Why I am not Catholic - Revisited

[Angainor]

Donald45:

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.

If that is how your conscience leads you to define the “disputable matters” in Romans 14, then I must accept that.

 

[Angainor]

Donald45:

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.

If your conscience leads you to conclude that the “disputable matters” in Romans 14 is limited to “moral behavior with respect to the Mosaic Law.” then I will accept that as an answer and make no furter judgements on the matter.

 

[RobNY]

Angainor:

If your conscience leads you to conclude that the “disputable matters” in Romans 14 is limited to “moral behavior with respect to the Mosaic Law.” then I will accept that as an answer and make no furter judgements on the matter.

Dearest Angainor,

I understand that to disobey’s one conscience is a wrong, and I also understand that it is wrong to judge another man’s conscience.

However, there is an objectively true interpretation of Romans 14-- and it would be helpful if we could get to what that true interpretation is.

My question to you: what do you find to be the objectively true interpretation of Romans 14?

Feel free to explain it using other Bible verses, and I’d also appreciate to hear how your mode of interpretation of this passage fits in with your interpretation of the rest of the Bible.

 

[mlchance]

RobNY:

I understand that to disobey’s one conscience is a wrong…

Only if one’s conscience isn’t itself wrong.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[RobNY]

mlchance:

Only if one’s conscience isn’t itself wrong.

– Mark L. Chance.

With of course, the added exception that it is better to serve the truth against your conscience, than it is to follow your conscience. However, a person who follows a malformed conscience, they are not necessarily culpable for sin, correct?

 

[mlchance]

RobNY:

However, a person who follows a malformed conscience, they are not necessarily culpable for sin, correct?

Not necessarily, but quite possibly. That isn’t possible for us to judge except in abstract terms.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Della]

RobNY:

With of course, the added exception that it is better to serve the truth against your conscience, than it is to follow your conscience. However, a person who follows a malformed conscience, they are not necessarily culpable for sin, correct?

Their culpability would depend on how they got a malformed conscience.

 

[John_Taylor]

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

(jmt) From your understanding of the Christian moral life, are there particular moral behaviors which every believer in Jesus Christ should recognize as “sin” (eg., murder) such that if they don’t recognize the action as being contrary to God’s Will (ie., according to their conscience it’s perfectly alright with God if they commit murder) would you be able to recognize that such an individual does not have “a rightly formed conscience”? such that to the degree that they are culpable for their failure to form a “right conscience” they will be liable for judgement from God?

I guess what I’m asking is whether or not you recognize the fact that just because someone’s conscience tells them that an evil act is okay for them to commit doesn’t absolve them from their responsibilty to form a “right conscience”?

(Againor) 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 invoke Matthew 18:15-17 for committing the sin of heresy against you.

(jmt) Please understand…I’m asserting that the matters for which the Catholic Church judges the teachings of Lutheranism are indisputable based on the Authority that Christ gave to His Church to decide such issues between believers.

Matt 18:15-17 affirms the authority of the Church to be the final arbiter between disputing brothers in Christ such that the brother in Christ who the Church declares to be the one in the wrong has the obligation to accept the Church’s decision or otherwise become - in the eyes of God (Jesus) - the same as an unbeliever (" a pagan or tax collector").

(Angainor) Why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience? (1 Corinthians 10:29)

(jmt) Are you saying that one is free - on the grounds of conscience - to teach heresy, seeking to draw others into heresy? and that God is indifferent to it?

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[Angainor]

RobNY:

With of course, the added exception that it is better to serve the truth against your conscience, than it is to follow your conscience.

That would be a neat trick.

Absolutely. It would be better for a person to follow the truth than their conscience if the two were in conflict, but how would a person possibly know if they were in conflict?

A conscience is what tells a person what is right. A person’s conscience is that person’s understanding of the truth. If you do not follow your conscience, then you are behaving in a way you believe to be false. A person has no choice but to follow their conscience.

Our task is to align our conscience with the truth. Step #1 is to recognize the existance of truth, even if you don’t have any idea of the nature of that truth. This is no small step as demonstrated by the prevalence of subjectivism in the world.

Once we recognize the existance of absolute truth, we can become aware of the law. Through the law we become conscious of sin (Romans 3:20). Once we are conscious of our sin, we can turn to the Gospel. Once we embrace the Gospel, we are to live as if we were dead to sin (Romans 6:2). Once we sincerely seek to live as if we were dead to sin we can embrace our Christian freedoms (1 Peter 2:16, 1 Cor 10:23-24) bought for us by Christ (Gal 5:1) as members of the kingdom of priests (1 Peter 2:9).

The truth shall set you free.

 

[jimmy]

Angainor:

Part I

Catholicism could review the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod’s (LCMS) confessional documents and say "We agree with your confessions. You are welcome to consider yourselves Catholic ‘as-is’. No strings attached.

Catholicism doesn’t do that, of course. I can only assume it is because it has in fact reviewed the LCMS confessional documents and said instead "We have reviewed your confessions and concluded that you cannot consider yourselves Catholic because of Theological matter “A”, Theological matter “B”, Theological matter “C”, etc.

It is perfectly within Catholicism’s right not to associate with those it does not agree with. I have no dispute with that.

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

If Theological matters A, B, & C are all indisputable matters than Catholicism also has every right to pass judgment on the beliefs of the LCMS and declare them outside of Christ’s Church.

If, however, Theological matters A, B, & C are instead “disputable matters” then there Catholicism has no right at all to pass judgment on the beliefs of the LCMS, much less take it upon itself to declare the LCMS outside of Christ’s Church.

It is my belief that Theological matters A, B, & C are “disputable”. I regard Catholicism’s judgment of those matters to be a 500 year old unreconciled injustice.

Angainor, it seems like you are just trying to justify being outside of Christs Church. Christ established the Catholic Church, no one has a right to revolt against the authority which Christ established. Christ established bishops with apostolic succession. Luther was not a bishop and none of his followers were. Luther was false and tried to reform what Christ already reformed. Apparently he thought Christ was not good enough and needed another reformer.

None of the disputes are debatable matters.

 

[Angainor]

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

(jmt) From your understanding of the Christian moral life, are there particular moral behaviors which every believer in Jesus Christ should recognize as “sin” (eg., murder) such that if they don’t recognize the action as being contrary to God’s Will (ie., according to their conscience it’s perfectly alright with God if they commit murder) would you be able to recognize that such an individual does not have “a rightly formed conscience”? such that to the degree that they are culpable for their failure to form a “right conscience” they will be liable for judgement from God?

I guess what I’m asking is whether or not you recognize the fact that just because someone’s conscience tells them that an evil act is okay for them to commit doesn’t absolve them from their responsibilty to form a “right conscience”?
[/quote]

YES! Absolutely! As a matter of fact, I would go so far as to say you are describing Christianity’s “indisputable matters”.

quote=John Taylor Why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience? (1 Corinthians 10:29)

(jmt) Are you saying that one is free - on the grounds of conscience - to teach heresy, seeking to draw others into heresy? and that God is indifferent to it?
[/quote]

It was not me who said that, but Paul. Paul is (by my estimation) second only to Jesus in dedication to absolute truth.“Everything is permissible”–but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible”–but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.

1 Cor 10:23-24

For more a good place to go would be the first eleven or so chapters of Romans.

 

[RobNY]

Angainor:

That would be a neat trick.

Absolutely. It would be better for a person to follow the truth than their conscience if the two were in conflict, but how would a person possibly know if they were in conflict?

A conscience is what tells a person what is right. A person’s conscience is that person’s understanding of the truth. If you do not follow your conscience, then you are behaving in a way you believe to be false. A person has no choice but to follow their conscience.

Our task is to align our conscience with the truth. Step #1 is to recognize the existance of truth, even if you don’t have any idea of the nature of that truth. This is no small step as demonstrated by the prevalence of subjectivism in the world.

Once we recognize the existance of absolute truth, we can become aware of the law. Through the law we become conscious of sin (Romans 3:20). Once we are conscious of our sin, we can turn to the Gospel. Once we embrace the Gospel, we are to live as if we were dead to sin (Romans 6:2). Once we sincerely seek to live as if we were dead to sin we can embrace our Christian freedoms (1 Peter 2:16, 1 Cor 10:23-24) bought for us by Christ (Gal 5:1) as members of the kingdom of priests (1 Peter 2:9).

The truth shall set you free.

Indeed, the truth shall set you free. I enjoyed your mini-sermon there , but I think we’re veering a little bit off topic.

Please refer back to my previous post:

However, there is an objectively true interpretation of Romans 14-- and it would be helpful if we could get to what that true interpretation is.

My question to you: what do you find to be the objectively true interpretation of Romans 14?

Feel free to explain it using other Bible verses, and I’d also appreciate to hear how your mode of interpretation of this passage fits in with your interpretation of the rest of the Bible.

On what reasoning does your conscience find that Romans includes situations outside of the Mosaic Law?

 

[Angainor]

jimmy:

Angainor, it seems like you are just trying to justify being outside of Christs Church. Christ established the Catholic Church, no one has a right to revolt against the authority which Christ established.

Then you misunderstand my intentions. I consider my self part of Christ’s Church and I offer no justification for my place outside of Catholicism, only a simple explination.

I can only presume I find myself outside of Catholicism because Catholicism finds fault with Theological matter “A”, Theological matter “B”, and Theological matter “C” (etc) in the confessions of the LCMS.

 

[jimmy]

Angainor:

Then you misunderstand my intentions. I consider my self part of Christ’s Church and I offer no justification for my place outside of Catholicism, only a simple explination.

I can only presume I find myself outside of Catholicism because Catholicism finds fault with Theological matter “A”, Theological matter “B”, and Theological matter “C” (etc) in the confessions of the LCMS.

It finds fault with A, B, and C because A, B, and C are heretical and have been since the time of Christ.

 

[Angainor]

RobNY:

Indeed, the truth shall set you free. I enjoyed your mini-sermon there ,

lol, Well, thank you. I don’t know what got into me.

RobNY:

On what reasoning does your conscience find that Romans includes situations outside of the Mosaic Law?

That’s a good question. It’s not easy for me to pin down. Maybe its just the gist I get out of Paul’s letters.

Paul spends the bulk of the previous chapters in Romans dealing with Mosaic Law.* By the time chapter 14 rolls around it should be fairly indisputable to the Romans that they are no longer bound by it. I get the impression that Paul has pretty much closed the book on Mosaic Law and moved on to more general topics. I can see however, where one might get the impression that he was reinforcing the points he made in the earlier chapters.

*So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.
Romans 7:4

 

[Angainor]

jimmy:

It finds fault with A, B, and C because A, B, and C are heretical and have been since the time of Christ.

This is the answer I might expect, but I still find it surprising.

Despite myself, I find you surprisingly sure of your answer, considering we are still speaking in “variables”.

Are you really so confident that “Theological matter ‘A’” is heretical?

 

[jimmy]

Angainor:

This is the answer I might expect, but I still find it surprising.

Despite myself, I find you surprisingly sure of your answer, considering we are still speaking in “variables”.

Are you really so confident that “Theological matter ‘A’” is heretical?

I am 100% sure that Lutheranism is heresy.

 

[Kotton]

A good Catholic/Christian is required to be willing to die to maintain the truth of his belief.

 

[John_Taylor]

(Againor) A person has no choice but to follow their conscience.

(jmt) This is true…

CCC 1782 * Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”*

…but as you point out below, and as I’ve been trying to affirm, we have a duty to be diligent in forming a “right conscience”.

CCC 1785 * In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.*

(Angainor) **Our task is to align our conscience with the truth. Step #1 is to recognize the existance of truth, even if you don’t have any idea of the nature of that truth. This is no small step as demonstrated by the prevalence of subjectivism in the world.

Once we recognize the existance of absolute truth, we can become aware of the law…**

(jmt) This would be “The Natural Law” as understood by Catholicism…

(Angainor) Through the law we become conscious of sin (Romans 3:20). Once we are conscious of our sin, we can turn to the Gospel.

(jmt) The Natual Law we can recognise through reason, faith in the Divinity of Jesus Christ must be given from above, but with regards to knowing “the Gospel” (and I’m not talking about coming to faith in the Gospel. I’m simply talking about how does one come to a knowledge of what is and what isn’t “the Gospel”) how is it to be obtained? Through reading the NT records? But who gathered, preserved, and set apart from all other written records the NT writings we now accept as “inspired of God”? and who has vouchsafe that these same writings are infact what believers say they are? Would this not be “the Church”?

(Angainor) Once we embrace the Gospel, we are to live as if we were dead to sin (Romans 6:2). Once we sincerely seek to live as if we were dead to sin we can embrace our Christian freedoms (1 Peter 2:16, 1 Cor 10:23-24) bought for us by Christ (Gal 5:1) as members of the kingdom of priests (1 Peter 2:9).

(jmt) If we must appeal to the decision of the Church in the process of Canonization - presumably infallibly completed (?) - then should not the Church be consulted in knowing what is the Will of God with regard to “sins” and “freedoms”?

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[Angainor]

jimmy:

I am 100% sure that Lutheranism is heresy.

OK then. Do you happen to know if there is a list of Theological matters A/B/C Catholicism finds fault with, so I can at least know why the LCMS is located outside of Cathoicism? I might want to review that someday in the event I get curious.