Why I am not Catholic - Revisited

[jimmy]

Angainor:

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.

I don’t have a list.

 

[RobNY]

Angainor:

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

I think my new project will be reading Romans again and concentrating on this idea. When I get time. Right now (literally, right now) I’m battling with a math take home test and lots of AP Euro studying. Perhaps a chapter or two before bed every night. Sheesh, I must stop procrastinating. I’ll get back to you on this later… maybe much did.

I’ll just say about what I bolded: far be it from any of the biblical authors to beat the dead horse. It’s probably pretty obvious… well, lots of things, but important things bear repeating, especially something as important as Mosaic Law, which likely could have been a huge stumbling block for certain Christians.

 

[John_Taylor]

(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?

(Angainor) **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)**

(jmt) Please verify that I am understanding you correctly: are you saying that St Paul is affirming for Christians the freedom to teach and accept heresy? and that St Paul affirms God is indifferent to heresy?

If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain. (1Tim 6:1-5)

Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.

…note that the error here is doctrinal (ie., heresy) and not some “indisputable” immoral behavior …

Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.” (2Tim 2:14-19)

Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. (2Tim 4:2-4)

You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine. (Titus 2:1)

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

…note the above addresses immoral behavior…

These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. (Titus 2:11-15)

Warn a divisive person (the KJV tranlates as “heretic”) once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned. (Titus 3:10-11)

Do the above quotes support the idea of “christian freedom” with regard to heterodoxy?

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[Angainor]

RobNY:

I’ll just say about what I bolded: far be it from any of the biblical authors to beat the dead horse. It’s probably pretty obvious… well, lots of things, but important things bear repeating, especially something as important as Mosaic Law, which likely could have been a huge stumbling block for certain Christians.

Excellent point. That does put it into first century perspective. It is very indisputable in AD 2005 that Christians are not bound by Mosaic dietary restrictions so it is easy for me to forget how much of a stumbling block it would be for them.

Good luck on the test.

 

[Angainor]

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?

(Angainor) 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)

(jmt) Please verify that I am understanding you correctly:
[/quote]

It would not be me you are understanding incorrectly. I am not making this stuff up. These are Paul’s words.

My understanding is thus: Christians are part of a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9). This comes with certain rights, like the right to conscience. Christians have no right to spread heresy. Outside of outright heresy, Christians have wide freedom not to be judged on “disputable matters” (Romans 14:1).

God is most emphatically not indifferent to any of our choices. This is a good reason for us not to judge our freedom by another’s conscience.

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

…note the above addresses immoral behavior…

These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. (Titus 2:11-15)

All these things in Titus are indisputable matters. I have not denied any Christian’s right to encourage and rebuke with authority on indisputable matters.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Angainor:

Part II

I fully admit that defining “disputable matters” is problematic. Recognizing “disputable matters” appears to be a highly subjective process. What is “disputable” in one Christian’s beliefs might be “indisputable” in another’s. As Christians we should be on guard against subjectivism in any form.

Having said that, Paul did set apart some matters as “disputable”. Furthermore, Paul counted on the Romans to be able to tell what matters are “disputable”. Because of this, I am confident that a) Some matters are disputable, and b) those matters are recognizable as disputable.

I think there are two extremes when tackling this problem. One extreme would be to define a “disputable matter” as any matter that anyone claiming to be Christian has a dispute with. This is the wrong approach because it rules out any matter can be indisputable.

The second extreme would be for one party in a dispute to say “This matter is not disputable because I say it is not disputable”. This should be obviously nonsense. If one party said that the other party would then sheepishly reply, “…but I dispute the matter.” I said this should be obviously nonsense, but it is the position of Catholicism.

Between those two extremes there should be a way to determine “disputable matters”. In a straight-forward case a “disputable matter” would be a matter where one party in a dispute says to the other party “I believe this, but I see how you could believe that, and since we are not discussing a well-known fundamental Christian truth, it is OK for us to dispute that fact.”

A disputable matter would be a matter that cannot be reasonably determined definitively using the tools God gave us for determining the truth.

I give for example, the assumption of Mary. I believe this to be a “disputable matter”. I don’t think that matter can be determined definitively using the tools God gave us for determining the truth. I believe it to be an injustice that Catholicism judges my faith on this disputable matter.

Where did you get your criterion for determining whether or not an issue is debatable? Has this criterion been set forth by some authority (if os, which authority) or is it simply your opinion making your criterion itself debatable?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Angainor:

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

You haven’t offered any objective evidence that issues that you personally and subjectively believe to be disputable are objectively disputable. All you’ve offered thus far is your opinion. Opinions, being subjective, are always disputable.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Montie Claunch:

Here catholic.com/library/fathers_know_best.asp There is a book out right now that is just an organized by subject rendering of what the Early Church Fathers said about various things. I can not remeber the title right now (I’ll post back when I remeber, I just wanted you to know it was out there)

I haven’t read the whole thread, but just in case it hasn’t been given yet it’s The Faith of the Early Fathers by William a Jurgens. There are several volumes.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Angainor]

quote=John Taylor 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
[/quote]

We agree much more than we disagree. I agree with everything you said above, with the following exception:

You used the certian phrases in describing The Church: gathered, set apart, appeal, process of Canonization, and consulted. I consider this anthropomorphism. I believe The Church did everything you said it did, just not in the human terms you described it.

 

[Donald45]

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.

What leads me to the conclusion that the “disputable matters” in Romans 14 involve the early converts’ moral responses to the Mosaic Law is not my conscience—such subjective qualities have no place in the determining of objective truth—but rather the context of the passage under discussion, as well as the historic teaching of the Catholic faith. (Nice try, though!)

The human conscience is an inherently fallible moral sensibility. It fuctions as a subjective judge in matters of morality. It is only as good as the objective ideas (theological, philosophical, etc.) which inform it. The conscience, therefore, serves as a helpful sense of correct behavior, not as a determiner of objective Christian truth. Romans 14 cannot be used as a prooftext in support of the individual’s supposed “right” to construct his own preferred personal theology on the basis of what his “conscience” tells him is true. The conscience, in fact, does not operate in matters of truth, but rather in those of moral decision-making.

Your entire approach to doctrinal truth seems to be based upon a misinterpretation of Romans 14.

Truly,
Don

 

[Angainor]

Donald45:

What leads me to the conclusion that the “disputable matters” in Romans 14 involve the early converts’ moral responses to the Mosaic Law is not my conscience—such subjective qualities have no place in the determining of objective truth—but rather the context of the passage under discussion, as well as the historic teaching of the Catholic faith. (Nice try, though!)

Yes, I agree. My wording was poor. Let me try again.
If your conscience is convinced of the truth of the idea 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.

Donald45:

The human conscience is an inherently fallible moral sensibility. It fuctions as a subjective judge in matters of morality. It is only as good as the objective ideas (theological, philosophical, etc.) which inform it. The conscience, therefore, serves as a helpful sense of correct behavior, not as a determiner of objective Christian truth. Romans 14 cannot be used as a prooftext in support of the individual’s supposed “right” to construct his own preferred personal theology on the basis of what his “conscience” tells him is true. The conscience, in fact, does not operate in matters of truth, but rather in those of moral decision-making.

I agree 100%. I couldn’t have said it better myself. I hope my correction of my statement fixes my point.

 

[Donald45]

Angainor:

Yes, I agree. My wording was poor. Let me try again.If your conscience is convinced of the truth of the idea 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.

I agree 100%. I couldn’t have said it better myself. I hope my correction of my statement fixes my point.

Hmmm… I’m not quite sure we agree here. You write that you “agree 100%” with my statement that “the conscience does not function in matters of truth,” but then write about my conscience being “convinced of the truth.” Yet, if I’m indeed correct, the conscience cannot be convinced of the truth, but only about right or wrong moral actions. Our convictions concerning truth occur in the mind (intellect or reason), not in the conscience. So, I still think you’re on shaky ground in your approach to the search for truth. Likewise, your take on Romans 14 remains questionable.

God bless, from a fellow Michigander,
Don

 

[Topher]

Donald45:

Hmmm… I’m not quite sure we agree here. You write that you “agree 100%” with my statement that “the conscience does not function in matters of truth,” but then write about my conscience being “convinced of the truth.” Yet, if I’m indeed correct, the conscience cannot be convinced of the truth, but only about right or wrong moral actions. Our convictions concerning truth occur in the mind (intellect or reason), not in the conscience. So, I still think you’re on shaky ground in your approach to the search for truth. Likewise, your take on Romans 14 remains questionable.

God bless, from a fellow Michigander,
Don

The problem about most people’s understanding of conscience is that they view it as some internal subjective feeling. This is entirley wrong. Our conscience is our ability to reason about what is right and what is wrong, that is it is based on reason and not on feelings. Since conscience is based on reason, it must comform to reason and especially truth. That being said, we all have responsibility to conform our conscience according to what is true, i.e. the Catholic faith. Since the conclusion of the intellectuall honest and reasonable man is that the Catholic Church is the one true faith, even if they have “bad feelings” about the Catholic faith and Catholic morals, they still have the responsibility of conforming their beliefs and morals to the Catholic Church. Some times I have “bad feelings” about the Church’s teachings on homosexuality but I know that the reasonable response to the question of homosexuality is the response provided by the Catholic Church so I conform my morals to that of the Church. That is the proper way to develop one’s conscience.

 

[Angainor]

Michigan greetings to you too!

Donald45:

Hmmm… I’m not quite sure we agree here. You write that you “agree 100%” with my statement that “the conscience does not function in matters of truth,” but then write about my conscience being “convinced of the truth.” Yet, if I’m indeed correct, the conscience cannot be convinced of the truth, but only about right or wrong moral actions. Our convictions concerning truth occur in the mind (intellect or reason), not in the conscience.

Forgive me, but I’m going to tell a personal story.

I used to be like that. My head and my heart believed two different things. My head accepted what I was told in Sunday School even though my heart had nagging doubts. I went about my daily life perfectly fine, or so I thought. The gulf between my head and my heart grew slowly over the years until my being could simply not contain the contradictions.

I had a major crisis of faith. Everything I did not really believe in my heart fell away very literally overnight. The good that came out of it was that I could see very clearly what it was my conscience was convinced of. Everything crumbled away except my true core beliefs. It turns out my core beliefs were not atheism, but a form of deism (although I did not know the word at the time). What I really believed in was God, the creator of the universe and everything in it, including natural law. I believed God cared about me and wanted me to live in accordance with that natural law. What I didn’t know was how God expressed himself in our world, including if Jesus was a true divine expression.

My journey as a Christian began on that day. I continued to go to my Lutheran Church because even though I did not truely believe in Jesus at that point, I was convinced of God. I was searching for ways God revealed himself and Church seemed the best place to go for that.

My Chrisian faith did grow, my conscience became convinced of more and more of the revealed truths of the Gospel. If I had to point to the time in my life when I was born again, it would have to be the day my intellectual insights fell away and I began allowing my heart to be convinced of the truth.

 

[Donald45]

Topher:

The problem about most people’s understanding of conscience is that they view it as some internal subjective feeling. This is entirley wrong. Our conscience is our ability to reason about what is right and what is wrong, that is it is based on reason and not on feelings. Since conscience is based on reason, it must comform to reason and especially truth. That being said, we all have responsibility to conform our conscience according to what is true, i.e. the Catholic faith. Since the conclusion of the intellectuall honest and reasonable man is that the Catholic Church is the one true faith, even if they have “bad feelings” about the Catholic faith and Catholic morals, they still have the responsibility of conforming their beliefs and morals to the Catholic Church. Some times I have “bad feelings” about the Church’s teachings on homosexuality but I know that the reasonable response to the question of homosexuality is the response provided by the Catholic Church so I conform my morals to that of the Church. That is the proper way to develop one’s conscience.

Yes, thanks for that. It was quite helpful as a clarification and, I think, a more precise way of stating things.

God bless,
Don

 

[AquinasXVI]

GKC once wrote:

We do not really want a religion that is right where we are right. What we want is a religion that is right where we are wrong.

Angianor:

Thank you for giving us a summary of your journey. It helps understand where you’re coming from. Now I see why you remain a Lutheran in name but not a Lutheran in creed. But now that you’ve been given the gift of faith, it seems your picture of Christendom is starting to make form.

IMHO, a thorough study of history is due. It is not by sheer blindness that 150,000 adults come into the church every year. Coming into a church that is mired in scandal at that. There must be a reason that converts come in. I think we here unanimously invite you to dig deeper and give the CC an honest look. Instead of pecking at the fringes, or debating one part of scripture, I think it would be more productive if you study the whole of it: history, theology, spirituality and then come to your own conclusions.

The Catholic faith is one big organic piece. Like a clock that has thousands of dials, rods and springs that all move when one part moves, it is pointless to take off one rivet and scrutinize it for not being a spring. The whole picture must be seen in order to understand otherwise it may seem like it doesn’t make any sense.

in XT.

 

[John_Taylor]

We agree much more than we disagree. I agree with everything you said above, with the following exception:

You used the certain phrases in describing The Church: gathered, set apart, appeal, process of Canonization, and consulted. I consider this anthropomorphism. I believe The Church did everything you said it did, just not in the human terms you described it.

Hi Angainor…just for clarification…what did you mean by my descriptions of the Church’s actions being “anthropomorphisms”?

Angainor:

What I really believed in was God, the creator of the universe and everything in it, including natural law. I believed God cared about me and wanted me to live in accordance with that natural law. What I didn’t know was how God expressed himself in our world, including if Jesus was a true divine expression.

…may I ask, do you believe that Jesus is God?

Thank you for all your responses and may God bless our all efforts to know and love Him more perfectly.

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[Angainor]

AquinasXVI:

Thank you for giving us a summary of your journey. It helps understand where you’re coming from. Now I see why you remain a Lutheran in name but not a Lutheran in creed.

Perhaps I ended my post too soon. I said my faith continued to grow, and it has grown into the creeds professed by Lutherans, for the most part.

AquinasXVI:

IMHO, a thorough study of history is due. It is not by sheer blindness that 150,000 adults come into the church every year. Coming into a church that is mired in scandal at that. There must be a reason that converts come in. I think we here unanimously invite you to dig deeper and give the CC an honest look.

I appreciate that, but I honestly think that task is beyond me. My conscience simply isn’t convinced of the creeds professed by Catholics and I can’t imagine it ever will be.

 

[Angainor]

John Taylor:

Hi Angainor…just for clarification…what did you mean by my descriptions of the Church’s actions being “anthropomorphisms”?

Well, for instance, when you say “consult the Church” I imagine you mean litterally ask the Church and the Church will litterally give you back a reliable answer.

My vision of the Church is much different. It is hard to explain, but I will try. I see the Church as sort of a historical force that has preserved the truth of the Gospel through the centuries and will continue to preserve the truth of the Gospel. It is not something an individual can directly interact with, however, the Church is an aid to an individual seeking the truth. There is much faith involved when learning truth from the Church because no assurances are given to the individual. I know the Church exists because the truth of the Gospel is still revealed 2000 years later.
John Taylor:

…may I ask, do you believe that Jesus is God?

You may. It might help if I describe the progression of my understanding of Jesus after my time as a Deist.

When I first came to believe in Jesus, my understanding of him could be summarized by the greek fish acronym: ΙΧΘΥΣ, Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior. I accepted Jesus as the Son of God, but didn’t really know what that meant.

Today I still believe in Jesus as God’s Son. I believe Jesus was a divine person with a human nature. “God in a bod” might be a crude but fairly accurate way to explain it. This is not the Catholic understanding at all. I don’t think Lutherans try to pin down the exact nature of Jesus, so I might be OK there. I think for Lutherans this would fall under the Romans 14:1 category of “disputable matter”.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Angainor:

My conscience simply isn’t convinced of the creeds professed by Catholics and I can’t imagine it ever will be.

You wouldn’t be the first person, and certainly not the last, to say that and then find yourself Catholic eventually anyway.

In Christ,
Nancy