Help in dealing with non-catholic friends

[rinnie]

So you’re saying you must follow Peter and his “successors” to be a Christian? And here all this time I thought you just had to follow Christ to be a Christian.

You mean sin?

Please be more specific. I don’t see prophecy there.

Oh so then let me get this straight, lets turn things around for a minute so you are saying you could NOT be a follower of St Peter and his successor’s and still be a Christian then?

 

[rinnie]

Also where does scipture tell us we only have to follow Christ and ignore St Peter who he gave the keys to his kingdom??

I am quite confused here. Why did Christ appoint the Apostles if he only wanted us to follow him and not follow the power of the Holy Spirit he gave to his Apostles on the day of Pentecost? Did Christ not give us VISUAL leaders.

Why would Christ call the Apostles then? WHAT FOR???

I mean no disrespect to anyone but why would Christ go to all that work? If he did not feel it necessary??

 

[Calgar]

The Catholic Church recognizes non-Catholic Christians as such. You’re right, I only skimmed jmcrae’s post, I’m sorry about that! (I try to be careful, and I fail anyway.)

Protestants are followers of Peter and his successors to some extent, to varying degrees; they trace their roots back to the Catholic Church. I don’t want to assume what you do or don’t believe, but if you would agree that Jesus is a Divine person who is both fully God and fully man, that God is three persons with one nature, that scripture is inspired by God and inerrant, that you can’t earn salvation by your own merit but are saved by God’s grace through faith and faith without works is dead, etc., etc., you are a follower at least as far as that.
(My $0.02. Feel free to correct me or to get back on topic.)

Get back on topic? Do we ever do that around here?

I’ll admit that we (sbc) are followers of Christs apostles in that they were the first ministers. Yes, Peter is a minister who’s teachings I follow along with the others, but I do not see him as any more of a leader of the early church than any of the other apostles.

 

[stewstew03]

I do not see [Peter] as any more of a leader of the early church than any of the other apostles.

Calgar, then how do you deal with Matthew 16:18? Either Peter is the chief pastor of the Church, or Christ didn’t mean what He said.

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matt. 16:18, Douay Rheims Bible]

 

[rinnie]

Get back on topic? Do we ever do that around here?

I’ll admit that we (sbc) are followers of Christs apostles in that they were the first ministers. Yes, Peter is a minister who’s teachings I follow along with the others, but I do not see him as any more of a leader of the early church than any of the other apostles.

You don’t? Then why did Christ say Peter feed my sheep? Why did Peter stand up at the council in acts and say My brother you are well aware from early days God made his choice among you the through MY MOUTH the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

What kind of choice is Peter talking about then? And are we not the Gentiles who are to hear his voice and believe? If not what do you feel this word of God is about?

 

[anodos]

Get back on topic? Do we ever do that around here?

Lol!

I’ll admit that we (sbc) are followers of Christs apostles in that they were the first ministers. Yes, Peter is a minister who’s teachings I follow along with the others, but I do not see him as any more of a leader of the early church than any of the other apostles.

One thing that I could not understand as a Protestant was how the early church could have Apostolic Authority and then quit having it once the apostles died out. It seems like they could have planned better; after all, the church had barely even started making the difficult decisions. They really needed visible, clear authority.
As far as Peter having any special authority as a chief among equals (an extremely brief look at scripture, and besides the writings of the Early Fathers), he is generally the guy who speaks on behalf of the group (maybe for the wider circle of the 500 disciples, they would need a single spokesperson; but I think 12 people could speak for themselves. Why is it almost always Peter doing the talking?) Peter is given personal commands and promises by Christ that did not apply equally to every apostle in general (“Feed My sheep”, “Who do you (Simon, not a plural ‘you’) say that I am?” followed by the threefold blessing of “You are Rock, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail”, etc.)

I think it would be a great topic for another thread (and has probably been addressed in other threads ad nauseum), so I won’t follow up here. (I still think that “Breakfast at Jack’s” would be a great name for a thread. )

 

[Calgar]

Calgar, then how do you deal with Matthew 16:18? Either Peter is the chief pastor of the Church, or Christ didn’t mean what He said.

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matt. 16:18, Douay Rheims Bible]

How do I deal with it? Easy, read a few more verses. Two verses back to be exact: **Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” **

There’s the rock that Christ’s church is built on.

 

[Calgar]

What kind of choice is Peter talking about then? And are we not the Gentiles who are to hear his voice and believe? If not what do you feel this word of God is about?

I always thought Paul preached more to the gentiles.

 

[David]

I do not see him as any more of a leader of the early church than any of the other apostles.

Things Jesus did that our separated brothers and sisters don’t seem to care about.

Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter which means rock.
Why did Jesus do that? In Scripture a name change always denotes a change in status (e.g., Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel, and Saul to Paul)

Peter is mentioned 155 times in the New Testament and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times.

Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom.
The keys are a symbol of kingly authority.
Isaiah 22:21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22* And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
Peace
David

 

[rinnie]

I always thought Paul preached more to the gentiles.

More might one to take a look at acts 15:7 and then get back to me.

By the way Gentiles were US anyone who were not Jews in the days of Christ.

 

[David]

There’s the rock that Christ’s church is built on.

So from your point of view, Jesus just confused us by changing Simon’s name to Peter which means rock?

Peace
David

 

[TimothyH]

So you’re saying you must follow Peter and his “successors” to be a Christian? And here all this time I thought you just had to follow Christ to be a Christian.

The voice of the Holy Catholic Church is the voice of Christ. To ignore the voice of the Church is to ignore Christ.

Much of your own Church’s teaching is Catholic. Much of it is not but much of it is. To the extent that your Churches teaching agrees with the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church, your Church agrees with Christ. To the extent that your Church does not agree with the Holy Catholic Church, your Church does not agree with Christ. To the extent that you personally follow the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church, you follow Christ. To the extent that you personally disagree and seperate yourself from that Church, you seperate yourself from Christ.

No, the Church is not Christ. But the Church is Christ’s chosen mouthpiece, his established instrument of salvation in the world, and it operates with the authority of Christ himself. If either of us make it to heaven, it will be because we either knowingly or unkowingly followed the teaching of Christ’s Holy Catholic Church.

Now I have done you a tremendous disservice and may God grant me mercy for having done so. It is one thing to not know this, to be raised Baptist and to follow the religion of your parents because it is all you know. It is another thing to be told this and not investigate it, not see for yourself, to ignore the claim and to go about your life as if you were never told this, and to stand before God and have to explain why you did not do so.

***He said to them, “Come, and you will see.” *(John 1:39)

Brother, all I can do is invite you to come and see. If you don’t like it you can always go back.

-Tim-

 

[stewstew03]

How do I deal with it? Easy, read a few more verses. Two verses back to be exact: **Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” **

There’s the rock that Christ’s church is built on.

I don’t think anyone here would deny that Jesus Christ is the foundation of the Church.

What about reading a few more verses (one more to be exact), when Jesus said: “And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” [Matthew 16:19]

Was Jesus giving Peter authority?

 

[Calgar]

But the Church is Christ’s chosen mouthpiece, his established instrument of salvation in the world, and it operates with the authority of Christ himself.

I cannot read the Holy Bible or history and agree with this.

And I’m not going to go into this here as it won’t change any of your minds.

The SBC and the RC are different in many respects, but it doesn’t mean we can’t be friendly.

God bless.

 

[fbl9]

I cannot read the Holy Bible or history and agree with this.

And I’m not going to go into this here as it won’t change any of your minds.

The SBC and the RC are different in many respects, but it doesn’t mean we can’t be friendly.

God bless.

The history of the SBG is a short read in it’s self. But to read the history of the CC one needs to go back to the beginning of christainity.

 

[Calgar]

The history of the SBG is a short read in it’s self. But to read the history of the CC one needs to go back to the beginning of christainity.

It’s the SBC and it’s just one group of Christians. It’s not THE church. The church is made up of all Christians and was created by Christ himself.

To the SBC, members in the RC church are just another group of Christians in the body of believers.

 

[fbl9]

It’s the SBC and it’s just one group of Christians. It’s not THE church. The church is made up of all Christians and was created by Christ himself.

To the SBC, members in the RC church are just another group of Christians in the body of believers.

If you all want to call yourself church go ahead but i can’t.SB’s are but another subset,of another subset,of another sub set…
it still stands your history is a short read compared to reading the history of the CC, which goes back to the beginning of christianity.

 

[Calgar]

If you all want to call yourself church go ahead but i can’t.SB’s are but another subset,of another subset,of another sub set…

It matters not one bit.

it still stands your history is a short read compared to reading the history of the CC, which goes back to the beginning of christianity.

Well duh. The SBC isn’t really that old. But I really doubt the roman catholics go back to the beginning of Christianity. I mean, I understand that you SAY you do, but so do other churches.

 

[Nicea325]

It matters not one bit.

Well duh. The SBC isn’t really that old. But I really doubt the roman catholics go back to the beginning of Christianity. I mean, I understand that you SAY you do, but so do other churches.

It matters not one bit…according to who? Protestants of many different flavors? Roman Catholics do not go back to the beginning? The when exactly did the RCC start?

 

[LayingHands]

Hello there everyone! I am a new convert and I came into the Church after leaving an INDEPENDENT FUNDAMENTAL BAPTIST CHURCH. I was a part of that church for many years and developed some friendships there that I would like to maintain. I have found this to be very difficult. I tried to attend a Bible study there and even attended a few services, but after becoming Catholic and seeing the beauty of the Mass, I NOW see the many flaws in the teachings and beliefs AND “worship” in my former church. However, I still want to maintain my relationships with some of my friends from the baptist church…I just don’t know how. Attending services and Bible studies there only made me feel uncomfortable. How can I maintain relationships with non- catholic friends outside of the church building? Thanks in advance for your help and GOD bless!

Go out to lunch or meet for informal gather times…leave religion out of it unless someone asks for your true knowledge…you will always be uncomfortable around them and their beliefs because yours has changed.

In many ways you would love to convert them and they want you to realize your errors and return to their religion. This will become a deal breaker and heart ache for you and your friends.

There is only one type of relationship you will be able to endure with them…personal friends without the separation of religious matters.

It may be you will eventually have to give them all up, because are not both religions mandated to preach and convert? GOD bless you and keep you strong in Christ.