Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church?

[rinnie]

I read what you said also, and disagree with it. I think rev. kev is right, and faith is required for baptism. The only reason that infants are baptized in the Catholic Church is because their parents and godparents make a profession of faith on their behalf. We see this principle at work in the Scriptures where the friends bring the paralyzed man to Jesus, and lower him through the roof. The text states “Jesus saw THEIR faith” and healed the man. Also, Jesus heals the centurians servant based upon HIS faith. In fact, he says “I have not seen so great a faith in all of Israel”.

When one reads the baptismal rites for infants, it is clear that the parents make vows to raise the child in the faith. If these vows are not taken, the infant will not be baptized. So there is a profession of faith, and it is required for baptism.

However, I do agree with you that the profession is not expected from a person who cannot make one (like a disabled person or an infant), and I do agree with rev kev (who agrees with the Catholic Church) on the point that those who are of age are required to make their own profession of faith.

They are baptized on the profession of faith of those who are bringing them for baptism.
Baptism cannot be offered without a profession of faith.

Thanks for your response guan, if you read back what we were talking about is he told me he felt that faith was required by the person that was to be baptised. That is why I said that I disagree with that, then showed how faith is no required by the person to be baptised because if that were true then the Church would not baptise babies.

And I also agree if the Person to be baptised is at the age of reason they must make their own profession of faith, That is why in RCIA some who have not made that profession does it, and those who were baptised as infants do not get re-baptised.

I am trying to show him how the Sacraments tie into our faith, and how Baptism ties into the forgiveness of sins. I believe that while I know I cannot change his mind, I can show him how the Sacraments are the center of our faith. I think they will help alot.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie, thanks very much for this word of encouragement. I am experiencing some intense financial pressure right now, and I know I am being called to deepen my trust and faith in Him. I really needed this reminder.

God Bless you, sister!

How about if I throw in some Prayers and a candle on Sunday also. That will help alot. There is no better for God to get your attention then give you a cross to carry is there.

But you have alot of faith and trust in God, You will be fine.

But trust me when this is over, if anything will deepen your faith and trust financial pressures will do it! Remember what my Dad always told me, He said when you go to God and ask him for something he is laughing. He already took care of that problem and is working on your next one.

 

[guanophore]

Thanks for your response guan, if you read back what we were talking about is he told me he felt that faith was required by the person that was to be baptised. That is why I said that I disagree with that, then showed how faith is no required by the person to be baptised because if that were true then the Church would not baptise babies.

Yes, I did go back and read, because I know you well enough that I know you would not claim that infants cannot be baptized.

I just think that, when discussing these matters with our separated brethren, it is very important to emphasize that we are in agreement that baptism DOES require a profession of faith. For those who have recieved the Apostolic Teaching (baptize infants) we know this profession of faith can be made by their caregivers.

The notion of “believers baptism” that is practiced in Evangelical circles today is only a couple hundred years old. It is a modern innovation that is a consequence of interpreting scripture in separation from the faith that produced it.

I am trying to show him how the Sacraments tie into our faith, and how Baptism ties into the forgiveness of sins. I believe that while I know I cannot change his mind, I can show him how the Sacraments are the center of our faith. I think they will help alot.

And you have to consider that, at any one time, there are as many as 10 people reading the posts that are not posting on the thread.

 

[guanophore]

How about if I throw in some Prayers and a candle on Sunday also. That will help alot. There is no better for God to get your attention then give you a cross to carry is there.

But you have alot of faith and trust in God, You will be fine.

But trust me when this is over, if anything will deepen your faith and trust financial pressures will do it! Remember what my Dad always told me, He said when you go to God and ask him for something he is laughing. He already took care of that problem and is working on your next one.

From your mouth, to God’s ear! Thank you for your prayers.

 

[rinnie]

By the way Rev Kev may I also say you were also right as Guan pointed out in your defense. Didn’t mean to state otherwise.

Faith is required as you stated under the conditions stated. Thanks Kev.

 

[benedictus2]

Now its my turn.

I said that Christ is the Church. Did Christ or did he not say that his body is the temple.

Yes or No? Was he not saying that when he would destroy the temple and raise it again he meant his Body. Is that not what the CC teaches and has always taught.

Is it or is it not the teaching of the CC that the Eucharist is the Heart and Soul of the Church’s life. Yes or No? Are we not taught that by his sacrifice he pours out the graces of Salvation On his body which is the Church? Yes or No?

See here again, you are doing a very protestant practice of taking a verse or half a verse and coming up with a whole exegesis on it.

When Christ said that His Body is the Temple He did not mean what you are making it mean. Perhaps you can dig out a commentary on this.

The Church is His Mystical Body. The Person of Christ is more than His Mystical Body anymore than Rinnie’s body is the totality of Rinnie. You are more than just your physical body so we cannot say Rinnie is her body.

Please, please, please Rinnie, instead of arguing with me just follow my advice and ask an apologist or a priest. Pass your exegesis by them if you do not believe me. Continuing this way gets us nowhere.

Do not rely on your own understanding. That is what you have been doing with regards this issue all along. I have asked you to ask someone else but to date it seems you have not done that but prefer to keep sticking to your own.

 

[rev_kevin]

rinnie;7537578]Okay here is a easier way to see it. In the O.T there was no Baptism right? They had circumcision. Now babies were circumcised, You can see that right?

Ok but circuncision is for males, so to say that circumcision is now baptism would mean that only males can be baptized.

Okay now when Christ died on the cross he replaced circumcision with Baptism. Now it has the same meaning. To unite us to God. The would be the easiest way to show you that babies were indeed circumcised. Now a baby could not have faith yet, see what I am saying. That is why the Church does also not require faith. It is when a baby is Baptised that it gets Grace from God, and the sooner you have grace the better.

You say babies (plural) meaning boys and girls, but girls cannot be circumcised.

Here is why the Church teaches you can only be Baptised once. To make it in easy terms once God gives you the Grace of baptism you cannot lose that grace. You know how when you are baptised you are reborn in Christ. Okay once you are born in Christ you can never die. The soul has been free from sin. It has eternal life in Christ.

Yes agree but I see nothing wrong with someone being baptized again.

Now we can lose eternal life in Christ if we choose to reject him. but now it is our choice, God gave us free will. While he gave us free grace by no merit of our own, we must live in that grace and grow in it. And now we must live for him. If we choose to reject him, we throw that grace away by sin and cannot gain eternal life. But remember he is merciful and has given us also free will to turn back to him. all we have to do is repent and free ourself from our sin and we can again remain back in his grace.

Agree

That is simply because there is no sin that he did not pay for that we could commit. All we have to do is ask him to forgive us give a good confession and quit the sin, then we are back in his good grace.

Agreed

 

[rev_kevin]

benedictus2;7537601]

I asked you earlier if you believe what you copy and pasted at post 830.

Yes

Do you really believe that Peter is not the rock and that you subscribe to the petros/petra controversy?

Yes

Thanks,

Cory

 

[fbl9]

Rinnie wrote to the effect that baptism marks our souls.

OK

I don’t see the harm in being baptized again if you want to.

.

rekev does your “ok” mean you agree that one’s soul is endelibly marked?

what happens to your soul on the second baptism? Does it recieve another mark?
What three strikes and your out?

 

[guanophore]

Ok but circuncision is for males, so to say that circumcision is now baptism would mean that only males can be baptized.

We are not saying that “circumcision is now baptism”, but that baptism replaced circumcision as the entrance rite into the Kingdom. In baptism, we are circumcised upon the heart by the Holy Spirit:

Col 2:11-12
11 In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 when you were buried with him in baptism,

You say babies (plural) meaning boys and girls, but girls cannot be circumcised.

Girls were considered property at the time. They were included in the legal status of the male who had custody of them, a father, older male relative, or husband.

Since consent of the infant was not needed under the Old Covenant, the Apostles did not find it necessary in the new. Infants are included on the basis of the faith of the parents/community.

Yes agree but I see nothing wrong with someone being baptized again.

It is contrary to the Teachings of the Aposltes. One Baptism, it says in Scripture, and in the creeds.

We renew our baptismal vows annually at the Easter vigil, and during the baptisms of others.

Did you not know that Jesus was speaking to Peter in Aramaic, not Greek? Did you not know that the name He gave Peter (Kepha) means “Rock”?

 

[benedictus2]

Yes

Yes

Okay, here’s a short debunking of that argument.

Jesus spoke Aramaic: Talitha Kum, Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani,etc

So what Jesus said in Matthew 16 goes like this :“Blessed are you Simon bar Jonah … And I say to you you are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my Church”.

Kepha means Rock in Aramaic. So straight English translation " You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my church".

We know this to be true because Peter was since called Cephas.

Question is how do we know that Jesus was speaking Aramaic when He was talking to Peter? The clue is in the opening address. He refers to Peter as Simon bar Jonah. Bar is Aramaic for son.

Also John 1:43 goes: You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas" (which is translated Peter).

Cephas means rock. If Cephas translates to Peter and Cephas means rock then Peter means rock not stone or pebble.

Also, Protestant scholars who since abandone this kind of thinking as I have shown in a previous post.

If you do not find this argument convincing enough, can you let me know why and and give a rebuttal.

Thanks,

Cory

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Guanophore,

What is the single most convincing reason you think that Jesus started the Catholic Church?

God bless

Yes, I did go back and read, because I know you well enough that I know you would not claim that infants cannot be baptized.

I just think that, when discussing these matters with our separated brethren, it is very important to emphasize that we are in agreement that baptism DOES require a profession of faith. For those who have recieved the Apostolic Teaching (baptize infants) we know this profession of faith can be made by their caregivers.

The notion of “believers baptism” that is practiced in Evangelical circles today is only a couple hundred years old. It is a modern innovation that is a consequence of interpreting scripture in separation from the faith that produced it.

And you have to consider that, at any one time, there are as many as 10 people reading the posts that are not posting on the thread.

 

[PbloPicasso]

I would say that Jesus started the Church of Christ. It’s biblical and its correct. However, the Catholic Church says that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.

See: ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/subsistit.htm

The term Catholic seem to derive the very same way the term “Christian” came about.
I still prefer the use of the term “Church of Christ”. That is why I converted to the Church of Christ (restoration movement) that I believed was the actual attempt to restore what I thought the actual Church was like before going out of order. It eliminated the ritualistic strange things I discovered when I became Catholic under my dad’s supervision. I was convinced that any leader that would cover up sinful sexual behavior was in fact demonic and was a lie. I still believe this to some level. But something I heard on Catholic Answers Radio a few years back made me realize its always been this way. Would you leave Jesus because of Judas? From there I recalled the fact that all of the apostles denied Christ, with possibly one exception, John. Peter denied Christ three times and the scriptures make a point out of it. If all of the apostles denied Christ, then why did Jesus only address Peter. “Peter, do you love me? Lord you know I love you. Then feed my sheep”… Thomas doubts were not addressed in the same manner.

let me assume that Jesus’ birth was set at 0 A.D. And he dies 33 A.D. If the book of Revelation is said to be written in around 90 A.D. then Ignatius of Antioch’s statement about the use of the term “catholic” or “Catholic” is more significant than we’re led to believe. You might say that it must have already been in use by this time becuase of the way he used the term. And so what if its a new term being used for the Christian Church or Church of Christ. The Church was established by Christ. What we refer to it in oral and written word is not as significant as the fact that what they practiced and believed remain the same, generally speaking. The most common example is the use of the term “trinity”, “purgatory”, “original sin”, etc. each one of the terms has a specific definition and are usually misunderstood by particular people of different faiths. Trinity is bazaar to Muslims, JWs, LDS, for example. Purgatory is biblical, but since the word does not appear in scripture, Protestants generally dismiss it. And Original Sin, is generally believed by many, if not most Protestants because they do not understand the actual meaning of the term. Separate the term from the definition, as in math, and you have absolutely no idea what is meant by it.

Thoughts?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PbloPicasso,

I must admit … I had a hard time following all that you said.

As I understand it, you concluded by saying that Jesus started the Catholic Church.

There was this item about the Chruch of Christ (a Protestant denomination developed about or around 1906 in the US from individuals who broke with other Protestant denominations) and you were with this group for a while.

But, when you considered that you would not leave Christ for Judas’ sin or the denial by Peter or the abandonment of the other Apostles - you came back to the Catholic Church.

Now, did I get that right?

God bless

I would say that Jesus started the Church of Christ. It’s biblical and its correct. However, the Catholic Church says that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.

See: ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/subsistit.htm

The term Catholic seem to derive the very same way the term “Christian” came about.
I still prefer the use of the term “Church of Christ”. That is why I converted to the Church of Christ (restoration movement) that I believed was the actual attempt to restore what I thought the actual Church was like before going out of order. It eliminated the ritualistic strange things I discovered when I became Catholic under my dad’s supervision. I was convinced that any leader that would cover up sinful sexual behavior was in fact demonic and was a lie. I still believe this to some level. But something I heard on Catholic Answers Radio a few years back made me realize its always been this way. Would you leave Jesus because of Judas? From there I recalled the fact that all of the apostles denied Christ, with possibly one exception, John. Peter denied Christ three times and the scriptures make a point out of it. If all of the apostles denied Christ, then why did Jesus only address Peter. “Peter, do you love me? Lord you know I love you. Then feed my sheep”… Thomas doubts were not addressed in the same manner.

let me assume that Jesus’ birth was set at 0 A.D. And he dies 33 A.D. If the book of Revelation is said to be written in around 90 A.D. then Ignatius of Antioch’s statement about the use of the term “catholic” or “Catholic” is more significant than we’re led to believe. You might say that it must have already been in use by this time becuase of the way he used the term. And so what if its a new term being used for the Christian Church or Church of Christ. The Church was established by Christ. What we refer to it in oral and written word is not as significant as the fact that what they practiced and believed remain the same, generally speaking. The most common example is the use of the term “trinity”, “purgatory”, “original sin”, etc. each one of the terms has a specific definition and are usually misunderstood by particular people of different faiths. Trinity is bazaar to Muslims, JWs, LDS, for example. Purgatory is biblical, but since the word does not appear in scripture, Protestants generally dismiss it. And Original Sin, is generally believed by many, if not most Protestants because they do not understand the actual meaning of the term. Separate the term from the definition, as in math, and you have absolutely no idea what is meant by it.

Thoughts?

 

[PbloPicasso]

Hi, PbloPicasso,

I must admit … I had a hard time following all that you said.

As I understand it, you concluded by saying that Jesus started the Catholic Church.

There was this item about the Chruch of Christ (a Protestant denomination developed about or around 1906 in the US from individuals who broke with other Protestant denominations) and you were with this group for a while.

But, when you considered that you would not leave Christ for Judas’ sin or the denial by Peter or the abandonment of the other Apostles - you came back to the Catholic Church.

Now, did I get that right?

God bless

Pretty close. I said that the name is not the issue. It’s the unbroken chain that leads from Pope Benedict XVI all the way back to Peter, that convinced me the Catholic Church, which, by the way, also calls itself the Church of Christ, a name used for the body of Christ in the New Testament. The Protestant denomination that calls itself the “Church of Christ” today broke from the Disciples of Christ, started by Alexander Campbell. However, that said, the Church of Christ, Christians, say that they are the original church that the Catholic Church subdued in the beginning.

Now, I know this to be false, but when I doubted the Catholic Church it was because the leaders in the Catholic Church had not only covered up the sin of one of their own (a priest) that molested me while I was a seminarian. I lost all faith in the Church as I discovered other teenagers that were also molested or were preyed upon by the same priest. As I confided in other priests in my diocese I found other priests that defended homosexuality or would not speak against it. Everyone Catholic around me defended the priests and/or made me shut up. I was screaming for help. I needed therapy and only God made all of this make sense to me.

Today, unfortunately, many Catholics, including those running apostolates like CAF, and others, also make people like me shut up. Its just too much of a can of worms. They see no use in sharing information like this and claim that it is fruitless. Well, it may seem fruitless to those that have not been raped, molested or lured, etc. But it does help those of us who have been severely hurt in the past. And it’s a cry for help for the laity to stand up for their part in the Church. This, I believe, is the root for the results of Vatican Council II. I have learned that talking about what happened to me helps me and help others who’ve been hurt and/or abandoned by the laity and the clergy and religious of the Church. Many of these people are too afraid to admit the Church needs to be reformed - renewed may be a better word - by becoming transformed into Christ.

I know priests that have almost lost faith in God because of all the evil surrounding them. Some of them end up leaving the priesthood because they can’t handle it anymore. If nothing is being done to transform Christians in to the likeness and image of Christ, then what are they doing? I’m not condemning anyone, just trying to shine a light on the darkness infecting the Church. Only when light is shined on the darkness will it be discovered and able to be cleansed. Unfortunately, many hierarchy in the Church don’t seem to be able to manage their way out of a wet paper bag. It’s like they’re playing “dress-up” (as I recently read on another blog) instead of father/pastor. The bishop is our father, our pastor and bears the brunt of what’s happening within the Church. They will have to answer to God. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have already made this clear to the bishops, that they are not being fathers to us as they are being “professionals”.

I’m not saying anything new, so please don’t attack me for restating something already put out there by two of the greatest men (Popes) I’ve ever known. I submit, but I don’t lie about those appointed over me. Most of them are pretty decent men. But if you haven’t noticed, the Church is having an internal war - traditional/conservative vs modern/liberal; and there are many levels in between.

It wasn’t until I had my fill of the Protestant Church of Christ and their hypocrites that I realized it exists everywhere. I then realized the truth that I found accidentally coming across real history. Initially, I set out to prove it was false and then a lie. After studying the fathers I began to realize that it was my own sin of pride that was keeping me from accepting the Church authority, even though there are some pretty bad priests, deacons and even bishops within it throughout history. I don’t want to offend anyone here. It’s just the truth and my own experience from the world in which I grew up, mostly Protestant and anti-Catholic. Can you imagine the crow I had to eat after conceding the Catholic Church is in fact the original Church founded by Christ? The name just didn’t start with him as far as we can tell from known writings. It would be the biggest conspiracy ever pulled off if the lies against the Church were in fact true. In fact, it’s impossible because there were other historians that give accounts about the believers of Jesus as the Son of the most high God. Another conversation for another day.

Sorry about the seeming sporadic nature of my thoughts. I am trying to condense too much.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Let me add this. A lot of the fundamentalists that we chat with on CAF are former Catholics that have a bone to pick from being hurt. I can’t speak for “rev_kevin”, but he grew up Catholic and tries to use that as he sword to prove the Catholic must be wrong if he can figure it out. That’s what I did, until my pride burst into flames, bringing down off of my high horse. It happened because of apostolates like the “Coming Home Network”, EWTN, The Journey Home, stories from former men like Dr. Scott Hahn, and particularly from brother Christians like Bruce Sullivan, a friend of mine. I came across a forum for former and existing Church of Christ Christians that went through a major conversion like me and those still going through conversion. There are even Orthodox Christians on there that couldn’t see the primacy of the bishop of Rome as dominant enough to make the leap. I’m praying for their continued conversion, but have to admit I’m often very attracted to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Somewhere along the road it seems that certain doctrines got overly promoted, but I’m still not sure about that. I do know that I’m Latin rite Catholic, but with Eastern rite tendencies. I love Eastern Orthodox/Catholic theology more than Latin in some cases.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PbloPicasso,

I was very distressed reading your post. I realize that evil is everywhere and no one is exempt from denying the Truth of Christ and betraying His Trust… even those who are charged with protecting and guiding the Flock.

Let me commend you for continuing your quest for Christ - despite all of those who would have blocked your path. Ultimately, no matter what or who - we are to follow Christ through the Church He founded on Peter. In spite of those that have betrayed His Love, His Church has never taught error.

Take courage from the fact that Christ was betrayed and He held firm to His Love for God.

You and all those who have been so abused are in my prayers.

God bless

Pretty close. I said that the name is not the issue. It’s the unbroken chain that leads from Pope Benedict XVI all the way back to Peter, that convinced me the Catholic Church, which, by the way, also calls itself the Church of Christ, a name used for the body of Christ in the New Testament. The Protestant denomination that calls itself the “Church of Christ” today broke from the Disciples of Christ, started by Alexander Campbell. However, that said, the Church of Christ, Christians, say that they are the original church that the Catholic Church subdued in the beginning.

Now, I know this to be false, but when I doubted the Catholic Church it was because the leaders in the Catholic Church had not only covered up the sin of one of their own (a priest) that molested me while I was a seminarian. I lost all faith in the Church as I discovered other teenagers that were also molested or were preyed upon by the same priest. As I confided in other priests in my diocese I found other priests that defended homosexuality or would not speak against it. Everyone Catholic around me defended the priests and/or made me shut up. I was screaming for help. I needed therapy and only God made all of this make sense to me.

Today, unfortunately, many Catholics, including those running apostolates like CAF, and others, also make people like me shut up. Its just too much of a can of worms. They see no use in sharing information like this and claim that it is fruitless. Well, it may seem fruitless to those that have not been raped, molested or lured, etc. But it does help those of us who have been severely hurt in the past. And it’s a cry for help for the laity to stand up for their part in the Church. This, I believe, is the root for the results of Vatican Council II. I have learned that talking about what happened to me helps me and help others who’ve been hurt and/or abandoned by the laity and the clergy and religious of the Church. Many of these people are too afraid to admit the Church needs to be reformed - renewed may be a better word - by becoming transformed into Christ.

I know priests that have almost lost faith in God because of all the evil surrounding them. Some of them end up leaving the priesthood because they can’t handle it anymore. If nothing is being done to transform Christians in to the likeness and image of Christ, then what are they doing? I’m not condemning anyone, just trying to shine a light on the darkness infecting the Church. Only when light is shined on the darkness will it be discovered and able to be cleansed. Unfortunately, many hierarchy in the Church don’t seem to be able to manage their way out of a wet paper bag. It’s like they’re playing “dress-up” (as I recently read on another blog) instead of father/pastor. The bishop is our father, our pastor and bears the brunt of what’s happening within the Church. They will have to answer to God. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have already made this clear to the bishops, that they are not being fathers to us as they are being “professionals”.

I’m not saying anything new, so please don’t attack me for restating something already put out there by two of the greatest men (Popes) I’ve ever known. I submit, but I don’t lie about those appointed over me. Most of them are pretty decent men. But if you haven’t noticed, the Church is having an internal war - traditional/conservative vs modern/liberal; and there are many levels in between.

It wasn’t until I had my fill of the Protestant Church of Christ and their hypocrites that I realized it exists everywhere. I then realized the truth that I found accidentally coming across real history. Initially, I set out to prove it was false and then a lie. After studying the fathers I began to realize that it was my own sin of pride that was keeping me from accepting the Church authority, even though there are some pretty bad priests, deacons and even bishops within it throughout history. I don’t want to offend anyone here. It’s just the truth and my own experience from the world in which I grew up, mostly Protestant and anti-Catholic. Can you imagine the crow I had to eat after conceding the Catholic Church is in fact the original Church founded by Christ? The name just didn’t start with him as far as we can tell from known writings. It would be the biggest conspiracy ever pulled off if the lies against the Church were in fact true. In fact, it’s impossible because there were other historians that give accounts about the believers of Jesus as the Son of the most high God. Another conversation for another day.

Sorry about the seeming sporadic nature of my thoughts. I am trying to condense too much.

 

[rev_kevin]

fbl9;7540793]rekev does your “ok” mean you agree that one’s soul is endelibly marked?

Ya

what happens to your soul on the second baptism? Does it recieve another mark?
What three strikes and your out?

This isn’t worth answering.

 

[rev_kevin]

guanophore;7540832]
Since consent of the infant was not needed under the Old Covenant, the Apostles did not find it necessary in the new. Infants are included on the basis of the faith of the parents/community.

See this is where I disagree. How can the parents/community faith determine if you are a Christian? How can the parents/community make that most important decission for you? How can the parents/community say that a infant accepts Christ? I went through the **liturgy of infant baptism **and it seem to me that the parents are saying they will raise the child according to the CC teachings. To me its about the parents conferming that they will raise their child in a Catholic/Christian manner. Its the parents that say the child will accept Christ. Once again, how can the parents make that kind of important decission for the child?

We renew our baptismal vows annually at the Easter vigil, and during the baptisms of others.

Why would you need to renew your baptismal vows. When I was Catholic the priest would walk around the congragation sprinkling water on them at the Easter vigil, a baptism so to say. So why do you need to renew your baptismal vows if, as you say, "It is contrary to the Teachings of the Aposltes. One Baptism, it says in Scripture, and in the creeds."

Did you not know that Jesus was speaking to Peter in Aramaic, not Greek? Did you not know that the name He gave Peter (Kepha) means “Rock”?

Dutch scholars who contributed to the Oosthoeks Encyclopedie held that the name Caiaphas was a corruption of ‘Cephas’, which they regarded as the nickname, meaning ‘rock’, of both the high priest Joseph and the apostle Simon.17 Others, among whom Allegro, have suggested that ‘Caiaphas’/‘Caiphas’ was the original form, stemming from the Arabic word qā’ifun, meaning ‘investigator, prognosticator’18 or ‘fortune-teller’, and that ‘Cephas’ was either a dialectal version or an adapted form – alluding to the meaning ‘rock’ – of the variant ‘Caiphas’.
So, it is possible that ‘Cephas’ at some point was the nickname of the high priest Joseph.
Therefore, when John wrote that Jesus gave Simon the name Cephas, John’s intention may have been to express that Jesus gave Simon the name and function of the high priest.

The name Rock – “Cephas” and “Caiphas” interchangeable
Not a proper name
The Greek word Kēphas (Khfaj spelled kappa-eta-phi–alpha–sigma) is a transliteration into Greek letters of the Aramaic word Keypha ()pyk spelled caph-yod-peh-aleph = kyp’) for ‘rock’, for John explains in his Greek Gospel that Simon’s new name Kēphas means ‘rock’ (and is translated into ‘Petros’)

1. …] we have no verified usage of Keypha as an Aramaic name prior to the NT usage. 2) We do in
   fact have a few cases of TITLES being translated from Semitic languages into Greek:
   Mashiach/Christos; Thomas/Didymus; Abba/Pater; etc. So, the move from Keypha to Petros is by no means without parallel in early Christianity. 3) All indications are that Keypha arose NOT as a name but as a title or nickname (i.e., either a formal or informal sobriquet).

15 In the Greek text of Matt 26,3.57 Luke 3,2 John 11,49 18,13 Acts 4,besides ‘Kaiaphas’ also ‘Kaiphas’ appears.
E.g.: eij de tij ec autwn Kaiafaj (Kaifaj: P45,75vid D it vgcl sa ac2) John 11,49, and en gar penqeroj tou Kaiafa ( Kaifa: C D it vgcl sa ac2 pbo) John 18,13. In John 18,14.24.28 only Kaiafaj is found. The Vulgate uses only ‘Caiphas’ (Matt 26,3.57; Luke 3,2; John 11,49 18,13.14.24.28; Acts 4,6). [NA27 (Novum Testamentum Graece, Stuttgart 27. ausgabe 1993, 8. Druck 2001]
16 Jos., J.Ant. 18,2,2: “and when he (Simon, the son of Camithus) had possessed that dignity (of high priest) no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor.” 18,4,3: “Besides which, he also deprived Joseph, who was also called Caiaphas, of the high priesthood”.
17Oosthoeks Encyclopedie (Utrecht 1968) 8, p. 328 at “Kefas”
18 According to Allegro Kaiapha(s) is a Greek transliteration of the Arabic word qā’ifun, which means ‘investigator, prognosticator; physiognomist’ and is the participle of the Arabic verb qāfa, meaning ‘follow; examine, investigate’
(J.M. ALLEGRO, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth (1979, 2nd revised American edition: New York 1992) p.
212-13, 236-37).
www.jesusking.info/Paul’s%20Cephas%20is%20Caiphas%2004-01-2009.pdf

 

[guanophore]

Hi, Guanophore,

What is the single most convincing reason you think that Jesus started the Catholic Church?

God bless

I think I would have to say the blood of the martrys. No one gives their life for that which is false. Their lives may be taken from them by something false, but to embrace the Truth when one knows one will be deprived of this life reflects only a grace that God can give.