Why I am not a Catholic - Romans 14:1-4

[vern_humphrey]

Angainor:

I have been trying to ascertain exactly which principles Catholics and I disagree about.

Let me help you out there. From your posts, anything Catholic Church says we must believe in, you reject.

Angainor:

I am trying to find the common ground. For example, no one has come forward and disputed the Romans 14:1-4 principle, so that principle is not something I am asserting onto them.]/quote]

I do not find the word “principle” in Romans 14, 1-4. Perhaps you can help me out.

Angainor:

IIt has been tough finding out on which fundamental principle Catholics and I are actually disagreeing about here.

That happens when you keep moving the goal posts. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Angainor:

IThe most common response is to have the idea that “the pope has authority” thrown up as a barrier to discussion. That doesn’t really have anything to do with Romans 14:1-4.

So you’re making progress. Romans 14, 1-4 doesn’t say the Church does not have the authority to define and teach the faith.

 

[Angainor]

Catholic4aReasn:

Who has the authority to decide which matters are disputable and which are not?

Let me begin by using the example of the Creeds, Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds.

What are they? I think you and I would agree they contain indisputible matters. They are not an exhaustive list of indisputible matters, but they contain indisputible matters.

They attempt to define–if you don’t believe this you are not Christian. They did not originate by authoritative declaration. They are statements of faith. The Church decided that these are things we consider indisputable.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Angainor:

Let me begin by using the example of the Creeds, Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds.

What are they? I think you and I would agree they contain indisputible matters. They are not an exhaustive list of indisputible matters, but they contain indisputible matters.

They attempt to define–if you don’t believe this you are not Christian. They did not originate by authoritative declaration. They are statements of faith. The Church decided that these are things we consider indisputable.

Bingo!

The Church decided that these are things we consider indisputable.

The Church decides what is indisputable and what is not. Not you. Not me.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Angainor:

Let me begin by using the example of the Creeds, Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds.

What are they? I think you and I would agree they contain indisputible matters. They are not an exhaustive list of indisputible matters, but they contain indisputible matters.

They attempt to define–if you don’t believe this you are not Christian. They did not originate by authoritative declaration. They are statements of faith. The Church decided that these are things we consider indisputable.

But you don’t believe the Church has the authority to decide what is indisputable. Who then, does? You keep using the words "disputable’ and “indisputable”. Who has the God-given authority to decide what is really, truly and objectively disputable or indisputable? I
In Christ,
Nancy

 

[vern_humphrey]

Catholic4aReasn:

But you don’t believe the Church has the authority to decide what is indisputable. Who then, does? You keep using the words "disputable’ and “indisputable”. Who has the God-given authority to decide what is really, truly and objectively disputable or indisputable? I

In Christ,
Nancy

Okay, let me see if I understand this. The OP complains the Church makes decisions on “disputable” matters, but can’t define what constitutes a “disputable” matter, except that the Church can’t rule on it, and somehow he blames the Church for his confusion?

Have I got it right?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[patricklappert]

Boy oh boy Angainor. You certainly are getting a lot of attention!
We will keep you in our prayers. I suspect it won’t be long before your cross the Tiber.
JMJ

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

The Iambic Pen:

Perhaps this example will help: For most of Church history, people were free to believe Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven, or they were free to believe she was not. This was a disputable matter, on which the Church did not pass judgment. However, this was recently (well, relatively speaking) pronounced as a doctrine. Now, it seems that the Church is passing judgment on a disputable matter. Christians who did not see sufficient evidence for this belief now found themselves on the “outside,” so to speak. As belief in the doctrine of the Assumption does not seem to be in any way necessary for salvation, and there is not a wealth of information supporting it, it seems that this is a disputable matter, and one on which the Church should not be passing judgment.

How did you come to equate “not necessary for salvation” and “indisputable”? Is that in scripture? If not, where did that idea come from?

Keep in mind I’m not actually suggesting that the Assumption isn’t true. It may be. It just seems that we here on Earth really can’t know everything, and binding pronouncements shouldn’t be necessary for every single thing. I am very (very, very…) much inclined to accept Catholicism, but I must confess the Church’s practice of binding the conscience of the believer on matters which are debatable is still a difficulty for me.

Who gets to authoritatively decide what is debatable and what isn’t?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Angainor]

vern humphrey:

The Church decides what is indisputable and what is not. Not you. Not me.

I have never disputed that.
See 1 Timothy 3:15

 

[Angainor]

maryalene:

I think everything has been up for dispute at one point or another. Is the divinity of Jesus a “disputable matter?” The Pope has made authoritative statements on this matter at many points in the past.

Interesting. I would wager that Jesus’ divinity was indisputable far before any Pope made an “authoritative statement” about it.

 

[estesbob]

Angainor:

I have never disputed that.
See 1 Timothy 3:15

I suspect, hoever, that your Definition of “Church” is very different than ours and very different from Christ’s

 

[Nicene]

Angainor:

Interesting. I would wager that Jesus’ divinity was indisputable far before any Pope made an “authoritative statement” about it.

Tell the Jews and some Gnostics that.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Angainor]

Nicene:

As the OP you have yet to define what it is you think is disputable and indisputable.

Who am I to say what is disputable and indisputable?

 

[Nicene]

Angainor:

I have never disputed that.
See 1 Timothy 3:15

Which church then? The Lutheran? The Pentacostals? The Presbyterians? The Evangelics? Do you submit to their any of their authorities when they make decisions.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Angainor:

Who am I to say what is disputable and indisputable?

Umm you brought it up then accused us of it remember? So you must have had something in mind. If you didn’t it’s a poor mans arguement and a rather devoid commentary.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[RobNY]

Angainor:

Who am I to say what is disputable and indisputable?

If you don’t know what is disputable, then how can you claim that Catholics are binding consciences wrongly on disputable matters?

 

[Angainor]

mlchance:

If the Church has spoken authoritatively on a matter, she has done so guided by the Holy Spirit; therefore, such a matter is no longer a proper subject for debate.

This is it in a nutshell. If I may be so bold as to paraphrase:

If Catholicism has spoken on a matter (any matter) that matter is no longer a proper subject for debate.
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
Romans 14:1-4 (NIV)

 

[vern_humphrey]

Angainor:

I have never disputed that.
See 1 Timothy 3:15

Then what is your argument?

If the Church declares something to be de fides, that’s that. By virtue of the fact that the Church has spoken the issue is not disputable.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Angainor:

This is it in a nutshell. If I may be so bold as to paraphrase:

If Catholicism has spoken on a matter (any matter) that matter is no longer a proper subject for debate.

Correct. And therefore we must all accept what the Church has declared de fides.

Angainor:

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Romans 14:1-4 (NIV)

And no one has a problem with that – if Paul were from Arkansas, he’d have phrased it this way, "Don’t pole vault over mouse droppings."http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[Angainor]

RobNY:

If you don’t know what is disputable, then how can you claim that Catholics are binding consciences wrongly on disputable matters?

First of all, it would be wrong according to Romans 14:1-4 for me to suggest that Catholics are binding their consciences wrongly on disputable matters. I hope I have not done that.

Secondly, on the issue of disputable/indisputable. (Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.)

I was sort of counting on the consciences of individual Catholics on this forum. As a Protestant, it is nearly beyond reason for me to think that there is not one matter “authoritatively decided” by Catholicism that the individual Catholic’s conscience might tend to categorize as “disputable”.

Maybe I am way off on that. Maybe each Catholic on this forum is clear in his or her own mind that each and every issue decided by Catholicism is indisputable.

Maybe… But it seems to me that if a Catholic were totally clear in their own mind that there are no disputable matters within the whole of Catholic Dogma… this would be a very boring thread. I would think they would take one look at my argument and declare it transparently false.

Maybe it is just my Protestant outlook, but
the lady doth protest too much, methinks.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Angainor:

I was sort of counting on the consciences of individual Catholics on this forum. As a Protestant, it is nearly beyond reason for me to think that there is not one matter “authoritatively decided” by Catholicism that the individual Catholic’s conscience might tend to categorize as “disputable”.

We are all sinners. But other than as a wilful sin, why should I reject what the Church teaches de fides.

We have agreed that the Church has the authority to declare what is “disputable” and not disputable. So why should any of us disagree when the Church speaks

Angainor:

Maybe I am way off on that. Maybe each Catholic on this forum is clear in his or her own mind that each and every issue decided by Catholicism is indisputable.

I thought we had pretty much settled that when we agreed that the Church has the authority to declare what is indisputable.

Angainor:

Maybe… But it seems to me that if a Catholic were totally clear in their own mind that there are no disputable matters within the whole of Catholic Dogma… this would be a very boring thread. I would think they would take one look at my argument and declare it transparently false.

We did that already.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif