Judge Not

An anathma is equivalant to an excommunication, and we have an example of this being imposed from the mouth of Christ Himself in Matthew 18:15-18.

That is not true at all, and the Church never claims that it can condemn anyone to hell! It can exclude someone from the sacraments and fellowship from the Church, but always with the hope and prayers that that individual will repent and return.

Only God knows the heart, and thus only God can judge. Christ gave much authority to His church, but the power to know the hearts of men and thus judge their salvation is not one of those "charismas."

The most the Church can do is point out the error of their doctrine! How much they are "sublimely innocent" in that error is for God to judge, therefore you, being a member of East Mogmog Baptist Church may very well be saved! And for this individual, I pray to God that you ARE!

Again, all they can do is judge the error of a doctrine held, not the actual condition of the soul as it may be judged by God.

If you believe that in my faith in Catholicism is in error, you are perfectly free to state it! And I am perfectly free to demonstrate the error of the doctrines you hold.

But neither you or I can stand in judgment of the soul, something held by God and God alone.

We often hear, "Judge not, least you be judged."

That says enough, I think...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

Hi Lorelei,

You might find this link helpful (although, at the risk of being judgmental, the writing style is a bit convoluted for my taste!)

The Catholic Understanding of the Anathemas of Trent and Excommunication

God bless,

Mark

 

I concur with my Catholic brothers, and hope that you will read up on this and understand that no one and no part of the Church has said that you will "die in your sins," which was the claim made against John Paul II.

 

I always love it when they criticise us for para 841 about the Moslems in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and then turn around and complain about our statement that there is no salvation outside the Church. Heresy was agressisely condemned throughout the ages so that those whom were less learned could determine who was orthodox and who was in error. The Church however has no "these people went to hell list". It chooses not to judge those who contradict the church while anethmatizing their doctrines. An anethema in the context of the councils and papal decrees is an excommunication or separation from the Church. it is a declaration that the teachings are not orthodox. And yet the Church also recognises that each indivicual is responsible for the light that he has been given and thus the eternal outcome of each person can only be judged by God who knows the circumstances of each and every life.

Hope that helps.

 

By the way...

Even if what you said about Catholics were true (which it is not), what is the purpose of this thread? I see no other purpose than that you're saying, "You do it, so don't tell us we can do it, although when you do it, it goes against Scripture, so you are wrong!"

If we're wrong, the original post condemning John Paul II to hell ("dying in his sins") is still absolutely incorrect. Instead of attacking, shouldn't you be rebuking this incorrect judgement of a soul?

 

Don't waste your time with this thread. Nothing we say will satisfy her hatred.

Give them shoes a little shake.

 

Excluding someone from sacraments required for salvation is not considered condemning them to hell?</font>[/QUOTE]Nope, not at all! While it is true that the Sacraments are important to salvation, strictly speaking, one who was baptized but apostacizes from the faith, is not an absolute declaration that the individual is condemned to hell. Again, no one can know but God.

And of course, I would strongly disagree with you on that! You are then making a statement of determining that the beliefs of the church are paramount to damnation!

That, madam, would require a lot of discussion between you and I, so make your case and let's see...

I believe in Jesus Christ. That means that I believe in the very Church he established claiming that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." And since it is the only church that can trace her history and origins back to Christ Himself, I am positive as can be that my doctrine is correct, and unchanging from the times of Pentecost!

The problem is, I am as convinced as can be that the doctrines I follow is absolutely correct and without error! Else Christ lied, and indeed, His church has stood in error for the first 1500 years before the dawn of Protestantism!

So only God can know if a person can get to hell by believing in Mohammad? Buddah? Are all these options to receive eternal life?</font>[/QUOTE]Mohammad and Buddah actually have nothing to do with it, for even a pagan, "sublimely ignorant" of the gospel of Christ but essentially follows the Ten Commandments (which is another way of stating what we all know in the natural law, is not outside of the boundries of being saved, as determined by the infinite mercy and justice of Almighty God!

We know what God wants us to do that we are indeed saved, but we do not know the intentions of what and how He may condemn/save the soul that comes before Him in judgment.

It is obvious that Christianity, per the gospel of Christ is the "greased ways" that we may be saved, but if the ignorant pagan, in the jungle who has never been exposed to a missionary, just may achieve the salvation we all seek, even while the odds may be low for that to happen. That makes it obvious why it is important what Christ says in Matthew 28:19 to "Make disciples of all nations" as an all important imperative.

The question is a false dichotomy, like asking me "when was the last time I beat my momma"?

Make your question valid, you must demonstrate an occasion of a pope teaching and believing other then what is Catholic beliefs, doctrine and dogma.

In pointing it out, is it necessary to state that anyone believing it is "anathema" even though you can't know the heart of a person who believes those doctrines?</font>[/QUOTE]No, as the Church pleads for correction and retraction of a false doctrine! It is only when the error is a serious detraction and a scandal, usually for a long period of time, before the individual is declared "anathema."

A person may personally believe in an error, if that person is far removed from the author of the error. That is to say, if I were raised up in a family of Mormons, who has taught me Mormanism, and I believe it, I am not under the decree of anathema, whereas the founder of the error may be.

And even is the case of those who author the error, and under an anathema, no one can know for sure of the heart of the individual who may believe in this error, even when the person turns his back from the true faith to embrace it!

I may fear for his soul; I may "think" he is bound for hell, and such, but I cannot declare definitively that the individual is in hell at death.

Can I declare that Adolph Hitler is in hell? No, I cannot, as I have to contemplate a last second remorse and asking for forgiveness on his part before he actually died!

So how can they say there is no salvation apart from the catholic church if they can never really KNOW for sure?</font>[/QUOTE]Because for those souls, even those way outside of the Catholic Church in actual practice, may be saved as "imperfect members of the church" nevertheless. Also, such a charge was made against those who perpetuated a cleavage from the Catholic Church as if one is completely divorced from her, as a warning to the individual that the individual may repent!

But deep down, if you still believe in Christ, you are still an "imperfect member of the Church," and thus just may be saved at the last breath!

The following link explains this better then I do:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp

It's actually "lest" you be judged. Of course the context has nothing to do with judging a man's salvation. In context, these verses show us that we must first recognize our own faults before correcting another. If we DO judge, we must be prepared to be judged in the same manner. It doesn't say we are NEVER to judge a christian brother or sister based upon their doctrines.</font>[/QUOTE]Of course, I was paraphrasing from memory, Lorelei.

Correcting another has nothing to do with declaring a condemning of another, but such declarations often come close to doing this! Furthermore, not to judge is a good idea since only God can judge, do you agree?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not
thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:
Lest the LORD see it, and it displease him, and he turn
away his wrath from him.
Proverbs 24:17-18

 

If you "wanted to know," why are you TELLING US that we are WRONG. That's not an enquiry. That's a bait and attack. We told you, and you told us we were wrong. That means you "already knew," so please don't word it like it was innocent. People who want to know things don't then denounce the responders as incorrect.

 

Jesus said:
John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Paul said:
1Cor.2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

1Cor.10:15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say

 

We are to judge according to the Word of God. Else how can we know who are the false prophets? the false teachers? the false brethren? the antichrists? By their works and doctrine we shall know them wether they are Christ's disciples or not. We can compare their doctrine and practice based on the Scriptures. By this we have the right to judge based on the revealed truth in the Scriptures.

 

Dear Faithcontender (and Lorelei, if you're still around and interested),

I think we'd all agree that Our Lord's words in Matt. 7:1 and Luke 6:37 (and various related scriptural passages) have some meaning. How do you interpret it? That is, what sort(s) of "judging" do you believe are "off limits" for us as Christians?

I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Many thanks,

Mark H.

 

I am not disagreeing with your words though I have a different definition of WORD OF GOD. For WOG = Bible (exclusively) is nowhere taught in the Bible.

I wonder if you could answer for me when the witness of the Church stopped being used as a method of determining error. 2 Tim 2:2 "And what you have heard from me through many witnesses, entrust to faithful people who will teach others..."

2 thes 2:15 also says "HOLD FAST to the TRADITIONS you have recieved whether by WORD OF MOUTH or in epistle from us."

In Corinthians Paul praises them for holding to the traditions just as they recieved them. Now the scriptures are a part of this tradition but where does it say that scripture is the only witness and the only teaching.

Bless you.

 

The Lord Jesus commanded us not to judge hypocritically like pretending that we are righteous compared to others. In the eyes of God we are all guilty and fall short of his glory that's why no one can claim that he is accepted of God because of his righteousness. Self-righteousness is condemned by God.

Also we are not to judge the motive of every man unless otherwise they are admitted by themselves, for who can know the mind and heart of man but only God.

 

Hi Faithcontender,

Thanks for your insights. Let me see if I'm understanding you.

It appears to me that your first category would cover a statement like "I'm righteous and you're not." (Am I right?)

Would it also cover any or all of the following? (These are sort of randomly-thought-up "righteousness-related" concepts):

a. "You're a sinner and I'm not."
b. "I'm going to heaven and you're not."
c. "I'm saved and you're not."
d. "I'm guided by the Holy Spirit and you're not."
e. "I'm born again and you're not."
f. "My interpretation of scripture is correct and yours is not."
g. "I've received the Holy Spirit and you haven't."
h. "I've accepted Jesus and you haven't."

(I don't want to make the list too long, but I am interested in how broad a concept you're thinking of).

In the second category, I'm guessing that you aren't necessarily requiring an actual admission per se -- that is, you ask, "Are you motivated by X?" and I say, "Yes, it's X all the way ..." -- but that you would also accept other evidence that, if substantial enough, might lead you to conclude my motivation is X.

For example, if I offer to sell you my car for its Blue Book value, I might have a variety of motives. But if I try to trick you into buying my car for $1 million, I'm probably motivated by greed even if I don't come out and say so.

Am I understanding you?

Thanks,

Mark

(Edited to add letters for easier reference).