Why I am not Catholic - Revisited

[Angainor]

John Taylor:

Then shouldn’t we as brothers in Christ - wanting to be in obedience to Christ when He teaches us through His Apostle St Paul…

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (1Cor 1:10)

…investigate “theological matters A,B, & C” and seek agreement?

I take that as Paul speaking to the Church of God in Corinth. He felt it important for them to have no divisions among them.

Now, I have to take some guesses here. Paul probably thought it would be wonderful if the Church of God in Corinth was perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment with the Churches of God at Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephesus, Rome… However, I think Paul would see that being “perfectly joined” with all these Churches would not be practically possible. I am quite sure Paul would not counsel the Church of God at Corinth to go against its conscience for the sole reason having superficial unity. I am quite sure Paul would counsel the Church in Corinth not to judge Churches in other cities on desputable matters.
John Taylor:

If these matters are - in your opinion “debatabele” - then why should the Lutheran Church allow them to be a cause of division?

That is a complicated question. You are making several premises that I will have to sort out.

How should Lutherans go about not letting Theological matters A, B, & C cause division?

I know what you mean by “not causing division”. By “not causing division”, you mean Lutherans should “come home to Catholicism”. Part of “comming home” involves blindly abandoning allegedly desputable Theological matters A, B, & C and instead putting my trust in Catholicism.

I’m sorry, but I think this is idolatry. I am called to give my devotion to Jesus. Jesus is the truth. I am called to give my trust to the truth. A, B, & C are a description of my understanding of the truth. You are asking me to close my eyes, let go of the truth as I understand it, and instead cling to a thing called “Catholicism”. You are asking me to make Catholicism my god.

 

[Tonks40]

Angainor:

How should Lutherans go about not letting Theological matters A, B, & C cause division?

I know what you mean by “not causing division”. By “not causing division”, you mean Lutherans should “come home to Catholicism”. Part of “comming home” involves blindly abandoning allegedly desputable Theological matters A, B, & C and instead putting my trust in Catholicism.

I’m sorry, but I think this is idolatry. I am called to give my devotion to Jesus. Jesus is the truth. I am called to give my trust to the truth. A, B, & C are a description of my understanding of the truth. You are asking me to close my eyes, let go of the truth as I understand it, and instead cling to a thing called “Catholicism”. You are asking me to make Catholicism my god.

I don’t think anyone here is implying that you “blindly abandon” disputable theological matters. We’re not asking you to make any religion your “god.” To do so would be foolish for us, as you realize.

I think the people on these boards have given you more than enough information on the doctrines, worships, and practices of the Catholic Church. To agree with us or not is up to your own discernment. Catholicism holds great the idea that we all should come and worship the one True Savior, Jesus Christ - this is how I see the Catholic Church. I don’t worship the Church, I worship God alone, and the Catholic Church gives me the means to do this wholly and fully.

 

[John_Taylor]

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (1Cor 1:10)

(Angainor) **I take that as Paul speaking to the Church of God in Corinth. He felt it important for them to have no divisions among them.

Now, I have to take some guesses here. Paul probably thought it would be wonderful if the Church of God in Corinth was perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment with the Churches of God at Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephesus, Rome.**

(jmt) This would be in keeping with our Lord’s express will for His followers, the Apostles:

Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. (Jn 17:11)

and for all who come to believe in Him through the Apostles:

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. (Jn 17:20-23)

Unity through truth is our Lord’s will for His Church and those who contradict the truth - the Judiazers, the Libertarians, the Gnostics, ect - are not His followers…

Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth (Jn 17:17)

…error does not sanctify.

(Angainor) However, I think Paul would see that being “perfectly joined” with all these Churches would not be practically possible.

(jmt) What??? Are you saying that the message of the Apostles - the Revelations from God that Jesus Christ entrusted to them - is different for different localities? or that it’s impossible for Christians separated by geographical distance to agree on what the Apostles’ message is? Why is it important for the Corinthians to “agree” and “be one” - as our Lord wills - but a matter of indifference for all other Churches???

Wow…we are worlds apart.

(Angainor) I am quite sure Paul would not counsel the Church of God at Corinth to go against its conscience for the sole reason having superficial unity.

(jmt) Two things:

(1) If what a Corinthian (and by extension: everyone who accepts the teaching of the Apostles) believes in “his conscience” to be “okay with God” is in fact “not okay” (and I’m thinking here of the Corinthian - 1Cor 5 - living in incest) then “yes”, St Paul fully demands that the sinner “go against his ERRONEOUS conscience” and conform to “the truth”.

Neither the Judiazers who “in conscience” could not agree with the Council of Jerusalem nor the Gnostics who “in conscience” could not accept that Jesus truly assumed “human flesh” were excused by the Apostles for contradicting “the truth”. Because of their doctrinal errors they were excluded from the Body of Christ.

(2) St Paul has no interest in “superficial unity” - he has in mind as does our God - that substantial unity that comes from all the Churches saying “yes” to the doctrines and precepts Jesus Christ has revealed for our salvation.

(Angainor) I am quite sure Paul would counsel the Church in Corinth not to judge Churches in other cities on disputable matters.

(jmt) Of course, on DISPUTABLE matters it’s everyman for himself. It’s the INDISPUTABLE matters that our Lord expects - and indeed has effectually prayed for - agreement among those who claim Him as “Lord”.

(continued)

 

[John_Taylor]

(jmt) If these matters are - in your opinion “debatable” - then why should the Lutheran Church allow them to be a cause of division?

(Angainor) **That is a complicated question. You are making several premises that I will have to sort out.

How should Lutherans go about not letting Theological matters A, B, & C cause division?

I know what you mean by “not causing division”. By “not causing division”, you mean Lutherans should “come home to Catholicism”. Part of “coming home” involves blindly abandoning allegedly disputable Theological matters A, B, & C and instead putting my trust in Catholicism.

I’m sorry, but I think this is idolatry. I am called to give my devotion to Jesus. Jesus is the truth. I am called to give my trust to the truth. A, B, & C are a description of my understanding of the truth. You are asking me to close my eyes, let go of the truth, as I understand it, and instead cling to a thing called “Catholicism”. You are asking me to make Catholicism my god.**

(jmt) No convinced Catholic follows the teachings of the Catholic Church “blindly” - we do so with our eyes and minds wide open to the soundness of the reasoning behind Catholic teaching…I’m simply asking you to investigate the matters that separate us.

Are you “blindly” rejecting Catholicism?

Now, it seems to me that you’ve moved from claiming “A,B,&C are disputable matters” to saying they are “allegedly disputable”. Which is it…are they or are they not disputable? If they are then you have no basis - from your understanding of St Paul to the Romans - to insist that Catholicism accept them, do you?

Seems to me you should be free “in conscience” to at least try to understand why Catholicism might insist that it’s understanding of “Theological matters A,B,&C” are indisputable.

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[kamz]

Tonks40:

I think the people on these boards have given you more than enough information on the doctrines, worships, and practices of the Catholic Church. To agree with us or not is up to your own discernment. Catholicism holds great the idea that we all should come and worship the one True Savior, Jesus Christ - this is how I see the Catholic Church. I don’t worship the Church, I worship God alone, and the Catholic Church gives me the means to do this wholly and fully.

Amen!! This is exactly my point, nothing any of us say will ever be Enough, there will always be something else etc. etc. etc.
So what is the point? You can search the coming home network and listen to LCMS Ministers who have come home to the Catholic faith, you can go to EWTN and find so much information on the Catholic faith. I asked Angainor what they wanted out of Catholic.com and he/she said maybe just to be understood, well, that is not going to happen, we will understand that Angainor does not want to be Catholic and does not want to really truely “get” the Catholic faith and will only continue to argue against anything that any Catholic posts, so why then do people like Angainor keep on and on? They are given ample amount information but it is and never will be enough for them just as nothing Angainor can say or post or show me will ever make me leave the Catholic faith. Why then is Angainor here? I would just like to really know, if Angainor is so happy and so sure of his/her faith, why go to the trouble of disputing with Catholics? Could it be he/she is really not so sure of their faith? It makes one wonder

 

[Angainor]

John Taylor:

Are you “blindly” rejecting Catholicism?

I have not rejected Catholicism at all. I don’t know where you got that.
John Taylor:

Now, it seems to me that you’ve moved from claiming “A,B,&C are disputable matters” to saying they are “allegedly disputable”. Which is it…are they or are they not disputable? If they are then you have no basis - from your understanding of St Paul to the Romans - to insist that Catholicism accept them, do you?

Seems to me you should be free “in conscience” to at least try to understand why Catholicism might insist that it’s understanding of “Theological matters A,B,&C” are indisputable.

I don’t even know what A, B, & C are! It would be difficult for me to access their disputableness.

I am assuming the existance of Theological matters A,B,&C that Catholicism has judged my faith on, but I don’t know what A,B,&C might be. For all I really know, there might be no Theological matters at all that Catholicism judges my faith on. In which case, I would expect an invitetation to mass next Sunday. I doubt that is the case, but…

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Angainor:

I have not rejected Catholicism at all. I don’t know where you got that.I don’t even know what A, B, & C are! It would be difficult for me to access their disputableness.

I am assuming the existance of Theological matters A,B,&C that Catholicism has judged my faith on, but I don’t know what A,B,&C might be. For all I really know, there might be no Theological matters at all that Catholicism judges my faith on. In which case, I would expect an invitetation to mass next Sunday. I doubt that is the case, but…

If you are not rejecting Catholicism then why are you not Catholic?

I personally invite you to Mass this Sunday and pray that one day soon you will be in full communion with Christ’s Church so that you can fully participate in the life of the Church.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Angainor]

Catholic4aReasn:

If you are not rejecting Catholicism then why are you not Catholic?

Ummm… have you read any of this thread? I have been trying to explain why I am not Catholic.

My understanding is that I’m not Catholic because Catholicism has deemed that Theological matter A,B,&C in my confessions of faith disqualify me from being Catholic.

 

[John_Taylor]

(jmt) Are you “blindly” rejecting Catholicism?

(Angainor) I have not rejected Catholicism at all. I don’t know where you got that.

(jmt) If you have not rejected the teaching of the Catholic Faith then what holds you back from full acceptance of it?

Seems to me you should be free “in conscience” to at least try to understand why Catholicism might insist that it’s understanding of “Theological matters A,B,&C” are indisputable.

(Angainor) I don’t even know what A, B, & C are! It would be difficult for me to access their disputableness.

(jmt) Then isn’t it about time you found out? Isn’t the whole reason you started this thread was to take the Catholic Church to task for rejecting Lutheran “confessional documents”?

Angainor:

If Theological matters A, B, & C are all indisputable matters then 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 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.

How can you initiate this thread with the above statements without even knowing what “Theological matters A,B,&C” are??? You easily recognize that if these matters are indeed indisputable then - in your own words - the Catholic Church “has every right to pass judgment on the beliefs of the LCMS and declare them outside of Christ’s Church.”

Somehow, you’ve got to come to terms with the differences that seperate Lutherans from Catholics, for otherwise you are blindly following a society of believers who may very well be in errror. I hope in your understanding of God you accept the fact that Truth matters to Him.

See Religious Indifferentism
newadvent.org/cathen/07759a.htm

(Angainor) I am assuming the existance of Theological matters A,B,&C that Catholicism has judged my faith on, but I don’t know what A,B,&C might be. For all I really know, there might be no Theological matters at all that Catholicism judges my faith on. In which case, I would expect an invititation to mass next Sunday. I doubt that is the case, but…

(jmt) Do you know in your heart - through the light of faith in Christ - that it is God’s will for ALL Christians to be united in what they dogmatically affirm about Jesus Christ and His Teachings?

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[Angainor]

quote=John Taylor Then isn’t it about time you found out? Isn’t the whole reason you started this thread was to take the Catholic Church to task for rejecting Lutheran “confessional documents”?
How can you initiate this thread with the above statements without even knowing what “Theological matters A,B,&C” are???
[/quote]

I just don’t think my knowledge of which Theolocical matters are A,B,&C is very important. Will that change anything?

quote=John Taylor Do you know in your heart - through the light of faith in Christ - that it is God’s will for ALL Christians to be united in what they dogmatically affirm about Jesus Christ and His Teachings?
[/quote]

Since you put it that way, no. Not to nit-pick, but you never said anything about what is being “dogmatically affirmed” being true. It is important to be devoted to the truth first, united second. You can’t put the cart before the horse.

 

[John_Taylor]

(Angainor) I just don’t think my knowledge of which Theolocical matters are A,B,&C is very important. Will that change anything?

(jmt) You tell me. From the start of the thread you state:

*If Theological matters A, B, & C are all indisputable matters then 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 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.*

Seems to me whether or not “theological matters A,B,&C” are indisputable makes all the difference in the world as far as your objection to Catholicism (based on Rm 14:4) is concerned.

I don’t understand how you fail to see this.

(Angainor) It is important to be devoted to the truth first, united second. You can’t put the cart before the horse.

(jmt) Angainor, are you devoted enough to the Truth to at least define what “theological matters A,B,&C” are inorder to know whether or not Catholicism “has every right to pass judgment on the beliefs of the LCMS and declare them outside of Christ’s Church”? From there you can better decide with which society of believers you should unite with.

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[Angainor]

John Taylor:

Seems to me whether or not “theological matters A,B,&C” are indisputable makes all the difference in the world as far as your objection to Catholicism (based on Rm 14:4) is concerned.

I don’t understand how you fail to see this.

(Angainor) It is important to be devoted to the truth first, united second. You can’t put the cart before the horse.

(jmt) Angainor, are you devoted enough to the Truth to at least define what “theological matters A,B,&C” are inorder to know whether or not Catholicism “has every right to pass judgment on the beliefs of the LCMS and declare them outside of Christ’s Church”? From there you can better decide with which society of believers you should unite with.

I think we are miscommunicating.

Theological matters A,B,&C are matters that I profess as part of Lutheran Creeds. In a sense I know what they are because I know Lutheran Creeds. What I don’t know is what matters specifically that Catholicism judges my faith on. I assume, for example, that it is not the Apostle’s, Nicene, or Athanasian Creeds. Quite possibly there might be an A,B,orC in Augsburg Confession.

My knowing which part of the Lutheran Confessions Rome has a problem with will not change anything. I believe what I believe. Catholicism has determined that part of what I believe puts me outside of Catholicism. Under ordinary circumstances this would not bother me. However, things exist like the “coming home network” that insist that Catholicism is the natural home for Christians and are critical of me for my place outside an arbitrary circle of Catholicism’s own creation.

 

[kamz]

chnetwork.org/journals/justification/justify_1.htm

this is a great conversion story from a former LCMS and he explains his conversion from the point of having been a member of the LCMS church.

 

[John_Taylor]

(Angainor) Theological matters A,B,&C are matters that I profess as part of Lutheran Creeds. In a sense I know what they are because I know Lutheran Creeds. What I don’t know is what matters specifically that Catholicism judges my faith on. I assume, for example, that it is not the Apostle’s, Nicene, or Athanasian Creeds. Quite possibly there might be an A,B,orC in Augsburg Confession.

(jmt) Your hunch is correct. The Apostle’s, Nicene, or Athanasian Creeds are in fact Catholic expressions of the Christian faith. When Luther broke away from historical Christianity he took with him many elements of the Catholic faith but with the Augsburg Confession he broke with Catholic faith on an indisputable point - namely, the nature of faith and it’s role in justification.

See On The Augsburg Confession
by the late Fr. William Most
cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a035.html

Augsburg Confession

In many respects is sounds like a Catholic creed. But there are two great reasons why it is unacceptable to the Catholic Church.

1. Faith: The idea of faith at Augsburg is still the same as that of Luther. Augsburg Confession in 20:23: "Faith does not mean knowledge of an event. . . it means faith which believes. . . also in the effect of an event, namely, the remission of sins, e.g., that we have, through Christ, grace, righteousness and remission of sins."

No, St. Paul has a different definition of faith. It includes three things. The third, and most vital, is omitted in the Augsburg Confession. For St. Paul requires

1. We believe what God says. Augsburg Confession would not disagree.
2. We have confidence in His promises. Augsburg Confession hardly would disagree
3. The “obedience of faith” - from Romans 1:5. A standard Protestant reference work, Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, says in its 1976 Supplement volume, p. 333, in the article on faith, in the section on St. Paul: "Paul uses pistis/pisteuein [Greek words for faith and believe] to mean, above all, belief in the Christ kerygma [proclamation or preaching], knowledge, obedience, trust in the Lord Jesus. Commenting on Rom 1:5 the same article says: that we must respond, "by the ‘obedience of faith’, (Rom 1:5), hypakoe pisteos ‘the obedience which faith is’". Notice that it is not said merely that faith produces obedience. Rather, it speaks of the obedience that faith IS.

Here Luther contradicted most strongly. In his Epistle of August 1, 1521 to Melanchthon (This translation is taken from the official Lutheran American Edition of his complete works, vol. 42, pp. 281-82: “If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true [p. 282] and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. . . . as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. . . . No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.” So if a man after a sex orgy would go out and kill a thousand people with an automatic rifle, and then kill himself, he would go instantly to the eternal embrace of God. Yet In Malachi 3:2: “Who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner’s fire.” That fire would have to burn all that rot out of him. If there would be anything left, He might finally reach heaven. If not, it would mean the fire would keep on burning him forever.

So, sadly, we have to say: Luther did not really know what St. Paul meant by faith. Yet he built his whole system on that error. In his Exposition on Psalm 130. 4, speaking of justification by faith. he wrote: “If this article stands, the church stands; if it falls, the church falls”. He also wiped out the Holiness of God, of which Isaiah speaks over and over, the attribute by which God loves all that is good, and hates all sin. Luther thinks a thousand fornications and murder per day leave a man still right with God.

2. The principle of teaching authority…

See also By Faith Alone?
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9306clas.asp

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[John_Taylor]

chnetwork.org/journals/justification/justify_1.htm

this is a great conversion story from a former LCMS and he explains his conversion from the point of having been a member of the LCMS church.

From that conversion story:

Of all the thousands of Protestant denominations, few are more dedicated than the Missouri Synod to preserving the original arguments with Rome — especially when it comes to justification, the article on which Luther said the church stands or falls. To Catholics then and now, the key issue in the Reformation is authority — Luther’s rejection of the doctrinal authority of the pope and the Magisterium of the Church. And, indeed, the continuing rejection of that authority is very important to Lutherans. But it’s not the first issue they talk about. Justification comes first—for Luther and the Reformers couched every disagreement in terms of their conviction that the Catholic Church doesn’t believe that salvation comes through Christ’s free gift, but from performing this sacrament, that rite, this prayer to Mary, that indulgence.

Almost any spiritual journey from Wittenberg to Rome—especially if it detours through Missouri—hinges totally on that conviction. Unless Lutherans perceive common ground with Catholics on justification, Catholics can’t hope to get Lutherans to listen to the Church’s views on authority, Mary and the saints, purgatory and indulgences and the sacraments, especially the Eucharist. Unless the cornerstone of Lutherans’ mighty fortress against Rome is removed, the rest of the wall won’t fall.

(emphais mine)

Seems that the “theological matters” we need to investigate are: Justification and Authority. What do you think, Angainor? Are you interested?

God Bless
jmt

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Ummm… have you read any of this thread? I have been trying to explain why I am not Catholic.

My understanding is that I’m not Catholic because Catholicism has deemed that Theological matter A,B,&C in my confessions of faith disqualify me from being Catholic.

If you’re rejecting Catholic teaching (which you seem to be doing insofar as the as of yet unnamed theological matters A,B&C) then you are, in fact, rejecting Catholicism.

You seem to be trying to be fashion your argument to appear as though Catholicism is rejecting you when, in fact, you are rejecting Catholicism.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Angainor]

Catholic4aReasn:

You seem to be trying to be fashion your argument to appear as though Catholicism is rejecting you when, in fact, you are rejecting Catholicism.

I am what I am. The fact remains that what I am has been declared to be not Catholic.