Why I am not Catholic - Revisited

[sek]

Angainor:

Like I said, A, B, & C are those Theological matters in the Lutheran confessions Catholicism has judged to exclude Lutherans from Christ’s Church.

I don’t think there are any Theological matters in Lutheran confessions that would exclude Lutherans from Christ’s Church, so I probably wouldn’t be a good person to ask. A better source than me for A, B, & C would be Catholicism itself. I’m not sure if Catholicism has ever compiled a list of unworthy Theological matters in the Lutheran confessions.

There is no need to understand A/B/C (I am sure they are 99% in line with the Church). It is possible to start with the simplist test:
Do they accept the Apostolic Authority that Christ established?

If they do, then all tricky theological matters can be worked out by theologians on both sides in a very quiet fashion. If they don’t then, it doesn’t matter what A/B/C are. You see, you can have two families that believe almost exactly the same thing, but that doesn’t make them part of the same family. Christ established one Church and most Christians stayed in that Church, but many left. Of those who left, most ultimately showed their true colors and built a secular world with polluted rivers. On the other hand, some are coming home, because they can now see that without Apostolic authority, you get perpetually splintering factions (30,000 and counting - fast). Even in the Church, no doctrinal disagreement was ever solved by discussion leading to overwhelming consensus. All doctrinal disagrements are solved by a lot of disussion (sometimes 500 years), much prayer, but finally via Authority, period. Protestants can’t figure this out, but that is the way it has always been. I can just picture all these protestant factions trying to gain a unanimous vote on what Christian writings constitue the Canon of the New Testament…thank goodness there were no protestants then.

In Christ,

Sean.

 

[Angainor]

Hello DianJo,

You did a good job getting at the heart of the matter. You are making an attempt to define “disputable” using rational arguments. You are seeking independant truth using the tools God gave you. Congradulations.:clapping:

DianJo:

You are taking Romans too literally. The “disputable” matters that Paul was referring to had to do with people of the time letting go of the old mosaic law concerning dietary practices and the continued observance of specific days and festivals. Paul was trying to get people to stop passing judgement on their brothers and sisters for still retaining some of these customs.

What someone ate or specific day someone held as holy had no bearing on whether they were faithful Christians or not but rather the desposition of their heart in the matter. So, to use this verse in condemantion of the Church’s stance on “indisputable” matters is not warranted - find another verse better suited to your arguement. This one doesn’t hold.

Fasting and holy days of obligation are disciplines not doctrine and can be changed or altered according to the norms of society. Doctrines are truths that have been divinely revealed to us by God and cannot ever be changed. Disciplines have no direct bearing on one’s salvation although they can aid us on our journey. Paul was not talking in terms of doctrine but in terms of disciplines - they are two different things.

It seems you would limit disputable matters to those examples described by Paul in Romans 14. This is a valid argument and would limit disputable matters to: 1. eating or not eating vegetables, 2. eating or not eating meat, 3. considering one day more sacred than another or considering every day alike, or 4. regarding no food unlean or regarding something unclean.

Paul made no direct mention of “old mosaic law concerning dietary practices” or leftover festival days. I personally think Paul is just giving examples.

Another criteria you have discovered for defining disputable matters is that disputable matters “have no direct bearing on one’s salvation although they can aid us on our journey”. I would fully agree with this criteria.

DianJo:

Using this verse in Romans on dietary and holy days doesn’t hold up when talking about divinely revealed truth.

This is just another way of saying “this matter is indisputable because I say it is indisputable”. I fully realize this is the position of Catholicism, I just don’t happen to think that argument as a valid rational response to Romans 14. You made better progress earlier in your post.

DianJo:

You are judging the Catholic Church as to how she holds her “separated bretheren” just like the people Paul was trying to teach.

That was not my intention. My intention was simply to state why I am not Catholic.

I suppose you could say I should, according to Romans 14, not judge Catholicism its view on that little disputable matter regarding the status of the LCMS in Christ’s Chruch.

Catholicism regards the LCMS as being outside of Christ’s Church. It is a lot to ask me to not judge Catholicism on this “disputable matter”, but maybe that is exaclty what I should do.

 

[Magicsilence]

Have you ever wondered why you feel the need to explain why you are NOT Catholic, and not why you ARE such and such? I feel God’s will coming into play

 

[sek]

Magicsilence:

Have you ever wondered why you feel the need to explain why you are NOT Catholic, and not why you ARE such and such? I feel God’s will coming into play

Is this directed at me or Angainor?

 

[RobNY]

Dear Angainor, nice to run into you again.

Angainor:

Hello DianJo,

You did a good job getting at the heart of the matter. You are making an attempt to define “disputable” using rational arguments. You are seeking independant truth using the tools God gave you. Congradulations.:clapping: It seems you would limit disputable matters to those examples described by Paul in Romans 14. This is a valid argument and would limit disputable matters to: 1. eating or not eating vegetables, 2. eating or not eating meat, 3. considering one day more sacred than another or considering every day alike, or 4. regarding no food unlean or regarding something unclean.

Actually, I think this would limit Romans 14 to the old Law. It was not wrong to follow the old Law, only they knew salvation did not come from it. If people wished to follow the practices of the law (i.e., circumcision) this was ok, but it certainly should not have been forced.

Not that other “disputable matters,” don’t exist, just that those are the ones his letter specifically refers to. I would imagine that if we want to interpret this verse in the broader sense of whether or not something outside of the practice of the Law is a disputable or indisputable matter that we would need to defer to a competent authority. Paul clearly shows that the Law is a disputable manner that one certainly should not bind another Christian’s conscience on. As to other practices, it would take the Church to decide what truly is disputable or not, and by binding the consciences of the faithful she essentially declares something to be indisputable.

Paul made no direct mention of “old mosaic law concerning dietary practices” or leftover festival days. I personally think Paul is just giving examples.

I think he is just referring to Mosaic law in this case, as Mosaic law no longer needed to be followed and this was causing problems for those who were raised being taught to follow the law. Say we go back one chapter to Romans 13:1-2 and give it, likewise, the same literal interpretation without putting things in context:

1 1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. 2 Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.

I believe that if we read the Bible verses from Romans 13:1-2 in the same literalistic way as you are reading 14:1 without regards to what the divinely inspired author was trying to communicate, that we could come to absurd conclusions such as that Christians are never to depose any rulers, even if they are of the most tyrannical brand (i.e., Christians who resisted Nazi Germany were wrong because he who resisted Nazi Germany (an authority_, and whoever resists authority resists God).

At the same time, it raises a problem for Protestants who reject the authority of the Catholic Church. According the literalistic sense that you interpret Romans 14:1 in, one could argue that by subverting not only the authority of the Church, but the divine authority of the Church that Protestants are directly in contravention of Romans 15:1-2. I think I’m going to start a topic titled, “Why I am not a Lutheran, the Romans 13:1-2 Principle.” (For those that don’t understand this quip, refer here.)

 

[Magicsilence]

sek:

Is this directed at me or Angainor?

Um, just him. Though it can apply to you to, if you want.!

 

[sek]

Magicsilence:

Um, just him. Though it can apply to you to, if you want.!

My favorit politician is Charlemagne, if you get my drift.

 

[Magicsilence]

sek:

My favorit politician is Charlemagne, if you get my drift.

lol, ok. Got ya, i wasnt reading the long posts above, forgive me!

Hey, i never knew that guy was so interesting! thanks, hehe.

 

[Angainor]

Greetings RobNY,

RobNY:

I think he is just referring to Mosaic law in this case, as Mosaic law no longer needed to be followed and this was causing problems for those who were raised being taught to follow the law.

Even though Paul did not write “Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgement on matters of Mosaic law” (which would have been a far simplier and more precise way to get his point across), I will accept your answer as being a true expression of your conscience. I will endeavor to cease judging Catholic faith on this subject–that is, the subject of the LCMS’s status in Christ’s Church. This is no small thing to ask of me. It is a subject that hits close to home, and I have strong urges to flag injustice when I come across it.

RobNY:

I think I’m going to start a topic titled, “Why I am not a Lutheran, the Romans 13:1-2 Principle.” (For those that don’t understand this quip, refer here.)

I’d post to that.
Not to jump ahead, but I would probably start by pointing out that Paul speaks of taxes in verse 6 and express my opinion that Paul is speaking of civil governments in Romans 13.

I would point out that although Jesus said “Give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s” and submitted to Roman crucifixion, Jesus routinely challanged Jewish religious authorities.

 

[RobNY]

Angainor:

Greetings RobNY,Even though Paul did not write “Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgement on matters of Mosaic law” (which would have been a far simplier and more precise way to get his point across), I will accept your answer as being a true expression of your conscience. I will endeavor to cease judging Catholic faith on this subject–that is, the subject of the LCMS’s status in Christ’s Church. This is no small thing to ask of me. It is a subject that hits close to home, and I have strong urges to flag injustice when I come across it. I’d post to that.

Would I that Paul anticipated the dispute we were going to be having now over the disputability of certain doctrines and inserted a reminder for us on what’s really right.

Not to jump ahead, but I would probably start by pointing out that Paul speaks of taxes in verse 6 and express my opinion that Paul is speaking of civil governments in Romans 13.

Indeed. This is why I thought this so perfectly paralleled Romans 14 in the very next chapter. It is an injustice to Romans 13 to claim that it refers primarily to the church because it refers to taxes specifically-- thus the connection this has always had with civil government. Likewise with Romans 14 which refers specifically to practices of the Mosaic Law, it would be an injustice to the text of it to claim it refers primarily to anything outside Mosaic Law. That isn’t to say that one can’t interpret these verses outside of their primary literal meaning, just that these are the first and most important things to consider when reading them.

Do you understand what I meant by my comparison now? My point about the submitting to authority, I believe, is in the same spirit as the indisputability point. Yes, not submitting to God’s authority is manifestly sinful, and yes, forcing a Christian’s faith on a disputable matter is wrong too, but these verses refer to something specific, the first the general authority of civil governments, the second the disputable nature of the Mosaic Law. We can take examples outside of the basic meaning of the verses, such as whether or not Protestants disobeying the authority of the Catholic Church violated this principle, or whether or not Catholics are forcing believers to agree with certain “disputable” matters, but it becomes removed, to a point, from the intended meaning of those verses, and must be applied with caution. I wouldn’t totally disregard either of those arguments, but I would greatly look down on any argument that tried to use them as primary proof, instead of some minor type of supplemental proof, for a position.

I would point out that although Jesus said “Give to Ceasar that which is Ceasar” and submitted to Roman crucifixion, Jesus routinely challanged Jewish religious authorities.

Completely. In fact, Jesus’ entire approach is far more complex and multilayered than any one verse can tell. I also enjoy Matt 23:2-4 as an interesting perspective on authority:

2 2 saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. 3Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. 4They tie up heavy burdens 3 (hard to carry) and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them.

Think of how interestingly we could apply these verses to our debate! First of all, Jesus tells us to submit to the authority of the Pharisees because they hold a seat of authority-- even when they are hypocritical. Catholics obviously would view this as supporting the notion that one must support the Church because the Church has a specific “seat” (read: chair ) of authority.

Of course, I was looking for another verse that I can’t seem to find that talks about something along the lines of how since they had God’s authority, over man’s authority to show another view on the role of authority and government and so on in Christianity. Can you find it? I’m thinking it was either Peter or Paul who said it. That doesn’t quite narrow it down too much now, does it?

 

[John_Taylor]

(Angainor) There are certian matters that Catholicism has passed judgement on. If those matters are “disputable” than Catholicism’s judgement of those matters is unjust.

(jmt) I understand your question. Are you understanding my answer? I’m affirming that the Catholic Church is THE Church that teaches with the authority of Jesus Christ. How do you address my proposed application of Matthew 18:15-18?

(Angainor) For one party in a dispute to say “this matter is indisputable because I say it is indisputable” is… well let’s just say that is not a very convincing argument.

(jmt) I agree. Since the matter being disputed pertains to the teachings of Jesus Christ - if one party in the dispute is that Church which Jesus established in the world to teach in His Name with the authority to “bind and loose”, which the Apostle Paul refers to as “the pillar and foundation of the truth”, then what more does a believer in Jesus Christ need inorder to be convinced of the truthfullness of the Church’s teaching than Her Lord’s promise to guide His Church “into all truth”?

(Angainor) There needs to be something more, some way the matter can be reasonably shown to be indisputable using the tools God gave us for discovery of His Truth.

(jmt) The Church - using the tools at Her disposal: Sacred Scripture, Scared Tradition, prayer, study and the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit - declares a matter indisputable. If a particular “believer in Jesus Christ” still remains unconvinced, what more can God do? If “a brother” won’t accept the decision of the Church, how does Matt 18:15-18 apply?

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[Angainor]

RobNY:

Would I that Paul anticipated the dispute we were going to be having now over the disputability of certain doctrines and inserted a reminder for us on what’s really right.

Paul did anticipate future disputes, maybe not our dispute specifically, but disputes among future Christians. Romans 14 is an anticipation of future disputes. Paul anticipated the Romans would encounter Chrisians with disputable beliefs like only eating vegetables. Paul was trying to give the Romans themselves the tools they need to handle such disputes.

However, I understand that Paul could be only speaking of Mosaic law in Romans 14 and I will refrain from insisting Romans 14 be applied anywhere else.

RobNY:

Completely. In fact, Jesus’ entire approach is far more complex and multilayered than any one verse can tell. I also enjoy Matt 23:2-4 as an interesting perspective on authority:

2 2

saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. 3Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. 4They tie up heavy burdens 3 (hard to carry) and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them.
Think of how interestingly we could apply these verses to our debate! First of all, Jesus tells us to submit to the authority of the Pharisees because they hold a seat of authority-- even when they are hypocritical. Catholics obviously would view this as supporting the notion that one must support the Church because the Church has a specific “seat” (read: chair ) of authority.

This is a very interesting passage. Jesus explicitly tells the crowds and his disciples (verse 1) do not follow their example. I would presume this includes taking a “seat” (read: chair ) in the first place !

More seriously, verse 3 is rather difficult. My translation (NIV) reads “So you must obey them and do everything they tell you…” This makes it sound as if the Jews Jesus is speaking to don’t have a choice, as in, if they don’t do what they are told there will be penalties, therefore they must obey.

I guess I don’t know first century Jewish politics as well as I should. Verse 3 could be referring to “civil government” qualities the Jewish authorites had.

 

[Angainor]

John Taylor:

How do you address my proposed application of Matthew 18:15-18?

I address it by asserting my Romans 14:1 right as a Christian not to have my faith judged on disputable matters.

If your conscience tells you that the matters Catholicism is judging my faith on are indisputable, then I fully accept the fact you must treat me as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

 

[RobNY]

Angainor:

However, I understand that Paul could be only speaking of Mosaic law in Romans 14 and I will refrain from insisting Romans 14 be applied anywhere else.This is a very interesting passage. Jesus explicitly tells the crowds and his disciples (verse 1) do not follow their example. I would presume this includes taking a “seat” (read: chair ) in the first place !

More seriously, verse 3 is rather difficult. My translation (NIV) reads “So you must obey them and do everything they tell you…” This makes it sound as if the Jews Jesus is speaking to don’t have a choice, as in, if they don’t do what they are told there will be penalties, therefore they must obey.

They have the seat of Moses… so you must obey them… they were to be obeyed because they held authority. To speak of penalties is besides the point, because no one can legitimately give out penalities without authority (hence, the seat of Moses is a seat of authority).

I guess I don’t know first century Jewish politics as well as I should. Verse 3 could be referring to “civil government” qualities the Jewish authorites had.

Actually, verse four is the key. They tie heavy burdens and don’t lift a hand to lighten their yolks: these burdens are religious burdens imposed by their rabbincal authority as Pharisees. (I thought to connect this with the power to “bind and loose” afforded the apostles, but I’m not sure whether this is either accurate or not).

4 They tie up heavy burdens 3 (hard to carry) and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them.

The NIV reads:

4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

Presumably, they “tie up” these loads in relation to the Mosaic Law.

 

[John_Taylor]

Angainor:

I address it by asserting my Romans 14:1 right as a Christian not to have my faith judged on disputable matters.

If your conscience tells you that the matters Catholicism is judging my faith on are indisputable, then I fully accept the fact you must treat me as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Romans 14:1 affirms the freedom of a brother in The Faith from being judged about disputable matters. It’s a right we all have. But is it your assertion that Romans 14:1 gives us the authority to decide for ourselves what is or is not “disputable”?

Is your final appeal to “my conscience” and “to hell with what the Church of Jesus Christ might decide otherwise”?

Did the Judiazers - who presumably professed faith in Jesus Christ as sincerely as any gentile convert - have the right to contradict the decision of “the Church” at the Council of Jerusalem regarding circumcision? Did the Gnostics have the right to contradict the Church’s understanding about the nature of Christ’s “flesh” regardless what their “conscience” led them to believe about the “evilness” of an “earthly body” and it’s unfitness to be assumed by the God-Man, Jesus?

Who gets to decide what is and what isn’t “disputable”? As I see your argument forming, it’s basically going to boil down to the subjective application of individual conscience. Is there a teaching authority which the believer in Christ must accept as binding him in conscience?

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[Subrosa]

Angainor:

I address it by asserting my Romans 14:1 right as a Christian not to have my faith judged on disputable matters.

If your conscience tells you that the matters Catholicism is judging my faith on are indisputable, then I fully accept the fact you must treat me as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

The fact is that you are not a pagan or a tax collector. (Do you work for the IRS?) You are a christian! The Catholic Church does not consider you as anything but this.
(Please keep in mind that when using the words “Catholic Church” I am refering to the Church headed by the Bishop of Rome.)

The Church accepts Lutherans as brothers in Christ. This, however, does not change the fact that Lutherans and other Protestants have chosen to seperate themselves from Rome, institutionally. As a matter of fact, Lutherans consider the The Pope as the antichrist…

(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.)
[Adopted 1932]

1. As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion.

lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=579

I would say that this issue is disputable, without question. Aren’t you guilty of what you accuse Catholicism?

Subrosa

 

[BOBKAT]

**Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.
Romans 14:1
**

Is this what you base all of your thoughts on? Because IMHO we have accepted the Protestants as brethren, however we are not in full communion with them because as the True Chruch of Christ we cannot change what Jesus Himself has established. It’s like this I am a Catholic and I may disagree with some of the rules, however to be considered a practicing Catholic I need to be obedient to the Church even though I don’t agree with something. You cannot pick and choose you either accept all or none. One other thing,obedience is the key here. No that we are not passing judgment.

God Bless
Kathleen

 

[DianJo]

Angainor:

Hello DianJo,

You did a good job getting at the heart of the matter. You are making an attempt to define “disputable” using rational arguments. You are seeking independant truth using the tools God gave you. Congradulations.:clapping:

Thank You!

It seems you would limit disputable matters to those examples described by Paul in Romans 14. This is a valid argument and would limit disputable matters to: 1. eating or not eating vegetables, 2. eating or not eating meat, 3. considering one day more sacred than another or considering every day alike, or 4. regarding no food unlean or regarding something unclean.

I would say that the things described by Paul were of the Mosaic Law and that those listening to him at the time would have naturally understood the context of what he was trying to teach them. That things of the old law don’t matter in terms of salvation but if you want to continue to observe things like holy days and festivals then go ahead, just make sure your heart of where Jesus says it should be.

Paul made no direct mention of “old mosaic law concerning dietary practices” or leftover festival days. I personally think Paul is just giving examples.

Agreed

Another criteria you have discovered for defining disputable matters is that disputable matters “have no direct bearing on one’s salvation although they can aid us on our journey”. I would fully agree with this criteria.This is just another way of saying “this matter is indisputable because I say it is indisputable”. I fully realize this is the position of Catholicism, I just don’t happen to think that argument as a valid rational response to Romans 14. You made better progress earlier in your post.That was not my intention. My intention was simply to state why I am not Catholic.

No, I would not say that. The Church that Christ founded says that. It’s the same as Christ Himslf saying it - He commissioned her to speak on His behalf. Indisputable things are so because they have been divinely revealed to us by God.

I suppose you could say I should, according to Romans 14, not judge Catholicism its view on that little disputable matter regarding the status of the LCMS in Christ’s Chruch.

I don’t consider this a “little” matter at all. Lutherens are part of Christ’s Church, it’s just that Lutherens decided, themselves, that they would separate from the fullness of the Catholic faith because THEY decided something divinely revealed was disputable when it can’t be.

Catholicism regards the LCMS as being outside of Christ’s Church. It is a lot to ask me to not judge Catholicism on this “disputable matter”, but maybe that is exaclty what I should do.

**I think I understand your point (but then again, maybe not!). You are saying that the Catholic Church’s position on the status of the LCMS is a disputable matter when, in fact, the things that Lutherens deem disputable are not disputable - they major doctrinal issues, not what holy days should be observed or whether or not a male bably should be circumsized (just examples).

---

The things that LCMS - or maybe just you (?) - deem as disputable are in fact, not disputable. These have to do with divinely revealed doctrine and the Catholic Church will not bend on those issues - she can’t change them because they were not created by her. The Catholic Church is just the protector of the truth - she doesn’t create it and she does not have the authority TO change them - only God can do that and since Jesus ascended into heaven, nothing will be “changed” until he again comes to this earth. She can change holy days all day long… but not doctrine. If LCMS wants to hold to the things that are contray to the divinely revealed truths, then it is LCMS that separates herself - not the Church.

---

Did I totally miss your point?

 

[Angainor]

John Taylor:

Angainor:

I address it by asserting my Romans 14:1 right as a Christian not to have my faith judged on disputable matters.

If your conscience tells you that the matters Catholicism is judging my faith on are indisputable, then I fully accept the fact you must treat me as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Is your final appeal to “my conscience” and “to hell with what the Church of Jesus Christ might decide otherwise”?

Yes of course my appeal is to your conscience. I would not expect you to judge your freedom by anyone else’s conscience.*

If your conscience tells you that the matters Catholicism is judging my faith on are disputable, then it is very hard for me to understand why you would [post=1050102]invoke[/post] Matthew 18:15-17 for committing the sin of heresy against you.

*…why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience?
1 Corinthians 10:29b

 

[Donald45]

Angainor:

The only authority I claim is the Romans 14:1 authority not to have my faith judged on disputable matters.

It isn’t the theological content (doctrine) of the faith that is being discussed in Romans 14, but rather how the earliest Christians were to deal with Jewish converts to Christianity regarding their (the new converts’) moral behavior with respect to the Mosaic Law. The doctrinal content of the faith is not a matter of one’s conscience, it is a body of truth described and defined by the Church that Jesus founded (Matt.16:18), and which he endowed with his own spiritual authority to communicate grace to the world.

Early Jewish converts were “weak in faith” (14:1), and were not to be hindered over matters of mere moral opinion (“Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” [Col.2:20-23]). However, matters of *doctrinal truth—*that is, those teachings which define what “Christianity” even is—are established by the Holy Spirit through the Church, and are not subject to the fallible consciences of individual Christians. They are simply to be either received or rejected, and may God extend mercy to those who reject his truth.

It appears you have misunderstood St. Paul’s meaning in Romans 14, and are mistaken in attempting to use it as a means of avoiding or denying the authoritative teachings of the Catholic Church. Perhaps—and I say this as a convert myself—a second look is in order.

God bless,
Don