Protestant eager to become Catholic

[Todd_Easton]

1. I do not see a papacy in the Early Church centuries. There can be no development for the papacy (conceptually) considering it’s claims. For example, the Davidic office, there can be no conceptual development of it during its earthly course prior to the coming of Christ. God spoke to David, established a dynasty with his seed, and the structure was there right from the beginning. There was no conceptual development. However, the papacy, who claims to be an antitype of the Davidic office, has conceptual development well after Peter himself, and even those who succeeded him. This is embarrassingly weak in my view.

Jimmy Akin’s short article on the Papacy might be worth a read.

Here’s my two cents… Funny you should mention the Davidic kingdom. In the Davidic kingdom, the king’s chief steward over the royal household was given a key with authority to open and shut, and compared to a peg upon which his household hung. (Isaiah 22) Sound familiar? During His earthly ministry, Jesus promised to give Peter the keys to His kingdom with the power to bind and loose and not only compared him to a rock upon which He would build His Church but even renamed him Peter (rock). (Matthew 16) This certainly suggests to me, that Jesus was promising to make Peter the chief steward of His Church. This is also suggested by Jesus’ words addressed principally to Peter about the duties of the wise and faithful steward over his master’s household. (Luke 12:41-48) Jesus prayed a singular prayer for Peter that his unfailing faith might strengthen his brethren. (Luke 22:32) Peter’s universal pastoral authority over Christ’s Church is also suggested by His commands to him in John 20:15-19. When the apostles are listed in the Gospels (and Acts, minus Judas), Peter’s name is always first and the traitor Judas’ last. The first twelve chapters of Acts might easily be called the Acts of Peter because of his standout leadership in the early Church, even among the other apostles, including his unilateral decision to allow the first Gentiles into the Church. (Acts 10)

Scripture suggests (2 Peter 5:13) and apostolic tradition (Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, etc.) indicates that Peter went to Rome and as you know the faith of the Church at Rome was “proclaimed in all the world.” (Romans 1:8) The Church of Rome, by Clement (A.D. 80), helped settle the internal strife of the ancient Church of Corinth. Ignatius (A.D. 107) said that the Church of Rome held the primacy in love among the Churches; Irenaeus (A.D. 189) that all Churches must agree with the Church of Rome because of its petrine (and pauline) founding. From the heretic Tertullian (On Modesty, A.D. 210) it can be inferred that the bishop of Rome, by virtue of his petrine authority, acting as “bishop of bishops,” unilaterally decided to reconcile penitent Christian adulterers. Even today, the Orthodox Churches, despite their differences with Rome, acknowledge the primacy of honor, or status as first among equals, held by the Church of Rome and its bishop among all the Churches and bishops of the world. I find sufficient reason in Sacred Scripture and the writings of the Early Church Fathers to believe that Peter was the leading apostle of the early Church and that the bishop of Rome, as his successor, continues as the leading bishop of the Church today.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Thank you.

What I mean by the Davidic office was that there was no development of the dynasty as a concept between the first promise and just before Jesus came to earth. God was not hiding the power of the Davidic throne, it was proclaimed. The papal office also should have this proclomation from the very beginning with no development for it’s claims to be justified.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Well it is just that on my side of the family, all went to Catholic school and continue to go to mass, however they are constantly drinking and getting drunk, party at the clubs all night, care nothing for the things of God, never pray, never repent of their sin,etc,etc. And I have seen the same in all our friends at weddings, parties, get togethers… I’ve even seen the priest be at a reception with SO much alcohol.

That is a shame, I’m sorry you have such poor examples around you. However, drinking alcohol is not a taboo for us and it is perfectly acceptable to drink. But it is not OK to get drunk and behave in a scandalous way.

One of the things that are drilled into us is that we must not assume the state of other people’s souls or assume what their sins are. The reality is that we don’t know if certain people ever pray or not. We don’t know if they repent of their sins. We hope for the best and leave it at that. I’m just saying this because you will meet all sorts of Catholics on your journey and I think it is important to leave certain assumptions behind and understand why there is no public condemnation of people. I hope that you will be pleasantly surprised by what you find

 

[Todd_Easton]

Thank you.
What I mean by the Davidic office was that there was no development of the dynasty as a concept between the first promise and just before Jesus came to earth. God was not hiding the power of the Davidic throne, it was proclaimed. The papal office also should have this proclomation from the very beginning with no development for it’s claims to be justified.

Jesus only established the office of apostle in the very beginning. The offices of deacon and bishop developed later, albeit still in New Testament times. So, I see no real support for your claim that all offices must be “proclaimed” from the very beginning.

 

[po18guy]

From Patrick Madrid:

Simon Peter is mentioned by name 195 times in the New Testament. Next comes Saint John, who is mentioned just 29 times. When all twelve Apostles are named, Peter is always listed first; Judas Iscariot is always listed last (Mt 10:2-5; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-17; Acts 1:13). Often: Peter and the rest of the Apostles" or “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37).

Peter as spokesman for all the Apostles: Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45, 12:41; Jn 6:69.

Peter’s Primacy:
Mt 16:13-20
Mt 14:24-33
Mk 16:7
Lk 5 (Christ preaches to the crowds from Peter’s fishing boat)
Lk 22:31-32
Lk 24:33-35
Jn 20:6
Jn 21:15-19
Acts 1:15-26
Acts 3:1-9
Acts 10-11
Gal 1:18

Not to mention that Peter is the only one whom Jesus bid to come to Him on the water - and who actually walked on the water; Peter is the only one for whom Jesus paid the didrachma (tax); Peter is the only one whom Jesus appointed as shepherd of his brothers; Peter was the only one who denied, then affirmed Jesus three times; Peter was released from prison by the angel to avoid being slain by Herod, while James was killed by the sword (Acts 12). Peter’s words alone converted 3,000 on the Pentecost (Acts 2); Peter alone received the vision declaring all foods clean for Jews (Acts 10). Peter’s words silenced the members at the first Church council in Jerusalem (Acts 15). Note here that Paul went to Peter - not the other way around.

Also, in Acts 15, we see that James was in charge of the first council, but James was not prime among his brothers; rather he was the first Bishop of Jerusalem. The Diocese of Jerusalem is known to this day as the “See of James”

In the Catholic New American Bible is printed the list of Bishops of Rome, from Peter to Benedict XVI. There is no record that I am aware of regarding the succession of any other Bishop.

Given the veritable mountain of scriptural evidence that Peter was prime, and that Peter knew his life was ending; that he knew also that much evangelization remained to be done, is it not completely logical that someone would be appointed to mainatin the office of Bishop of Rome?

 

[acacia12]

From Patrick Madrid:

Not to mention that Peter is the only one whom Jesus bid to come to Him on the water - and who actually walked on the water; Peter is the only one for whom Jesus paid the didrachma (tax); Peter is the only one whom Jesus appointed as shepherd of his brothers; Peter was the only one who denied, then affirmed Jesus three times; Peter was released from prison by the angel to avoid being slain by Herod, while James was killed by the sword (Acts 12). Peter’s words alone converted 3,000 on the Pentecost (Acts 2); Peter alone received the vision declaring all foods clean for Jews (Acts 10). Peter’s words silenced the members at the first Church council in Jerusalem (Acts 15). Note here that Paul went to Peter - not the other way around.

Also, in Acts 15, we see that James was in charge of the first council, but James was not prime among his brothers; rather he was the first Bishop of Jerusalem. The Diocese of Jerusalem is known to this day as the “See of James”

In the Catholic New American Bible is printed the list of Bishops of Rome, from Peter to Benedict XVI. There is no record that I am aware of regarding the succession of any other Bishop.

Given the veritable mountain of scriptural evidence that Peter was prime, and that Peter knew his life was ending; that he knew also that much evangelization remained to be done, is it not completely logical that someone would be appointed to mainatin the office of Bishop of Rome?

 

[Portrait]

Right now, the barriers between me and coming into the Catholic Church are twofold:

1. I do not see a papacy in the Early Church centuries. There can be no development for the papacy (conceptually) considering it’s claims. For example, the Davidic office, there can be no conceptual development of it during its earthly course prior to the coming of Christ. God spoke to David, established a dynasty with his seed, and the structure was there right from the beginning. There was no conceptual development. However, the papacy, who claims to be an antitype of the Davidic office, has conceptual development well after Peter himself, and even those who succeeded him. This is embarrassingly weak in my view.
2. I was raised Catholic, and from my experience, I have seen a lot of members of the Catholic faith who are outwardly ungodly in their life, but attend mass weekly. From the protestant side of things which I become familiar with later in life, our congregations were held accountable to live holy lives, and if we failed to do this, we were disciplined, and even excommunicated by any unrepentant sin.

Is there anyone who can help my disorderly situation?

Erick

Dear Erick,

Cordial greetings and a very warm welcome to the world of CAF. Hope that you find your time on the boards spiritually enriching and informative.

First, dear friend, our Lord equates the Church with the kingdom of heaven (S. Matt. 16: 19). In other words, the Church is like a kingdom with Christ as its king, but a good king always delegates power to ministers beneath him. Here in England, for example, the Prime Minister administers the affairs of the country on behalf of our monarch, Lady Queen Elizabeth II, and the same situation obtained in the Old Testament period. The Israelite king had his ‘prime minister’ and in Isaiah 22: 22 we get a jolly fascinating glimpse into the royal court of Israel. In that passage, the prophet recognizes the prime minister of the king and describes his royal appointment. Isaiah addresses the former prime minister and says: “In that day I will call my servant (and prime minister) Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand;…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” (Isaiah 22: 20-22).

Incontrovertibly, dear friend, this passage sheds much light on the St. Matthew passage, in which Christ says to St. Peter, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (S. Matt. 16: 19). Both the Apostles and St. Matthew’s first-century Hebrew Christians, to whom his Gospel was addressed, would have been entirely acquianted with the Old Testament. The Apostles and the early Church understood the keys to symbolize royal authority and they would have known that our Lord was alluding to that Isaiah passage. Moreover, dear friend, they clearly understood in a moment what men today struggle to grasp, namely that our Lord in granting St. Peter the the “keys of the kingdom” is actually appointing him as prime minister of His kingdom. Thus as God gave ‘Prime Minister’ Eliakim in Isaiah the authority of the king - symbolised by the keys - so St. Peter was being specially appointed and chosen by Christ Himself to exercise Christ’s own authority on earth. Furthermore, the office of prime minister was, by its very nature, a successive office. In other words, it was an office that was handed on from one prime minister to another in succession by handing over the symbols of the office. The keys were the abiding symbol of the permanence of an office that was greater than any one holder of the office.

As to your second point, dear friend, it must, I think, be freely admitted that many contemporary Catholics, especially the youth, have adopted a hand in hand with the world type of religious profession which refuses the call to sanctity and separation from the godless world. Instead they prefer a sort of ‘Catholicism Lite’ which allows them to cling on to some of their ‘favourite things’, be it rock/pop music, unwholesome films/novels or immodest clothing styles. Now I would not seek to excuse this worldliness and want of holiness, but as others have remarked, this in no wise vitiates the claims of the Catholic Church which are true, notwithstanding the unspirituality of some of its members. Moreover, from what I remember of my days as a Protestant Anglican Christian, worldliness was very much evident among many church members. Indeed, some were sadly indistinguishable from their pagan neighbours and seemed to live very much for the good things of this life. Talk to these folk about the pursuit of holiness and the whole course of this life being a state of probation and you would have been branded a ‘Puritan prude’ or a kill-joy who made religion a harsh affair. Therefore, Erick, I would not allow the inconsistent or worldly lives of Catholics, as distressing and inexcusable as this is, to cloud your evaluation of our most holy religion and its true teachings on faith and morals. Certainly, we are called to live up to the arduous demands of our faith and it is a sad fact, especially since the 1960’s, that many Catholics have become imbued with the spirit of the age. However, there are still many devout souls who are striving to keep themselves pure amidst all the distracting and demoralizing influences around them, so do not be put off.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[acacia12]

Dear Erick,

Cordial greetings and a very warm welcome to the world of CAF. Hope that you find your time on the boards spiritually enriching and informative.

First, dear friend, our Lord equates the Church with the kingdom of heaven (S. Matt. 16: 19). In other words, the Church is like a kingdom with Christ as its king, but a good king always delegates power to ministers beneath him. Here in England, for example, the Prime Minister administers the affairs of the country on behalf of our monarch, Lady Queen Elizabeth II, and the same situation obtained in the Old Testament period. The Israelite king had his ‘prime minister’ and in Isaiah 22: 22 we get a jolly fascinating glimpse into the royal court of Israel. In that passage, the prophet recognizes the prime minister of the king and describes his royal appointment. Isaiah addresses the former prime minister and says: “In that day I will call my servant (and prime minister) Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand;…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” (Isaiah 22: 20-22).

Incontrovertibly, dear friend, this passage sheds much light on the St. Matthew passage, in which Christ says to St. Peter, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (S. Matt. 16: 19). Both the Apostles and St. Matthew’s first-century Hebrew Christians, to whom his Gospel was addressed, would have been entirely acquianted with the Old Testament. The Apostles and the early Church understood the keys to symbolize royal authority and they would have known that our Lord was alluding to that Isaiah passage. Moreover, dear friend, they clearly understood in a moment what men today struggle to grasp, namely that our Lord in granting St. Peter the the “keys of the kingdom” is actually appointing him as prime minister of His kingdom. Thus as God gave ‘Prime Minister’ Eliakim in Isaiah the authority of the king - symbolised by the keys - so St. Peter was being specially appointed and chosen by Christ Himself to exercise Christ’s own authority on earth. Furthermore, the office of prime minister was, by its very nature, a successive office. In other words, it was an office that was handed on from one prime minister to another in succession by handing over the symbols of the office. The keys were the abiding symbol of the permanence of an office that was greater than any one holder of the office.

As to your second point, dear friend, it must, I think, be freely admitted that many contemporary Catholics, especially the youth, have adopted a hand in hand with the world type of religious profession which refuses the call to sanctity and separation from the godless world. Instead they prefer a sort of ‘Catholicism Lite’ which allows them to cling on to some of their ‘favourite things’, be it rock/pop music, unwholesome films/novels or immodest clothing styles. Now I would not seek to excuse this worldliness and want of holiness, but as others have remarked, this in no wise vitiates the claims of the Catholic Church which are true, notwithstanding the unspirituality of some of its members. Moreover, from what I remember of my days as a Protestant Anglican Christian, worldliness was very much evident among many church members. Indeed, some were sadly indistinguishable from their pagan neighbours and seemed to live very much for the good things of this life. Talk to these folk about the pursuit of holiness and the whole course of this life being a state of probation and you would have been branded a ‘Puritan prude’ or a kill-joy who made religion a harsh affair. Therefore, Erick, I would not allow the inconsistent or worldly lives of Catholics, as distressing and inexcusable as this is, to cloud your evaluation of our most holy religion and its true teachings on faith and morals. Certainly, we are called to live up to the arduous demands of our faith and it is a sad fact, especially since the 1960’s, that many Catholics have become imbued with the spirit of the age. However, there are still many devout souls who are striving to keep themselves pure amidst all the distracting and demoralizing influences around them, so do not be put off.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Whoa! Portrait I totally agree with all you have wrote. The way you wrote and the words you have used have just hit my heart. Thank you so much and God Bless

 

[Portrait]

Whoa! Portrait I totally agree with all you have wrote. The way you wrote and the words you have used have just hit my heart. Thank you so much and God Bless

Dear acacia12,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your very kind comments regarding my post.

Jolly good to see a fellow UK resident on the boards and a warm welcome to the CAF, dear friend.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

 

[JRKH]

Hello everybody,

I have come to the Lord Jesus Christ and to know Him through protestantism. I am reared in the baptistic traditions, calvinistic, etc,etc fundamentalism.

I have been reading alot of books by Scott Hahn, looking at the works of Robert Sugenis, Fr Robert Barron, reading books edited by Marcus Grodi, went through the book by Currie Fundamentalist Born Again Catholic, watching episodes of Marcus Grodi, listening to mp3’s on Catholic apologetics, reading the early fathers, etc,etc

Let me first say that, as a protestant, I was never taught the whole “ask Jesus into your heart and pray a little prayer”. I was taught that the offer of forgiveness was find in self-crucifixion for the sake of Jesus Christ. I learned this in a baptist Church. In fact, all of baptistic history teaches this if you read the Confessions of Faith in baptistic history.

I have always been taught that perserverance is required in order to enter the kingdom of God. Good works are what pass us into the Kingdom at the final judgement. I have learned this in a baptist church. And in fact, all baptists have believed this historically. (minus the apostacy of the last century)

I have always been taught that one is under the authority of a Bishop (of a Baptist church). The idea of ecclesiastical authority was big in the baptist churches that I am familiar with.

Therefore, I am simply unaware of the “type” of evangelicalism that often these converts to Catholicism have experienced such as Hahn, Grodi, Currie, etc,etc.

As of Right now, I am still protestant. However, I believe in the Eucharist as a mystery and sacrifice where Jesus’ real flesh and blood are present with us in the elements. I believe that we are justified (at the final judgement) by our deeds (the assumption of faith doesn’t even need to be mentioned, deeds will do). I believe that baptism is a sacrament wherein God is working his miracle of salvation, the forgiveness of sin, through the sacrament of water and the word of God the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit. I believe that it is extremely important to understand Church History and the early Apostolic deposit of faith, and the Creeds. I believe in the liturgy.

I still consider myself a baptist, however. Despite how weird this seems. I see no practice of infant baptism in the NT or the early church. There is only records of later theologians stating there has been traditions since the apostles. However, this is not attested to in any of the apostolic fathers minus Ireneuas. Tertullian, who is well aware of the tradition of the Catholic church and the world-wide plants, has no problem in denying infant baptism, much less it being a order of the church.

I believe that one can lose their salvation if they fall away from the faith.

Wonderful exposition of where you are currently. May God continue to bless you as you journey toward Him.

Right now, the barriers between me and coming into the Catholic Church are twofold:

1. I do not see a papacy in the Early Church centuries. There can be no development for the papacy (conceptually) considering it’s claims. For example, the Davidic office, there can be no conceptual development of it during its earthly course prior to the coming of Christ. God spoke to David, established a dynasty with his seed, and the structure was there right from the beginning. There was no conceptual development. However, the papacy, who claims to be an antitype of the Davidic office, has conceptual development well after Peter himself, and even those who succeeded him. This is embarrassingly weak in my view.

I don’t think I understand what you mean by “conceptual development”…As others have pointed out there is ample evidence in the NT of Peter’s importance, of the recognition, the need and the execution of universal authority by a visible and authoritative Church, and the “development” by “The Church” (in the original apostles) of new offices, duties and responsibilities…
What HAS “developed” is not so much in the realm of the concept of the office(s) established in the NT but rather how they function. It’s perhaps difficult to recognize the Papal office of the early Church in the Papal office of today simply because of organizational development rather than conceptual development.

Take a corporate model as an example In a small company the owner is right there working side by side with his employees. As the company grows, this changes. Not because the office of “owner” undergoes “conceptual development” but simply because the growth of the company requires development of organizational structure…

As another thought…One might look at the EO for a good comparative model since it, along with the Catholic Church, is the most ancient of the Christian Churches. It’s structure is strikingly similar to the Catholic model with priests and bishops and Patriarchs. Structurally the problem between the two stems from differing views on the ultimate authority of the “Patriarch” of Rome.
But my point is that, if one considers how incredibly alike are the Church structures in the Eastern and Western Churches, AND if one believes the NT Scriptures about Church authority to bind and loose, how can one assume that there has been some sort of “conceptual development” that was not intended by the Holy Spirit from the beginning?

Not sure if I’m being clear here…

1. I was raised Catholic, and from my experience, I have seen a lot of members of the Catholic faith who are outwardly ungodly in their life, but attend mass weekly. From the protestant side of things which I become familiar with later in life, our congregations were held accountable to live holy lives, and if we failed to do this, we were disciplined, and even excommunicated by any unrepentant sin.

Yes - we are a pesky bunch…But do not let sinners prevent you from coming home to the Most Holy Eucharist…The presence of the types of things that you mention above only cries out for more converts and reverts to embrace the faith and rebuild the Church even stronger.

Is there anyone who can help my disorderly situation?

I’m sure there are many who can do better than I…but I hope I’ve helped a little bit…

Peace
James

 

[kkollwitz]

Re conversion, my parish gets a steady stream of converts from Evangelical and Fundamentalist traditions. I can’t think of any of them that worked out everything about the Catholic faith before they decided to become Catholic. Rather, they decided that the Catholic Church was the One True Church which Christ founded, and where He can still be most fully experienced. The rest came after that.

 

[lyrikal]

1. I do not see a papacy in the Early Church centuries.

Erick

Hello Erick,

I hear this a lot from different people and it baffles me. I have looked at the evidence with regards to the Papacy in the Early Church and it is absolutely there. I’m really not sure what people want to see from the Church Fathers in order to prove the doctrine to be there. The Patristic evidence is overwhelming in my opinion. I hope I can prove that to you today.

Take a look at St. Athanasius, who was an Eastern Bishop. In one of his letters, he includes an excerpt from Pope Julius and it says:

“Why was nothing said to us (Pope Julius and the Roman Church) conerning the Church of the Alexandrians in particular? Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us (Rome), and then for a just decision to be passed from this place? If then any such suspicion rested upon the Bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the Church of this place (Rome); whereas, after neglecting to inform us, and proceeding on their own authority as they pleased, now they desire to obtain our concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned him. Not so have the constitutions of Paul, not so have the traditions of the Fathers directed; this is another form of procedure, a novel practice. I beseech you, readily bear with me; what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you, and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us…Thus wrote the Council of Rome by Julius, Bishop of Rome.”
-Defense against the Arians 2, 35, NPNF2, 4:118-119

Also, Hilary of Poitiers wrote:

“And you (Pope Julius), most dearly loved brother, though absent from us in body, were present in mind concordant, and will…For this will be seen to be best, and by far the most befitting thing, if to the head, that is to the see of the Apostle Peter, the priests of the Lord report (or, refer) from every one of the provinces.”
-Epistle Sardic. Council. ad Julium

Also, Macarius of Egypt (300-390 AD) wrote:

“For of old Moses and Aaron, when this priesthood was theirs, suffered much; and Caiphas, when he had their chair, persecuted and condemned the Lord…Afterwards Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church of Christ, and the true priesthood.”
-Homily 26

Compare this with Exodus 18 where Moses sits in a chair and judges. He is clearly the leader of all. He appoints other men to lead the people so that he won’t have to do it alone; however, these men are to judge the small matters. The big matters are to be brought to Moses. He is clearly in authority over ALL while the others have authority over a certain amount of people.

Basil the Great wrote a letter to the Pope saying:

“It is these that we implore your diligence to denounce publicly to all the Churches of the East…I am constrained to mention them by name, in order that you may yourselves recognize those who are stirring up disturbance here, and may make them known to our churches…You, however, have all the more credit with the people, in proportion to the distance that separates your home and theirs, besides the fact that you are gifted with God’s grace to help those who are distressed.”
-Letter 263:2

Also Pope Damascus I:

“Although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primay by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior…The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.”
-The Decree of Damascus 3

Ambrosiaster:

“Whereas the whole world is God’s, yet is the Church said to be His house, of which Pope Damasus is at this day the ruler.”
-Commentary on the Epistle of First Timothy

Regarding infallibility we can see a letter from an Eastern Father, Theodoret, who implies infallibility and explicitly talks about Rome having supremacy over all the Churches on earth:

“This most holy See has preserved the supremacy over all Churches on the earth, for one especial reason among many others; to wit, that it has remained intact from the defilement of heresy. No one has ever sat on that Chair, who has taught heretical doctrine; rather that See has ever preserved unstained the Apostolic Grace.”
-Episte 116 to Renatus

Let’s move on to St. John Chrysostom (Taken from Steve Ray’s response to an Eastern Orthodox Christian):

“[Peter] always is the first to begin the discourse. Lo, there were a hundred and twenty (Acts 1:15); and he asks for one out of the whole multitude. Justly: he has the first authority in the matter, as having had all entrusted to him. For to him Christ said, and thou being converted, confirm thy brethren’ ” (Acts of the Apostles, Homily 3 in The Faith of Catholics, ed. by Rev. T. J. Capel [New York and Cincinnati: Fr. Pustet & Co., 1885], 2:34).

St. John Chrysostom (c. 347407) says of St. Paul:

“What can be more lowly than such a soul? After such successes, wanting nothing of Peter, not even his assent, but being of equal dignity with him, (for at present I will say no more,) he comes to him as his [Paul’s] elder and superior. And the only object of this journey was to visit Peter; thus he pays due respect to the Apostles, and esteems himself not only not their better but not their equal. . . . He says, to visit Peter’; he does not say to see, but to visit and survey, a [Greek] word which those, who seek to become acquainted with great and splendid cities, apply to themselves. Worthy of such trouble did he consider the very sight of Peter; and this appears from the Acts of the Apostles also” (Commentary on Galatians 1, 18 in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series, ed. by Philip Schaff [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983], 13:12).

“See how Paul speaks after Peter, and no one restrains: James waits and starts not up, for he (Peter) it was to whom had been entrusted the government (primacy)” (Acts of the Apostles Hom. 33 in The Faith of Catholics ed. by Rev. T. J. Capel [New York and Cincinnati: Fr. Pustet & Co., 1885], 2:34).

“He [Jesus] said to him, Feed my sheep.’ Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him [Peter] rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [authority] over the brethren . . . If anyone should say, Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?’ I should reply that He [Jesus] made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world” (Homilies on John 88, 1).

“Why did Christ shed His blood? That He might obtain possession of those very sheep, WHICH HE ENTRUSTED TO PETER, AND TO HIS SUCCESSORS. Naturally then did Christ say, Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his lord shall MAKE RULER OVER HIS HOUSEHOLD.’” (The Priesthood, NPNF, p.39; IT. I Il. Ii De Sacerd. N. I pg. 454).

“And yet after so great an evil (his denial), He again raised him to his former honor, and entrusted to his hand the primacy over the universal Church” (Hom. 5, de Poenit).

These are just a few of many Church Fathers that we can get into. If you’d like to dig a little deeper, I highly recommend this site. philvaz.com/apologetics/apolog.htm#PAPACY

Grace and peace be with you!

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Thanks a bunch guys. I’m gonna read this thoroughly when I get home from work

 

[Bill_7154]

Hello everybody,

I have come to the Lord Jesus Christ and to know Him through protestantism. I am reared in the baptistic traditions, calvinistic, etc,etc fundamentalism.

1. I was raised Catholic, and from my experience, I have seen a lot of members of the Catholic faith who are outwardly ungodly in their life, but attend mass weekly. From the protestant side of things which I become familiar with later in life, our congregations were held accountable to live holy lives, and if we failed to do this, we were disciplined, and even excommunicated by any unrepentant sin.

Is there anyone who can help my disorderly situation?

Erick

Hi Erick,
Welcome. I am newly Catholic. I was raised Catholic but never invested in the religion personally. Nor did I live my life as a Catholic. I always believed in God and Jesus, and periodically read the bible and prayed, but was not invested until recently. A few months ago I went to confession for the first time in 17 years and have been going to Church, confession, and Praying quite a bit. I pray daily, up to a few hours a day. I have rediscovered my faith and my life has changed positively (internally) in many ways since this rediscovered faith and investment in being Catholic and living my life according to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

As far as the #2, here are my thoughts. I believe there is a quote in the bible, something like ‘judge not, yest ye be judged’. To me, in the context of your concern, it tells me that neither you nor I should be judging anyone else, be they Catholics going to church, not going to Church, going to Church and then living a sinful life, etc. Being Catholic, trying to live my life according to the teachings of Jesus, in my understanding means that I am to focus on MYSELF and what I should be doing. Not on what I think others should be doing, IMO ‘what I think others should be doing’ shouldn’t even be entering into my thoughts/shouldn’t even be part of the equation when it comes to me being and living as a Catholic.

Now I will tell you, the first time I went to Church before going to confession for the first time in 17 years, during the whole Mass I was annoyed. I was annoyed by the rituals of sitting, standing, board by the singing, irritated by the disposition/personality of the priest, felt the Mass was stale, etc. Essentially I was in a negative state and was passing judgement on others. I believe this is wrong. Now when I go to Mass I actively look for positive messages and experiences in the Mass, with any thoughts that enter my mind distracting me at all I quickly try to put out of my mind and seek the message of the word of the Lord as I am there to benefit myself. I now find joy in singing, and see and feel meaning in the words of the songs we sing.

For years when I was living my life but not devoted to being a Catholic I would complain about ‘Catholics not living life the way they should’, like leaving Mass and swearing at traffic on the way home, whatever’.

I ask, how is this helping Me to be a better Catholic? How is this helping me to have a good relationship with God and Christ? I have been to protestant masses as a child as we had close family friends who were protestant. I also went to their Sunday school or whatever it is called for a couple of years (in addition to doing CCD- the Catholic schooling of children growing up Catholic). The Pastor was very nice. I remember he rememberd me by name after not seeing me for like 12 years or so. I liked him.

I have been to other churches and found things I liked about them as well. I have been to Universalist Unitarian? and also Evangelical services. What I liked about each of them is that they had a coffee hour (in the UU church) after the service so people had opportunities to connect with one another, develop friendships, etc which was sort of build into the service. The Evangelical church I have been to serves meals after their service so everyone has dinner together. Everyone is friends with each other. They are friends outside of the church and in one anothers lives. I had the Pastor, his wife, his mother, and a few other members of that church come to my apartment after my wife almost lost our baby boy 3 months into her pregnancy. He lead us in prayer. I was and am impressed by the fact that at least that particular church has strong connections with one another, and since I have problems with anxiety and fears of people, their acceptance of me and reaching out to me meant quite a lot to me.

If I could snap my fingers and make other Catholics behave more friendly towards one another after Church I would probably do so. But as far as the way they live their lives, God gave them free will, just like he gave it to you and I. And I try and focus on what I can and should be doing on a daily basis according to the teachings of Jesus Christ as best as I understand them. I pray for assistance with many things, I am a work in progress, but I feel as though I am on the right path now. My prayers are being answered in that my mind is clearer and less filled with worries, I sin much less, I am greatful and have hope that things in my life can continue to get better.

For me it is about me and my relationship with God and Jesus Christ and learning Jesus teachings and other things like Church Doctrines, continuing to make MYSELF right with God.

Your path, your journey, is yours. Are you happy being frustrated/anoyed/whatever with your perception (and I am not saying it is wrong) of how other Catholics live their lives? What purpose does focusing on that serve you in your life? How does it benefit you? Does it benefit your relationship with God or Christ or the Catholic Church, or your family, or your neighbors? How much time per week do you think about that sort of thing? If you spent twice as much time thinking about it as you do now would you be better off or worse off? Has God spoken to you an told you to do something about it? Did he annoint you as overseeer of the people who attend the Mass you attend and grant you authority to intervene in one way or another in their lives?

Other words from scripture “let ye who is without sin cast the first stone”.

Didn’t Jesus sit down and break bread with sinners? Doesn’t he want us to help others? But did God or Jesus appoint us as judges of others? Did they tell us “Only go to Church where everyone who attends is above human frailty and lives without sin”? (which is not possible, correct?)

At this point I feel a little sad when I leave Church and I miss the social time experienced at the Evangelical Church and wish that the others in attendance stayed around and socialized and got to know one another. But this quickly passes and I feel good that I was at Church and focused on hearing the word and received the Body of Christ and feel good on my ride home and feel good when I get home. I continue to feel good and relate this with me attending Church.

I enjoy praying several times daily. Someone once told me something like “If your angry at someone pray for them”. I have tried this and experience internal change in the way I feel about them. I find it hard to be angry with/at someone I am regularly praying for in a genuine fashion for their lives to improve, etc. Maybe it would be worth a try if you prayed for all the Catholics who attend Church but lead what is in your opinion morally questionable lives? Maybe you would feel better about not only yourself, but them as well. And isn’t this something that Jesus would have you do?

A few thoughts to ponder. Hope they are helpful.
God Bless,
Bill

 

[Evan]

Thank you.

What I mean by the Davidic office was that there was no development of the dynasty as a concept between the first promise and just before Jesus came to earth. God was not hiding the power of the Davidic throne, it was proclaimed. The papal office also should have this proclomation from the very beginning with no development for it’s claims to be justified.

I think you may be assigning slots a little different that a Catholic would.

In the fulfillment of the Davidic kingdom, Christ is the heir to the throne. He is the head of the Church. And I think the Bible supports Christ as King quite nicely.

The Pope is only his prime minister. In the OT, there is not much about the prime minister of David’s kingdom, just like the NT (which is concerned, not with Church governance, but with proclaiming the Kingdom of God) there is not so much about Christ’s prime minister. Only that little bit about appointing Peter to the job.

 

[Able_minded]

I will pray you make the right choice, there is much more in common then not in Christianity…so God Bless. Don’t worry about secondary issues that divide.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Sorry for taking so long.

I appreciate all the material that you’ve given me to work through. I found the work by Pope Leo XIII very helpful. I still haven’t worked through all of it, but I understand what his principle is.

I have been reading this book that was recommended in Suprised By Truth by Patrick Madrid called The Shepherd and the Rock: Origins, Development, and Mission of the Papacy. And once again, the same issue arises on the issue of development.

I understand many of the responses here that indicate the the early church fathers were aware of the supreme authority and the special apostolic succession that is in the Church of Rome. However, I still this this as a development, which troubles me very much.

From this the book mentioned above btw has Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur
I will mention some quotes that concern me:

PAGE 71 “Increasingly aware that it had a solicitude for the universal Church, the church at Rome intervened in the affairs of other churches”

PAGE 71 “I will trace the evolution of Roman primacy from Clement of Rome to Leo the Great”

PAGE 71 “…Leo the Great. From the historical and doctrinal point of view, he is the founder of the modern papacy as we know it”

PAGE 71 "It appears that the Church at Rome and the other churches in the koinonia understood little about the import of the ministry of Peter or how it would function. Under God’s providence, the passage of time was needed for its seeds to take root and flourish. While the Petrine ministry originated in Jesus’ will, as a historical institution embodying his plan, the papacy developed gradually. This slow unfolding, however, should not suprise us. As the Second Vatican Council teaches: “The tradition that comes is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on” To allow for development in the Church’s practice and doctrine of the papacy is in keeping with her nature as a historical institution. The evolution from Peter’s original ministry to the pope’s full claim to, and excercise of, primacy was slow. It took several centuries, after all, before the scriptural canon was officially determined as such, even though it was “present” in the Church from the apostolic age. "

PAGE 72 “As far as the Petrine Ministry is concerned, the pope’s role evolved within a set of complex historical factors. It appears that he did not use full primatial authority from the beginning. Without anachronism, we cannot say that the first popes exercised their jurisdiction in the sense solemnly defined at the First Vatican Council in 1870. Only in the process of discharging her mission did the Church recognize the fuller implications of Peter’s office. At the outset, the Petrine ministry was at least partially ‘dormant’. To be sure, the function was there, but only as the germ of the form which is later acquired.”

PAGE 72 "Only slowly did the bishops of Rome excplicity articulate their unique role in the koinonia. The Church grasped graducally what Jesus had intended. His will for Peter’s successors was always embedded in human factors of personality, politics, and social and church life. "

There are many many more exceprts that I can give just like the ones above. It is clear from this historian’s point of view, who is the former vice president for Academic affairs at St. Thomas University in Houston,Tx and who is Father Miller currently working in Rome,** that the Papal supreme office was a gradual concept where there was an increase in the awareness of it’s implications and functions. **

This is extremely faith shattering for me as someone who desires to come home to the true church of Christ. If we are to speak of the Pope as the Prime Ministry of the Davidic kingdom here on earth, this type of divine claim has to be proclaimed in full right from the beginning.

Look at the way God works! When He sets apart one man for His divine plan, there is no development (IN CONCEPT) in the function of that man.

1. Noah- God told him to build a boat to endure the waters to come. It is very clear from the beginning what God intended.
2. Abraham- God came and was very explicit by telling him that HE HAD BECOME the father of many nations (RIGHT FROM THE GET GO). God would come into covenent with Abraham and His seed to bless them and give them the Land of Promise and to dwell with them in His glory. There was no development of this in concept WHATSOEVER in the role and function of God’s man Abraham.
3. Moses- God came to him and was explicit in teaching him what his role for Israel was. There was no development! Moses knew right away what his role and function was. Maybe some growth in learning how to fear and serve God, but nevertheless Moses knew he Had authority from God because God told him the whole story before it all began “I will be with you Moses”.
4. David- God came to David with his dynastic plans of the kingdom for Israel, and he was not hiding or concealing the issues and functions. “I will set up for your seed an eternal kingdom and He shall rule for ever and ever”. That is very explicit, no development in concept to that.
5. Peter ? - There is no question that Peter is the rock of the Church. But rocks remain at the bottom of a structure. In other words, it never said Peter was the continuing columns for each floor of the building. Peter is the rock of the church and there is no explicit statements which stretch it anymore from that! The idea of a succession is not there in Matt 16. The same intelligence that it takes to recognize that Peter is the rock is the same intelligence to see that the idea of succession is nowhere stated there.

Some of you guys mentioned Tertullian. “However, Tertullian does not infer from the gospel text (Matt 16) anything more than a special privilage bestowed on the individual apostle Peter. He says nothing about Matthew’s passage as the foundation for justifiying a continuing role for a successor. Similiarly, the ecclesiastical writers who immediately followed Tertullian in citing this Petrine text failed to use it to justify any particular authority held by the pope.” (Page 81)

In fact, Tertullian sarcastically contested the idea that Matthew 16 allowed for the “idea” of succession. (c. 212, W), 4.99 states “From what source do you usurp this right to ‘the church’? Is it because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ and ‘to you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom’? or ‘Whatever you bind on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’? You presume that the power of binding and loosing has come down to you – that is, to every church of Peter. What sort of man are you! You subvert and completely change the clear intention of the Lord. For he conferred this power personally upon Peter…this would mean that in Peter himself was the Church reared”

This is very hurtful to me as someone who wishes to find the idea of papal supremacy, the idea of a Petrine Ministry which continues, the idea that there is a Pope who is the continuing vicar of Peter used by God!

PAGE 82 “Bishop Firmilian of Caesarea in Cappadocia (268) wrote bitingly to Cyprian concerning what he thought about Stephen’s Petrine pretensions. He complained that “Stephen glories in the place of his episcopate and claims to hold the succession of Peter, on whom are placed the foundations of the Church”. Because of Firmilian’s remarks, we have proof that Pope Stephen believed he possessed the chair of Peter through succession.” But this also shows that as a Bishop in Cappadocia, it was never part of his training to be taught the succession of Peter as the Supreme Bishop over the universal church, something which is taught to all bishops TODAY right from the get go. This also shows that early church catechisms’ did not unanimously go through this idea of a Petrine authority over all the world-wide bishops.

PAGE 83 “Once the Church had **discerned **the extent of the power handed over to Peter, any authority exercised beyond the confined of a local church looked to the first of the apostles in order to legitimate it’s use.”

PAGE 88 “Only gradually did the Church become aware of the enduring ministry Christ had assigned to Peter”

Could you imagine if Israel’s history included this type of uncertainty regarding the Davidic office? There was no gradual movements of the function and role (conceptually) of the Davidic throne. In the first place, it was a THRONE, and from this there is the KING, who will REIGN and RULE. So there was no problem for the Messiah’s to take universal authority and dictatorishop over the jurisdiction of Israel. THis is only because God was explicit in the foundations for this function of David and His appointed heirs. There was no questions about it.
The simple fact of the matter is that when you have a man who claims to possess universal authority over the world, there cannot be a anthropological awareness of this or a gradual recognition….there must be a stamp of approval right from the beginning of this man’s function which is confirmed and ratified by divine constitution. And as I have been reading concerning the Papacy, even Peter himself was unaware of what we call today the Papacy, as is clear from the unanimous consent that the historical institution was a gradual awareness, that it’s full function and role for the world was not known as of yet until several centuries later.

What say you.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

This is in response to Bill.

Yes the bible says to judge not lest you be judged. But the bible also says “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces" (matthew 7:5-7), in the same context. How can we prohibit what is holy and keep pearls to ourselves rather than casting them before others if we cannot assess if they are holy or unholy, swine or saint?

The idea of judgement is essential to the Christian faith. If I cannot judge the moral state of my Priest or Pastor, then the qualifications for the function of Bishop are null and void, and Paul himself loses authority- " For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict."** (titus 1:4-10)

Paul himself commands that Christians judge those who are living in sin who claim to be brothers and sisters in Christ. There is no excuse, in the name of service to the Lord Jesus, to avoid judging our brothers and sisters (assuming we are clear ourselves in that particular matter of judgement).

I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.

12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”[d] (1 corintihans 5:11-14)**

 

[damianmark]

When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

If you want to blame the evils of the world on drink and judge then please call your faith what you will, but for pity’s sake don’t call yourself a follower of Christ

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

I would really like for someone to respond to the main issue at hand. But just as a quick response to what has been said.

It is inherent within following Christ to judge.

We must judge what is good and what is evil in order to practice good or what is evil, no?

Christ himself has much judgement towards the Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducess, no? Read Matthew 23:1-31.

But you may think that only Jesus can do this, but then we read of Stephen addressing the Jews in Acts 7 calling them Hypocrites! (Acts 7)

Or do you realize Paul said to someone “and said, “O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord?” (Acts 13:10).

But you may say that God would only want Paul to say such things to wicked people, until we read again of Stephen, and even Paul instructs Timothy to rebuke and exhort, reprove, and discipline others. And again, the example of Stephen.

Why was Jesus crucified? Because he testified to the world that it’s deeds are evil. Why are His followers crucified? Because they speak with the Holy Spirit which has come to convict the world of sin! Jesus said his followers would be hated by the functional truth that if people hate the Master, they will hate the followers.

What about the Scriptures from God’s word that I posted earlier where Bishops must go against people who cause divisions or who are unholy? Paul explicitly taught to abstain from people who call themselves Christians yet who practice a sinful lifestyle…how much more clear can you get?

It is inherent in being a disciple of Jesus to judge the self and to judge others conduct in the grace of the fellowship of the Lord Jesus. To know what is good and evil. For goodness sake, Psalm 1 says : Blessed is the man
Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly,
Nor stands in the path of sinners,
Nor sits in the seat of the scornful;
2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord,
And in His law he meditates day and night.