Protestant eager to become Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Erick_Ybarra
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Erick_Ybarra said:
Any system if belief which is unknown to the apostles is not part of divine truth for the faith of the church
Click to expand...
I think here you assume that the apostles and their generation understood each and every thing that the revealed word of God had made known. However, as the Catholic church itself recognizes,

“The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries." (CCC 66)

There is a related verse -

‘And he said to them, “Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old.”’ (Matthew 13:52)

What is new refers to the new insights we gain as we contemplate the Revelation of God. I therefore see no reason why the church’s understanding of the papacy as a revealed doctrine could not have increased over time.
 
Are you saying that catholics over the whole world believe in a petrine office of supreme and universal authority. Which succeeds to the next appointed bishop that peter didn’t even know about? They base their arguments off of scripture related to peter…are you saying the apostles who wrote those scriptures had no knowledge of what it pointed to?
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
Are you saying that catholics over the whole world believe in a petrine office of supreme and universal authority. Which succeeds to the next appointed bishop that peter didn’t even know about? They base their arguments off of scripture related to peter…are you saying the apostles who wrote those scriptures had no knowledge of what it pointed to?
Click to expand...
Rather, they base their arguments on the Church that was founded on Peter. Scripture, which that selfsame Church produced, came later and backs it up, as it is intended to do.

And, no one suspected that anyone would replace Judas, until Peter declared it to be necessary.
 
Yes sola scriptura is not apostolic.

Lets put it this way, if peter did not know that his successor bore a unique transfer of the same role he had in governing the universal visible church, then the entire papacy is not apostolic. This is only logical
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
Are you saying that catholics over the whole world believe in a petrine office of supreme and universal authority. Which succeeds to the next appointed bishop that peter didn’t even know about? They base their arguments off of scripture related to peter…are you saying the apostles who wrote those scriptures had no knowledge of what it pointed to?
Click to expand...
I don’t say “no knowledge” but I say that the extent of knowledge is greater now than 2000 years ago. Peter knew he had a special authority among the apostles and so would his successor. However, what has improved over time is the understanding of the extent of this authority, which was not as yet understood to that extent at Peter’s time.
 
This website deals with this subject really well. The issue is not whether the Pope has primacy among all the bishops. The Orthodox believe he does have a primacy. The issue is about how much authority exactly does this primacy enjoin upon him. That understanding has developed over time.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
Yes sola scriptura is not apostolic.

Lets put it this way, if peter did not know that his successor bore a unique transfer of the same role he had in governing the universal visible church, then the entire papacy is not apostolic. This is only logical
Click to expand...
I think you are placing an unrealistic hurdle for the Church to clear. Since Bishop of Rome elections were far, far less formal in those uncertain, occasionally chaotic, and often unrecorded days, how could Peter foresee, then dictate his successor - especially since he specified that the Holy Spirit was to select Judas’ successor? He did not dictate Judas’ successor, only that a successor was needed.

Since the Church was primarily orally preached, the need for Peter’s successor, and the process used to choose one, may also have been oral. Remember that Peter was executed, as would his successor be if the Romans knew who it was. Something like the first 14 Popes were executed, as I recall. Secrecy and confidentiality meant life. The Roman authorities did not need search warrants to seize persons, papers or effects.

If this is your litmus test for the true faith, it is becoming microscopic. I know of zero evidence to indicate that there was any confusion, dissent, turmoil or other unrest when Linus succeeded Peter as Bishop of Rome.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
Yes sola scriptura is not apostolic.

Lets put it this way, if peter did not know that his successor bore a unique transfer of the same role he had in governing the universal visible church, then the entire papacy is not apostolic. This is only logical
Click to expand...
No, your argument is incorrect.

Jesus appointed Peter. This doesn’t mean Peter was all knowing. God is all knowing.

Even the Prophets spoke God’s word. Many didn’t understand their own words fully.
 
zz912 said:
A couple of points:
  1. On the Papacy:
I think an excellent example of the recognized authority of the Papacy is shown in Pope Clement’s letter to the Corinthians (IIRC). The Corinthians had tossed out their priests that had been instituted by the Pope. To resolve this, they wrote to the Pope for his judgement and authoritative decree. Mind you, the Apostle John was still alive, and was actually closer to Corinth than Rome. And yet, they did NOT go to John, but to the Pope.

And Clement ordered them to quit their sinful behavior and reinstall their priests and submit to his rightful authority. And the case was closed.
  1. On Mary:
She is NOT divine, or the savior. Only God is. She shares in the divine life, just as St. Peter tells us we all will in Heaven. And we show utmost respect for her because she is the Ark of the New Covenant. Think about the respect, reverence that was shown toward the Ark of the Old Covenant. It was placed in the Holy of Holies, God’s Presence overshadowed it, David lept and jumped in front of it, and it was holy. It carried the word of God (10 Commandments), the manna, and Aaron’s staff. Mary carried the Word of God, the Bread of Life, and the High Priest in her womb. She is holy and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Imagine what you would do if the Ark of the Old Covenant was found and you were in its presence. Would you show respect? Would you be in awe and reverence? Well we do the same, but more so, with His Mother.

We give her hyper-dulia (highest respect), but we do NOT give her latria (worship reserved for God alone.)
Click to expand...
We should have more reverence for the Tabernacle than the Ark. But the ark would provide much satisfaction from a historical standpoint. Mary was yhe first Tabernacle.
 
I am hearing this quite a bit, about the need to fill Judas’ office as apostle with Matthias.

If Apostolic Succession was true, why isn’t there always only 12? When the Apostles were numbered 11, there was a need only for 1 person to fill that role. The number 12 seems to be of special importance. Why didn’t they just create more offices like we claim to have today?

Mary being the Ark or the Tabernacle, do the Father’s teach this?
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
I am hearing this quite a bit, about the need to fill Judas’ office as apostle with Matthias.

If Apostolic Succession was true, why isn’t there always only 12? When the Apostles were numbered 11, there was a need only for 1 person to fill that role. The number 12 seems to be of special importance. Why didn’t they just create more offices like we claim to have today?
Click to expand...
The twelve were eyewitnesses, which was extremely important in the Hebrew culture of that era. See also that Judas’ replacement had to be an eyewitness (Acts 1:21-22). Remember that the truth of a matter was settled by the testimony of “two or three witnesses” (Matthew 18:16, 2 Corinthians 13:1, 1 Timothy 5:19, Hebrews 10:28). Note that Jesus also applies this to us today: “Where two or three are gathered in My Name, there am I among them” (Matthew 18:20)

Remember also that the Apostles thought that the end of the world was imminent. They did not perceive the need to ensure that they had successors. It was thought that Jesus’ return would be any day - and they were heavily condemned by non-believers because the Lord did not return as they were preaching. Many fell away from the faith, being seduced by those who said that Jesus had not risen. This, in spite of the fact that there were 500 witnesses at one point (1 Corinthians 15:6). Peter (here’s Peter again) addressed this directly in 2 Peter 3:3-10.
Erick_Ybarra said:
Mary being the Ark or the Tabernacle, do the Father’s teach this?
Click to expand...
The parallels between 2 Samuel 6 and Luke 1 are pretty hard to miss. 2 Samuel speaks of David, whose throne Jesus inherited (Luke 1:32); whose son Solomon placed a seat to the right of David’s throne for the mother of the son to occupy (1 Kings 2:19). Get this book: The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akin. Very highly rated. I am moved to get my own copy, as this (among others) is an area in which I am particularly weak.

You seem to be in a theological corner: The two Apostolic Churches with any claim to being the original are the Catholic and the Orthodox - and the Orthodox have even greater devotion to Mary than the Catholic!
 
I mean it is almost as if Father, Son, and Mother are all working together to in unison to accomplish the salvation of mankind. There is strikingly a dangerous notion. For Mary is presented in the NT as nothing more than the blessed among blessed woman, to bear the Child of promise
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
I mean it is almost as if Father, Son, and Mother are all working together to in unison to accomplish the salvation of mankind. There is strikingly a dangerous notion. For Mary is presented in the NT as nothing more than the blessed among blessed woman, to bear the Child of promise
Click to expand...
Where are you getting this from?
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
I am hearing this quite a bit, about the need to fill Judas’ office as apostle with Matthias.

If Apostolic Succession was true, why isn’t there always only 12? When the Apostles were numbered 11, there was a need only for 1 person to fill that role. The number 12 seems to be of special importance. Why didn’t they just create more offices like we claim to have today?
Click to expand...
A few things. The naming of Matthias in Acts 1 showed the principle of Apostolic succession. If you read the account, you can see the reasoning applied by Peter. You can also see Peter acting as Pope, interpreting scripture and taking a doctrinal position on the matter. As the church grew, more Apostles were added. At the beginning, only 12 were needed. As you can see in Acts, both Paul and Barnabas are referred to as Apostles and they are clearly additions to the 12. Today, there are over 5000 bishops administering to a worldwide church of over 1.2B adherents.
Erick_Ybarra said:
Mary being the Ark or the Tabernacle, do the Father’s teach this?
Click to expand...
The Father’s clearly taught that Mary was the mother of Jesus, agreed? Over time, the Church reflect on this fact and came to understand that Mary could be compared to the Ark , which held the word of God (as she did) and also to the Tabernacle , which also holds Jesus. Why would this be a stumbling block to you.

Its as simple as this. Either you believe that the Church is divinely inspired and therefore can be trusted to teach the Truth or you do not. All these other questions are simply details that will quickly be resolved once you decide to Trust the teachings of the Church…
 
And it is this idea of “over time” that serves the Catholic side, do you see?

It is not something which the apostles taught. There is no evidence anyway, only evidence that they did not, since we do not read any kind of devotion to mary in the NT or in the earliest documents of Christianity.
 
Don’t the Twelve Apostles correspond to the patriarchs of the twelve tribes of Israel? If that is so, then the succession of the priesthood mirrors the descent of the Israelites. Is that not of some significance?
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
And it is this idea of “over time” that serves the Catholic side, do you see?

It is not something which the apostles taught. There is no evidence anyway, only evidence that they did not, since we do not read any kind of devotion to mary in the NT or in the earliest documents of Christianity.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church never changes its doctrines but over the last 2000 years it did learn how to understand and explain things better. As for Mary, doesn’t the Archangel Gabriel praise her in Luke 1: 28-30 as “full of grace” and for having found favor with God? And doesn’t Mary herself say in Luke 1: 48: “From now on, will all ages call me blessed”? So clearly Luke recognized a devotion to Mary.
 
Yes of course.

There is a devotion to Mary, no doubt about it.

However, if we are going to bow down to a statue of Mary this shows a kind of devotion which should have some example very early in the Christian Church.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
Yes of course.

There is a devotion to Mary, no doubt about it.

However, if we are going to bow down to a statue of Mary this shows a kind of devotion which should have some example very early in the Christian Church.
Click to expand...
There is no obligation to bow down to a statue of Mary. Mary is the perfect human and the Mother of our Lord, so is worthy of respect but is not to be worshipped. That is for God alone. Now if you were to bow down to a statue of Mary as a sign of respect (as someone might to a queen), then that is a perfectly acceptable devotion. And praying to Mary or any saint for their intercession on our behalf is also a good thing. After all, in Luke 1, 42, Elizabeth gives us the second part of the Hail Mary (after Gabriel contributed the first part.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top