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

[Catholic4aReasn]

Angainor:

I recognize the principle laid out in Romans 14:1-4 to be an indisputable truth. When I see a violation of that truth I can throw a flag on the field. Authority does not lie with me. Authority does not even lie with the words of Paul. Authority lies with the independent truthfulness of the concept Paul describes in Romans.

Your statement seems contradictory. First you said that you can recognize the priniciple in Romans as indisputable truth, then you said that you don’t have the authority to recognize truth. Help?

In light of the fact that we know that there is a voice in the world that we are to listen to and not reject lest we be rejecting Christ himself (Luke 10:16), who DOES have the authority to say what is truth and what isn’t?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Angainor]

Catholic4aReasn:

Scripture also says that it’s the Church that is the upholder, protector and defender of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).

If this voice and this church are not the Catholic Church or the Lutheran church where, exactly, do you believe should we turn to hear this voice and find the one that upholds, protects and defends the truth? We know it’s there. God’s word tells us. Where is it?

I know wind exists even though I cannot see it because it blows the leaves.

The indisputable truth of the Gospel has survived 2000 years. The Church that is the upholder, protector, and defender of the truth exists.

Are there disputable details? Yes. Is that OK? I think yes.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Angainor:

I accuse Catholicism of taking positions on “disputable matters” and judging other Christians for not taking their position.

Can you please give a few examples of this?

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

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Nicene]

Angainor:

I am allowed to judge another’s servant on indisputable matters. I am judgeing Catholicism on the principles of Romans 14:1-4 which I consider to be indisputable. Do you also find the principles in Romans 14:1-4 indisputable? If not, what is your dispute?

Then, we have the right to judge you on the same disputable matters, thus making void your first accusation on “who is the catholic church to judge…”

Sorry but you don’t get to assume that role of judgement for yourself then in the same breath deny it to others (the church). That is setting yourself up as your own pope.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Jon_S]

Amgainor is imposing judgement on Catholics for supposedly passing judgement on other Christians.

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.

Amgainor makes the claim and Catholics dispute it wich makes it a disputable matter. Therefor, this is a classic case of “Pot calls the Kettle black.” Amgainors claim makes him guilty of the very reason he is not Catholic.

It’s cool. I confuse myself, too, sometimes.

 

[Quaere_Verum]

Angainor,

I applaud your fervor for the Lord and your wanting to discuss matters of faith.

Now I’m not following the “disputable”/“nondisputable” discussion very well, so forgive me for that. What I do want to mention is that if we read and interpret Sacred Scripture without a basic framework then we are risking grievous misinterpretations. Some eloquent nonCatholic Christian people I know made personal interpretation look very appealing. Then I realized something - that it was quite arrogant of me to think that somehow in my few decades of life I had more wisdom than 2000 years of Catholic Church teachings. Therein lay and lies the framework of Biblical understanding that I had/have to consider when reading and attempting to interpret Scripture.

God Bless You,
Quaere Verum
Seek the Truth

 

[Nicene]

Pax:

ANgainor,

Please do not misunderstand my post. I am not judging and saying that you are part of a modern day Korah’s rebellion. You simply have not yet become Catholic…but I have great hope that you will eventually. You would be a really good one.

I absolutely agree with you. Anyone who defends as hard as he does would make a really good catholic. Converts make the very best defenders of the faith precisely because of the hard road they must travel in their faith. It means giving up everything (especially preconceptions and misconceptions) and trusting Christ to lead.

I think we all ‘try’ to let Him lead, but we don’t always submit.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[bekalc]

I think this poster is coming from a Protestant mentality. The Lutheran Church doesn’t claim to have the authority to “define” truth. But part of the reason for this one is because the Lutheran church cannot claim it. They were a group breaking off from the authority of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church first of all doesn’t agree Scripturally with denominations in the first place. We don’t believe denominations are suppose to exist. We think Scripturally that Christ wants one Church, so the world will believe Christ’s message.

We also know from Scripture that Christ gave the Church leaders and these leaders had authority to make decisions. See Acts 15.

The Catholic church claims to have the same leadership ability and authority as the Church in Acts 15, because her leaders are descendant from them. However, lets be fair the Eastern Orthodox can also claim the same thing. (Kind of right.)

However, I’m amazed at Protestants claiming that we divide over disputable matters. Because frankly the Roman Catholic church has far more diverse theologically than any Protestant Church. For example, we have at least 5 different schools on election, and I believe Lutherans have one.

Yes, there are things Catholics must believe, but there also things Lutherans must believe to be Lutheran, same with Presbyterians, Pentecostals etc.

The reason Catholics can allow such diversity in the Church is because we have agreement on who will solve the matter if a question comes up.

 

[Nicene]

Yes, there are things Catholics must believe, but there also things Lutherans must believe to be Lutheran, same with Presbyterians, Pentecostals etc.

The reason Catholics can allow such diversity in the Church is because we have agreement on who will solve the matter if a question comes up.

That’s the crux of the matter in Mt 18:15-17. I don’t believe Christ ever said anything on a whim or out of hand. He was building His church. When matters are disputed He says bring it to the church.

He gave authority and power to the church to govern, bind and loose, forgive and retain. He made the church the pillar and foundation. He promised them the Holy Spirit to protect and guide and said He would be with the church til the end of time and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

If he can’t do the simple thing he said (and He has: the miracle is manifest in the existance and protection of the church for 2000 years) then the bible wouldn’t be worth the paper it is written on.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Mystophilus]

Angainor:

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.

With respect, Angainor, when one comes into sharp dispute and debate with them, one claims the authority to proclaim truth and assert that onto them: when one tells them that they are wrong, one asserts one’s own position as ‘right’ and attempts to force that paradigm upon them.

I cannot see their motes for my own plank, brother.

 

[cursillo]

Angainor,

Jesus gave authority to the One Holy Catholic Apostalic church to discern through the Holy Spirit what it is to be held as truth or to be rejected as heretical for example; only the Catholic church holds that abortion, cotreception, birth control ,pre-marital sex, homosexual relationships are intrinsicaly evil acts. This is a very simple reply to your question, but where would we be if the Catholic were not around to point out errors when other christian communities try affirm to these activities as truth. I know for a fact that because the Catholic church stands her ground when it comes to these issues; that it is attracting converts to the faith for the very reasons you have rejected it. I am a member of my parrishes RCIA team and this is what they are telling us. For example we are getting more convets from the Methodist community because of their acceptance of homosexual relationships. We are getting so many converts from the Methodist church it is almost more than we can handle, and they are some of the most active members of the parrish. I could go on and on but I would be here forever. Peace.

 

[Ivornotion]

april_hosen:

The thing is I really dont want Paul to chew me out at the pearly gates. In other words I don’t want to be a “foolish Galation”.

Hello april_hosen, as Catholic4reasn pointed out this is about circumcision.

2:16 But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. (Circumcision)

3:2 This only would I learn of you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

3:3 Are you so foolish, that, whereas you began in the Spirit, you would now be made perfect by the flesh? (circumcision)

3:5 He therefore who giveth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you; doth he do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of the faith? What was the law of that time ? circumcision​

3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise, by the faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe.

3:23 But before the faith came, we were kept under the law shut up, unto that faith which was to be revealed.

3:24 Wherefore the law was our pedagogue in Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

3:25 But after the faith is come, we are no longer under a pedagogue.

3:26 For you are all the children of God by faith, in Christ Jesus.
after faith had come (Jesus) it seems these people had a hard time adjusting to the new, and still wanted to abide by the law of circumcision.​

6:12 For as many as desire to please in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer the persecution of the cross of Christ.
6:13 For neither they themselves who are circumcised, keep the law; but they will have you to be circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.

6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ; by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world.

6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

6:16 And whosoever shall follow this rule, peace on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

6:17 From henceforth let no man be troublesome to me; for I bear the marks of the Lord Jesus in my body.

6:18 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brethren. Amen.

So april it may not be clear to you, but to me it is that this is about circumcision, they’re talking about the flesh to be justified, when they should be talking about things of the Spirit, Jesus Christ.

And as for this thread, it was disproved from a few posts into it, so for me no use going over old ground.
God Bless.

catholicdoors.com/bible/galat.htm

 

[Milliardo]

Angainor:

TIME OUT!

What are we talking about here? Interpretation of what? What exactly do you dispute?

You said in your post: “but it is my right to appeal to the truth revealed in scripture.” The truth based on whose interpretation? See, the whole crux of the issue is quite simple–you appeal to the truth as revealed in Scripture. But whose revelation? Are we going to see the spin about the Bible as being “self-interpreting” here?

 

[maryalene]

Angainor:

Fair enough. I said “objective” third party as an abstract, a hypothetical truely objective third party. Maybe such a thing can’t exist. Forget about that.

Could you honestly and objectively say that Catholicism does not take positions on disputable matters and judges other Christians by their position?That is easy enough to say, but doesn’t it kind of imply that a matter was in some way in dispute when the Pope has to come out with a statement saying “I authoritatively declare that this is what Catholics must believe”?

I think others have already touched on this in other responses, but I think the main problem is that we hold different definitions of what constitutes a disputable matter. I can honestly say that I do not believe the Catholic Church takes positions and makes judgements on disputable matters. However, I also understand that from your perspective we do. For example, I look at Sacred Scripture and see Jesus charging his disciples with the task of binding and loosing sins, and I see the Sacrament of Reconciliation as being an indisputable practice instituted by God. I realize that you look at Sacred Scripture and see other passages which you you believe dispute the validity of this Sacrament. I think it is very hard to come to a common ground in this matter because we are coming from such different perspectives.

And that brings us back to what is a disputable matter. I don’t think the Pope making an authoritative statement is a proper measure of whether something is a disputable matter since over the years, and especially in our secular society, 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. If that makes Jesus’s divine nature a disputable matter, as referred to in Romans, then that throws evangelization out the window.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

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.

For one to know if another is a heretic, it takes the judgement of the final arbiter on such matters, the Church. Luther was admonished several times before being judged a heretic.

I haven’t written you off to be condemned. I have, however, pointed to where your ecclesiology is unScriptural and flawed, as it presumes nobody can be judged by the Church to be a heretic–which makes nonesens of Titus 3:10. Your ecclesiology is contrary to the the clear context of Scripture, which demands that we 1) know who the heretics are with moral certainty, and 2) shun them once known.

If a Catholic monk, someone like Luther, sins against his brethren, by proclaiming heresy, it is up to his brethren to point out his error. If he does not listen to them, then the testimony of two or three witnesses is the next means of admonishment. If they do not listen to them, then we are to TAKE THE MATTER TO THE CHURCH. If they do not EVEN LISTEN TO THE CHURCH…???

The Church is the final arbiter, more authoritative than one’s personal opinion, even more authoritative than the will of Luther. The Church decided the matter regarding Luther’s heresy. Titus 3:1 and 3:10 is surely applicable.

It is possible for you to be saved, not by your wisdom, but due to God’s mercy in context of your unintentional ignorance. Jesus himself prays to the Father for those that rejected and crucified Him, saying “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.” Since it is possible for even those that rejected Christ to be forgiven because of their ignorance, I find that there’s also a possibility that those who may be joined in soul to the Church, but not in body, are also on the way of salvation.

I don’t know what impediments to your intellect and will are keeping you from the truth. Only God knows. If you deliberately reject God’s grace then God help you. If you unintentionally reject Christ by rejected His Church due to unintended ignorance, God have mercy on you, for you know not what you are doing.

 

[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.

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.

At any rate, if this sort of thing is not what Angainor was talking about, I apologize for taking the topic in a different direction. God Bless all of you!

 

[mlchance]

The Iambic Pen:

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.

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.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

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.

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.

At any rate, if this sort of thing is not what Angainor was talking about, I apologize for taking the topic in a different direction. God Bless all of you!

What’s the difference between a “disputable” matter and an un-disputable matter?

Where in scripture or in the writings of the Fathers can these definitions be found?

May I suggest that the Church defines what is disputable and what is undisputable? And it does so by declaring the latter de fides?

 

[Angainor]

Mystophilus:

With respect, Angainor, when one comes into sharp dispute and debate with them, one claims the authority to proclaim truth and assert that onto them: when one tells them that they are wrong, one asserts one’s own position as ‘right’ and attempts to force that paradigm upon them.

I cannot see their motes for my own plank, brother.

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

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

I am just now starting to get an idea on which fundamental concepts we disagree on.

 

[Nicene]

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

As the OP you have yet to define what it is you think is disputable and indisputable. You expect us to read your mind? Isn’t that rather dichotomous? (Other than taking a passage out of context)

You made a rash statement without knowing what the arguement was in the first place?

I am just now starting to get an idea on which fundamental concepts we disagree on.

Which are? This should have been in your OP.

Basically you said “I have an arguement with you, what is it?”

I don’t know, you tell us.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene