Protestant eager to become Catholic

[Pax]

I am gonna print it this morning and go through it. I will respond back when I finish it.

Thank you !

Erick_Ybarra in Christ,

Phil’s website is a treasure of information on all things Catholic when it comes to questions and issues of apologetics. Check out and read any articles on questions that interest you.

God bless.

 

[zz912]

Wow! I did not know that the Catholic Church taught that one could be saved while not believing in Jesus Christ. I am amazed that the Pope would say that men can “do his will” without being baptized into Christ Jesus. This is opening the door to saying all religions are acceptable to God.

Nope, not saying that at all.

What the Church recognizes is that the OT prophets and other righteous who are in Heaven never had a chance to know or believe in Christ during their lifetime. And yet God saved them. (We know this explicitly because Jesus conversed with Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration.)

And St. Paul tells us that before we knew of Christ, we acted out of ignorance, but were not liable for our sins. But once we do know about Christ, we become liable for sins we commit. So the Church recognizes that there are those who never knew of Christ, but still tried to live their lives according to God’s will, and God may save them if they have done so.

 

[po18guy]

Nope, not saying that at all.

What the Church recognizes is that the OT prophets and other righteous who are in Heaven never had a chance to know or believe in Christ during their lifetime. And yet God saved them. (We know this explicitly because Jesus conversed with Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration.)

And St. Paul tells us that before we knew of Christ, we acted out of ignorance, but were not liable for our sins. But once we do know about Christ, we become liable for sins we commit. So the Church recognizes that there are those who never knew of Christ, but still tried to live their lives according to God’s will, and God may save them if they have done so.

We also know that, after His crucifixion, our Lord descended to the dead - those spirits in prison since the days of old - and preached the Gospel to them (1 Peter 3:18-20, 1 Peter 4:6).

 

[Pax]

You said “I think your view of history is seriously problematic not to mention that you are also making an argument from silence. Peter surely knew that he would have a successor just as he knew that the office of Judas was to be filled. Moreover it is Peter that stands up and explains the necessity of filling that office per Acts 1:15-26. Likewise, we see Peter taking the lead over and over again in the early Church. Leadership must be passed on along with the authority that goes with it. As the Church grew so also the necessity of a hierarchical structure which we see developing in Paul’s letters to Timothy concerning the office of bishop.”

You said that Peter surely knew that he would have a successor JUST AS he knew that the office of Judas was to be filled? Wait a minute… The Office of Judas was not open to any human being other than the limited group of people who saw Jesus from the baptism of John (the Spirit descension), his death/resurrection, and to his ascension.We need to as restrictive with our language with this “office” as Luke is. According to Luke’s record, there is no opening to take this office of witness, but only to those who met the qualifications which are physically impossible for human beings today. Therefore, it can be argued that this apostolic office does not continue.

I am well aware of what Clement says concerning the Apostles appointing bishops to succeed them. But this does not imply that the same exact OFFICE, which was clearly restricted in Luke to be that of a certain quality, was then perpetuated onward throughout history. Only that these appointed Bishops would carry on the truth and tradition of the faith of Jesus Christ.

 

[Pax]

You said “I think your view of history is seriously problematic not to mention that you are also making an argument from silence. Peter surely knew that he would have a successor just as he knew that the office of Judas was to be filled. Moreover it is Peter that stands up and explains the necessity of filling that office per Acts 1:15-26. Likewise, we see Peter taking the lead over and over again in the early Church. Leadership must be passed on along with the authority that goes with it. As the Church grew so also the necessity of a hierarchical structure which we see developing in Paul’s letters to Timothy concerning the office of bishop.”

You said that Peter surely knew that he would have a successor JUST AS he knew that the office of Judas was to be filled? Wait a minute… The Office of Judas was not open to any human being other than the limited group of people who saw Jesus from the baptism of John (the Spirit descension), his death/resurrection, and to his ascension.We need to as restrictive with our language with this “office” as Luke is. According to Luke’s record, there is no opening to take this office of witness, but only to those who met the qualifications which are physically impossible for human beings today. Therefore, it can be argued that this apostolic office does not continue.

I am well aware of what Clement says concerning the Apostles appointing bishops to succeed them. But this does not imply that the same exact OFFICE, which was clearly restricted in Luke to be that of a certain quality, was then perpetuated onward throughout history. Only that these appointed Bishops would carry on the truth and tradition of the faith of Jesus Christ.

Erick_Ybarra in Christ,

The King James version of the bible says the following in the book of Acts in regards to the filling of the office held by Judas:

Acts 1:20
For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

The word used in the Greek is episkopee and it is from this word that we get the office of bishop and episcopate. We find this Greek word used to mean bishop/overseer in other places in the NT such as Acts 20:28, Phillipians 1:1, 1 Tim 3:1, and 1 Peter 5:2. In these usages it becomes very clear that there was a definitive understanding that there were to be successors to the apostles. All of the apostles were eyewitnesses and they were all bishops. Not all bishops in the NT, however, could be called apostles/eyewitnesses. That is simply a function of mortality and generations. It is not a functional difference within the “office” of bishop.

Continued leadership would be increasingly more important over time rather than less important as the Church grew and became extended geographically. The question at hand boils down to three things:

1. The scriptural record and its evidence.
2. The necessity of continued leadership.
3. The historical record and its evidence.

All three of those things not only favor the Catholic view, but they supply the only evidence that exists. There is no contrary evidence that shows that there were no bishops or that the bishop of Rome lacked a special role as the successor to Peter. It is true that over time the primacy of the bishop of Rome would be more carefully articulated, but that can be said of most everything within our Christian realm. The term trinity was first used by Tertullian, but the doctrine of Trinity was not articulated until the Council of Nicea, with further articulation at the Fourth Lateran Council.

We should not be surprised, therefore, that the articulation of the papacy would not develop over time. Moreover, that articulation came from the Church established by Christ which scripture calls the “pillar and bulwark of the truth”[1 Tim 3:15].

I hope this helps and God bless.

 

[highplainsrider]

Hello Erick,

There is a site that has a plethora of articles with which to sate you apatite for the tough questions you pose: ewtn.com/faith/teachings/index.htm. The EWTN web site is one you must be familiar as it is advertized on the Coming Home Network, among others. The Authority is not a “claim” or damnational force of the Church body or Episcopate. This Authority is ordained by Jesus, himself. Jesus speaks, the Church listens and then acts. The Third Person of the Trinity mans the Tiler of the Barque of Peter.
Matthew 16: 16-19, and elsewhere. The “Bible” is a product of the “Traditions” of the Church as spoken of, variously by St Paul, (2 Thes. 2: 15-16; 2 Thes. 3:6-7) and nor has the Catholic Church been idyl in the 2000 plus years it carried the Gospel to the darkened races throughout history. Was it all good, depends upon who is writing the history.
Erick, do you own a Catholic Catechism? The Catechism is a very thorough treatment of Catholicism and makes references to Church Fathers, Encyclicals, The Sacred Scriptures, and other sources to educate the “Catholic” as to the depth and breadth of what it is to be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ. No other faith family can “boast” of this union.

Peace
PT