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

[Pax]

Angainor:

So I am Christian because of my trinitarian baptism. Would you say this has to do with indisputable matters?

I am deprived of the “fullness of the faith”. Would you say this has to do with disputable matters?

I ask because it is disputable matters that you are not supposed to look down on or condemn. I would say calling me a heretic, material or otherwise, classifies as looking down on me. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant?

Perhaps we could agree that we are separated brothers in Christ. Your beliefs differ from mine in certain respects. Presumably, we disagree with one another on certain matters of faith. If we thought that the beliefs we held were of equal value and validity we would never disagree, but would instead say something like, “cool…different strokes for different folks.” We would even join hands with Muslims, Hindus, and Atheists with the same anthem.

Needless to say, neither you nor I take this kind of approach. In disagreeing with you I do not look down on you at all. Nor do I look down upon Muslims, Hindus, Atheists etal. Our hope as Christians is that all men will come to know Jesus in the Blessed Trinity. As Catholics we pray that all will come to the fullness of the Christian faith. When Catholics do this, our hope and prayer is no different than that of any other Christian who evangelizes his non-Christian neighbor. Christianity has no room for looking down on others. Much has been given to us in Christianity and much is expected. Love of our fellow man is to be extended to all without prejudice.

 

[barsapp]

Angainor:

You want to write me off as condemned, but leave the door open to be saved in some circumstances.

****Council of Florence (1438-1445) (****From the Bull “Cantate Domino”, February 4, 1441) It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

 

[Milliardo]

Angainor:

A heretick is one found to be subverted and sinneth. A heretick is assumed to be condemned. Yet…while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC847).
It seems to me you cannot have it both ways. You want to write me off as condemned, but leave the door open to be saved in some circumstances.

The point of CCC 846 and 847 is that those who have not heard of Christ or His Church through no fault of their onw would still attain salvation; however, those who, having heard of Christ and His Church, still refuses to enter it, stands condemned. I think that’s pretty clear.

 

[Pax]

Is everything always an absolute….is everything an either/or situation?

John 3:18 says:
He who believes in him[Jesus] is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Does this mean that every non-Christian believer is hell bound without exception? Does this mean that even those that have never heard the gospel are automatically going to hell? Does this mean that an infant, the mentally retarded, and the insane are automatically condemned to hell?

Romans 1:20-25 says:
Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.

This verse seems to indicate that only those that are Atheists and Animists will be condemned rather than those that believe in God but do not necessarily know Jesus.

Romans 2:14-16 says:
When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

This verse seems to indicate that Gentiles can be saved because their consciences will bear witness to what is written their hearts and might therefore excuse them “on that day”, i.e. the day of judgment.

It would seem that the Catholic position is the most consistent with scripture. We acknowledge that it is Christ Jesus who saves. We acknowledge that if a person knows the truth but willingly rejects it that they are condemned. We also acknowledge that some people will be excused and that by the mercy of God they will be saved even in ignorance by the gracious merits of Jesus passion, death, and resurrection. This is an inclusive view and not an absolute one of condemning all those outside the Church.

I hope this helps

 

[Mijoy2]

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)
The very nature of Catholicism is an affront to this principle. Catholicism takes a stand on very nearly every “disputable matter” imaginable and requires conformity of all Christians to its view. Who is Catholicism 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.

How do you possibly maintain your view based on this passage? If anything, it further confirms the truth of Catholicism. Catholics, accept Protastants, as Christians who are followers of Christ, yet are not enjoying the fullness of the faith. Many protestants see Catholics in a much less charitable light.

 

[estesbob]

Mijoy2:

How do you possibly maintain your view based on this passage? If anything, it further confirms the truth of Catholicism. Catholics, accept Protastants, as Christians who are followers of Christ, yet are not enjoying the fullness of the faith. Many protestants see Catholics in a much less charitable light.

This thread is De Je Vu all over again. A coupe of weeks ago we had a guy posting as EdenonMymind posting 3 verses from the News tetstament supposedly about killing brehtern He said since the Chucrh killed brethern they couldnt be the one true church.

Now we see the same thing-poster pulls 3 verses out of the new testament-claims only he knows how to interpret them and claims they prove the Church is not the True Church. My question is why do we waste our time with him?

 

[AquinasXVI]

Angianor:

So you’re saying your interpretations 2000 years after Christ is truer than the interpretation of a whole body of Christians that put together the bible?

Are you proposing that you we all pack up and head to where you are and listen to your authority on scriptures?

If you’re contesting the authority of the author of the New Testament (the CC), you have to supply us with ample theology that will completely and utterly prove the whole of catholicism wrong. Don’t just protest it.

in XT.

 

[puzzleannie]

Angainor:

Catholicism takes a stand on very nearly every “disputable matter” imaginable and requires conformity of all Christians to its view. .

the Catholic Church takes a stand on every single issue on which Jesus Christ takes a stand, and requires conformity of all who call themselves Christian to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

 

[Anima_Christi]

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)
The very nature of Catholicism is an affront to this principle. Catholicism takes a stand on very nearly every “disputable matter” imaginable and requires conformity of all Christians to its view. Who is Catholicism 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.

It seems as though the real problem you have with the Catholic Church is her authority. You would rather be free to choose individually what parts of God’s law you choose to believe and to practice, and you will mold your interpretation of Scripture accordingly. But he cannot have God as his Father who will not have the Church as his mother, outside of which is found neither the true faith nor eternal salvation. It requires humility (something your founder the heretic Martin Luther sorely lacked).
“But if thy brother sin against thee, go and show him his fault, between thee and him alone. If he listen to thee, thou hast won thy brother. But if he do not listen to thee, take with thee one or two more so that on the word of two or three witnesses every word may be confirmed. And if he refuse to hear them, appeal to the Church, but if he refuse to hear even the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican. Amen I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.” (St. Matthew 18:15-18)

 

[Mystophilus]

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)
The very nature of Catholicism is an affront to this principle. Catholicism takes a stand on very nearly every “disputable matter” imaginable and requires conformity of all Christians to its view. Who is Catholicism 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.

In your first sentence, you pass judgement upon Catholicism. Please explain to me, for I honestly do not comprehend this, how your passing judgement upon the Catholic church is not in contravention of the very passage which you have just posted?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Mystophilus:

In your first sentence, you pass judgement upon Catholicism. Please explain to me, for I honestly do not comprehend this, how your passing judgement upon the Catholic church is not in contravention of the very passage which you have just posted?

I asked him the same question.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for an answer.

 

[AquinasXVI]

The CC has answers for all morally disputable matters because Christ is the redeemer of Man. As the Church that brings Christ to the world, it has the obligation and responsibility to call out what is edifying and the destructive elements in society. This is by the way in service to you and all of us.

in XT.

 

[dumspirospero]

Wow!!! Your entire belief system and faith hinges on one, out of context, scripture…Rock solid buddy.

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)

The very nature of Catholicism is an affront to this principle. Catholicism takes a stand on very nearly every “disputable matter” imaginable and requires conformity of all Christians to its view. Who is Catholicism 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.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

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)

The very nature of Catholicism is an affront to this principle. Catholicism takes a stand on very nearly every “disputable matter” imaginable and requires conformity of all Christians to its view. Who is Catholicism 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.

There is a voice in the world that we are to listen to and not reject lest we be rejecting Christ himself, as well as the One who sent Him (Luke 10:16). Who, in the world today, gets to authoritatively decide which issues are disputable and which ones aren’t?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[estesbob]

dumspirospero:

Wow!!! Your entire belief system and faith hinges on one, out of context, scripture…Rock solid buddy.

Which, of course, is the basic problem of Sola Scriptura. Instead of relying on 2,000 years of teachng and tradition everyone is told they get to figure it out all by themselves. Most then decide how they want to live their life and lo and behold their interpretaion of Scripture valdidates their lifestyle.!!

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

estesbob:

Which, of course, is the basic problem of Sola Scriptura. Instead of relying on 2,000 years of teachng and tradition everyone is told they get to figure it out all by themselves. Most then decide how they want to live their life and lo and behold their interpretaion of Scripture valdidates their lifestyle.!!

This is why I could never be Protestant. Protestantism, by its very nature, is pure relativism.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Della]

Angainor:

So I am Christian because of my trinitarian baptism. Would you say this has to do with indisputable matters?

Definitely.

I am deprived of the “fullness of the faith”. Would you say this has to do with disputable matters?

No, indisputable.

I ask because it is disputable matters that you are not supposed to look down on or condemn. I would say calling me a heretic, material or otherwise, classifies as looking down on me. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant?

If we both belong to Christ, which we do because we both have been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, then we are both Christ’s servants. So, I am not nor is the Church “judging someone else’s servant.” In fact, I am not judging you at all. I have no idea if you are a holy person or a great sinner, and I don’t care to know–that is for God to decide. But, I and the Church, can know if you are a formal or a material heretic because there is a clear definition for who is and who isn’t of those who are non-Catholic Christians.

If Christ founded a Church, which he himself said he would do, which Paul explained is one in faith and practice, and if Christ gave that Church the authority to judge matters of faith and morals, which he did, then it stands to reason that what you think Christianity is as a protester against that Church has no authority in God’s eyes.

I say this with great love and sympathy, you apparently know nothing of Catholicism. Your entire outlook is based on false information about what the Church is and what it teaches. Your “priesthood of all believers” link proves that. Here you misunderstand what the Church’s position is on this one issue alone. And your accusation that the Church is judging another’s servant also shows how little you know or understand.

For you it is like one who has never had a class in science trying to understand quantum physics. Your innocent ignorance of Catholicism is profound. Instead of reading passages plucked from Catholic documents written for and by Catholics for Catholics, the context, both historical and theological you have no training to understand, you really ought to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and a few other books written by Catholics that explain the Catholic faith in layman’s terms.

I don’t know your denominational affiliation, but if I were to make accusations against it out of ignorance and false information, you would very understandably defend your beliefs and practices, telling me what they really are. That is all we are doing–not judging you nor telling you what you have to believe.

 

[Subrosa]

Angainor:

I ask because it is disputable matters that you are not supposed to look down on or condemn. I would say calling me a heretic, material or otherwise, classifies as looking down on me. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant?

The sin that Martin Luther commited was excommunicable. Keep in mind that someone truly excommunicates oneself before it is codified by the Church. Howerver, Luther’s excommunication does not effect you the same way. Indeed, you cannot be held responsable for his actions.

Here is the official Church teaching on the matter of christians outside of the Church. Read carefully section 818 of the Catechism. I left the link so you can follow the footnotes:

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p3.htm#817

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church—for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body—here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270—do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276 You are not held responsable for the sins of Martin Luther. It is that simple.

Subrosa*

 

[vern_humphrey]

dumspirospero:

Wow!!! Your entire belief system and faith hinges on one, out of context, scripture…Rock solid buddy.

You’re dealing with a rather odd religion called “Not-A-Catholic.” Not-A-Catholics don’t really have religous beliefs as we know them – their whole system is base on not being Catholic. Since they don’t know what Catholics believe, you can imagine the problems they have.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[Angainor]

Mystophilus:

In your first sentence, you pass judgement upon Catholicism. Please explain to me, for I honestly do not comprehend this, how your passing judgement upon the Catholic church is not in contravention of the very passage which you have just posted?

I am violating the very principle I have posted. I admit that. As it says in Ecclesiastes, there is a time for everything.
Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. Acts 15:1-2a
I’m sure Paul would have much preferred to follow his Romans 14 principle in this instance. I’m sure he would have rather not passed judgement on the weak faith of the men from Judea who believed they needed to be circumcised. He must have had a very good reason for coming into sharp dispute and debate with them.

Paul couldn’t keep quiet because those men from Judea weren’t content to hold their ideas themselves, the men from Judea claim their own authority to proclaim the truth of the necessity of circumcision and attempted to assert that authority on the Christians in Antioch.

Catholicism claims authority to proclaim the truth and attempts to assert that authority on all Christians. This brings me into sharp dispute and debate with it.