sophia. Iā€™m not sure at which point, definitively, the one became two, but it was not long after that, and has definitely happened at the points where Papal Infallibility and Universality became dogma.

To double check I re-read through my copy of the letters of St. Ignatius on his way to being martyred. Nowhere does he instruct others to be subject to the Bishop of Rome, but to their own bishop. He never says that the Church is incomplete without the Pope, but that itā€™s Catholicity resides in the laity, the deacons, the presbyters, and the bishop together. That is Catholic, the universality, the ā€œwholeness and completenessā€. We require nobody to be part of the Body of Christ for that body to be complete. His ecclesiology seems to be one of collegiality and community, as is the Orthodox structure to this day, not monarchy, as Roman Catholicism is.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
Noā€“again youā€™re presenting a false choice. Did you listen the presentation by Fr. Groeschel that I referred you to?
Click to expand...
My bad. Let me re-phrase it this way: there were no protestant churches when the book of Acts was written. šŸ‘
 
Rawb said:
Ok, I think Iā€™m still on topic. The OP wanted reasons why weā€™re not Catholic (in my case, anymore), and thatā€™s what Iā€™m doing. I donā€™t mean to go off-topic, so forgive me if I am.

I think it should rather be said that the Catholic Church St. Ignatius of Antioch is referring to was not the Church Cardinal Humbert was creating. At that point in time I wouldnā€™t want to say, definitively, that the two were separate. Perhaps they were though, as the Bull had already been slammed upon the altar of the Hagia Sophia. Iā€™m not sure at which point, definitively, the one became two, but it was not long after that, and has definitely happened at the points where Papal Infallibility and Universality became dogma.

To double check I re-read through my copy of the letters of St. Ignatius on his way to being martyred. Nowhere does he instruct others to be subject to the Bishop of Rome, but to their own bishop. He never says that the Church is incomplete without the Pope, but that itā€™s Catholicity resides in the laity, the deacons, the presbyters, and the bishop together. That is Catholic, the universality, the ā€œwholeness and completenessā€. We require nobody to be part of the Body of Christ for that body to be complete. His ecclesiology seems to be one of collegiality and community, as is the Orthodox structure to this day, not monarchy, as Roman Catholicism is.
Click to expand...
My bad. Regarding Ignatius I was only referring to his use of the word catholic as opposed to any deference to the bishop of Rome. I am not sure what you mean regarding, ā€œUniversality became dogmaā€¦?ā€ :confused: Papal Infallibility was officially defined as dogma much later, just like the Trinity and Theotokos, when these things were being challenged but both the fallible leaders of the EOC and the CC claim to teach infallibly via the perpetual guidance of the Holy spirit, just as the Catholic Church (or in your case, the EOC:thumbsup:) - did at the first 7 Ecumenical Councils. For me It was actually the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs, men such as Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Maximus who lived prior to the east - west schism, that convinced me of the supremacy and primacy of Petrine office. I couldnā€™t find any eastern Patriarchs, prior to the 10th century that denied it; quite the opposite. They only gave me reasons to be Catholic; different strokes for different folks. šŸ‘ If you get the chance maybe you could PM some quotes over to me, regarding any eastern Patriarchs, prior to the 10th century that denied it? šŸ‘
 
If you get the chance maybe you could PM some quotes over to me, regarding any eastern Patriarchs, prior to the 10th century that denied it?
Click to expand...
No can do. From what Iā€™ve read, the idea of Papal universality (by which Iā€™ve been meaning Universal Jurisdiction, the idea that the Bishop of Rome has authority over all other bishops) was entirely alien to most people in the Early Church. Perhaps everyone.

But I have to be clear. I believe Peter had a pre-eminent position. Thatā€™s undeniable. Peterā€™s descendants (through the Church in Rome) *should *have the post of highest honor. The Roman Popes *should *be a source of support and assistance to all bishops worldwide. He is the first among equals, and Peter is the stone that the Church was built upon.

*However *that doesnā€™t mean that he is infallible, or that just because one bishop appeals to another that the appealed-to-bishop has any authority over the other. If the stone leaves the rest of The Church, it is the stoneā€™s lost, not oursā€™. That doesnā€™t mean he may act against the wishes of the rest of the church (in theory even). The idea that one man is infallible lacks any support from the Early Church Fathers that I can find. The fact that the Church in Rome was free from most of the major heresies doesnā€™t make her infallible, but graced. Unfortunately later popes interpreted that grace in a different way.

The EOC only claims infallibility through ecumenical councils, bishops, priests, and laity working together. No one man can ever claim infallibility alone.
I was only referring to his use of the word catholic
Click to expand...
Ahhh. Well, we are Catholic as well. We are One. We are Holy. We are Catholic, and we are Apostolic. The manner in which we use Catholic (whole in its teachings and complete when the bishop, priest, and laity are in union) is the meaning of St. Ignatius. Roman Catholics, IME, tend to use ā€œCatholicā€ in the sense that their church is everywhere on the globe, or speak of The Church Militant, Triumphant, and Suffering as being the meaning of Catholic. Iā€™ve heard far too many speak of needing ā€œtwo lungsā€ or what have you for the church to be ā€œcompleteā€ (i.e. Catholic) to think they understand it in the way I first spoke of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top