One poster asked me to give three reasons why I am not a Roman Catholic. Since I try to answer all questions I am asked by my readers, I will briefly explain why I will not join the Roman Church.<\/span> One poster asked me to give three reasons why I am not a Roman Catholic. Since I try to answer all questions I am asked by my readers, I will briefly explain why I will not join the Roman Church.1. The denial of\u00a0Sola FideThis is the most important reason why I have not and will […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2176,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[213],"class_list":["post-251","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-roman-catholicism"],"yoast_head":"\n
1. The denial of\u00a0<\/span>Sola Fide<\/span>
This is the most important reason why I have not and will not ever join the Roman church. As a Lutheran I see it as the center of the Biblical gospel. Trent erred in defining justification as a process and anathematizing its Biblical formulation. Justification is clearly judicial. Paul contrasts \u201cjustification\u201d with \u201ccondemnation.\u201d Justification, being the opposite of condemnation, is clearly a legal term. It means \u201cnot guilty\u201d and as Paul in Romans 4, quoting David defines it, the non-imputation of sin, as well as the counting of righteousness. Paul also uses it in the past tense in Romans 5:1 and other places, denying the understanding of justification as a process.\u00a0<\/span>
2. Unwritten tradition as a source of authority<\/span>
I do not see scripture teaching that there is another source of authority which is unwritten and carried on by an infallible magisterium. This is problematic because several of these \u201ctraditions\u201d are contradicted by scripture itself. Also, just as clearly, several traditions now claimed by the Roman Church are the opposite of teachings in the fathers. For example, the immaculate conception, now a \u201cdogma of the church\u201d was condemned by Pope Galacius. The Roman Church has not stayed consistent in defining its own infallible tradition. This is why Trent could anathematize Protestants while Vatican II refers to them as separated brethren. This is also why the entire medieval tradition of purgatory as involving an actual period of time can be contradicted by the current Pope. There is simply no consistency.\u00a0<\/span>
3. The sacrifice of the mass<\/span>
Simply put, I believe the doctrine of the re-sacrifice of Christ or \u201crepresentation of the once for all sacrifice\u201d or however one wants to put it, is a denial of the nature of Christ\u2019s atonement. The book of Hebrews makes the point that what is greater about the New Covenant as opposed to the Old is that the propitiatory sacrifice is once for all, and cannot be repeated. The text is clear, and to explain that it is the same sacrifice now as the one on Golgotha is just to skate around the issue and ruin the author\u2019s argument.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"