Protestant eager to become Catholic

[Erick_Ybarra]

I went to Mass the other day and a man walked in and touched a statue of Joseph and then held the hand of Mary (I think I’m not sure what part he was holding), then knelt and prayed by their statue.

Why do we not have a mention, example, or a hint of this until late Christianity?

 

[paul_c]

I went to Mass the other day and a man walked in and touched a statue of Joseph and then held the hand of Mary (I think I’m not sure what part he was holding), then knelt and prayed by their statue.

Why do we not have a mention, example, or a hint of this until late Christianity?

They may have. if you go to the catacombs around Rome, there is lots of evidence of various devotions. You see, the Catholic church doesn’t legislate personal acts of devotion. People reach out to the Saints in a myriad of ways that helps them remember the saints acts of holiness which we try to emulate and calls on their intercession. Some devotions are copied (like the rosary and the stations of the cross and eucharistic adoration) and have become standardized while others are quite personal (like touching the statue of St. Joseph).
Whatever helps you get closer to God is good.

 

[po18guy]

And it is this idea of “over time” that serves the Catholic side, do you see?

Versus what side? This is not the Olympics - not some team competition here. This is a quest for revealed truth, and God’s revealed truth did not fall from heaven in one big chunk! Witness:

John 16:12-13
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.

Not a single letter of the Gospel was written at that point. Does that mean the Gospel did not exist until it was written? The things that “were to come” had neither been revealed nor had they been written of. Does that mean that they never arrived? When were they to arrive? Jesus did not give a date when the “things to come” would be revealed, did he? Neither did He give a date for His return.

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.

You cannot know this, since you lack the Apostolic Tradition, and are going only on the partial record written in the bible.

Lack of scriptural evidence is not evidence in contra.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Whoever said I was going off the Bible? I understand that solar scriptural is not helpful

 

[paul_c]

Whoever said I was going off the Bible? I understand that solar scriptural is not helpful

You are right. Not everything is in the bible. To expand on what I said last night, Catholic devotion is misunderstood by many as worshiping the Saints, particularly Mary, as we would Jesus. This is simply not the case. Our entire faith is built around Jesus. The saints help us to follow Jesus better by their examples. To Jesus through Mary is a popular and accurate term. In my own case, Mary helped em become a better follower of her son, through her apparitions at Lords, where she miraculously showed the power of Christ to save thousands I now try to say the rosary daily to remind myself of the kindness of the Lord.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

I understand this is how the Catholics view Mary and the saints.

However, it remains odd to me how this has apostolic heritage. I mean, anytime there is exhortations to pray, it is always pray to the Lord. Some of the letters of the NT were written after Mary died (I’m almost sure) and why do we not find any exoneration given to her or this day? I mean this is extremely worrisome to me, as someone who wishes to join the Catholic Church.

Why not pray to Abraham? Issac? Or Jacob? Elijah and Moses? Why was this never done in Judaism? And if it was not done then because of the transition of the resurrection, then why not do this now? Is it because they are not certain saints? Well, how could it be called Abraham’s bosom is he is not in heaven with Christ now?

It is a problem I think that the first record of praying to a saint comes hundreds of years later after the beginning of Christ’s Church, and it is not even in the small amount of record we have of it in either the NT or the early Fathers.

Simply to appeal to the authority of the Church is not gonna do.

 

[paul_c]

I understand this is how the Catholics view Mary and the saints.

However, it remains odd to me how this has apostolic heritage. I mean, anytime there is exhortations to pray, it is always pray to the Lord. Some of the letters of the NT were written after Mary died (I’m almost sure) and why do we not find any exoneration given to her or this day? I mean this is extremely worrisome to me, as someone who wishes to join the Catholic Church.

The veneration of the saints is ancient. I was just in Rome last month and it was clear that the saints were venerated in the catacombs. It is also a fact that they knew exactly where Peter and Paul were buried and built churches on the sites. As for Mary, there is significant veneration of Mary in Luke 1 between the address of Gabriel, her reception from Elizabeth and the Canticle of Mary. But ultimately the scriptures are not a catechism.- the Gospels are about Jesus, the Acts of the Apostles are about the Apostles and the Epistles are apostolic instructions to churches.

Also some of the early church fathers venerated Mary in their works. Justin martyr, writing in 150AD iin his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (paragraph 100) compares Mary to Eve, saying that whereas Eve concieved the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death, Mary conceived the word of God … Writing a generation later, St. Irenaeus also makes this point in his work, About heresies ((3,22,4)

Why not pray to Abraham? Issac? Or Jacob? Elijah and Moses? Why was this never done in Judaism? And if it was not done then because of the transition of the resurrection, then why not do this now? Is it because they are not certain saints? Well, how could it be called Abraham’s bosom is he is not in heaven with Christ now?

The jews most certainly remembered the Prophets and Patriarchs and used them as examples to follow, wouldn’t you agree. How is that different than what we do? In Luke 16, lazarus asks for the intercession of Abraham. And yes, the Catholic church recognizes Old Testament saints.

It is a problem I think that the first record of praying to a saint comes hundreds of years later after the beginning of Christ’s Church, and it is not even in the small amount of record we have of it in either the NT or the early Fathers.

This is simply not true. In the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp , written around 156 Ad, the author writes, Christ we worship as the Son of God but the Martyrs we love as disciples and imitators of the Lord and rightfully so…
There are other references as well in the early church fathers. Try reading , The faith of the Early Fathers by William A Jurgens

Simply to appeal to the authority of the Church is not gonna do.

Why don’t you believe the Church? What particular insight do you have that would trump the church’s collective memory?

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Where does Justin martyr mention praying to saints?

I don’t have any problem with Mary being the queen of the universe or that she is the mother of God or that she is the 2nd eve and mother of all the redeemed. No problem with this. I do have a problem with every catholic from all over the world praying and thanking Mary for saving grace and asking for her infinite presence in their lives…this is definitely why is assumed when they pray for her salvation and presence.

 

[po18guy]

Whoever said I was going off the Bible? I understand that solar scriptural is not helpful

Your religious affiliation implies that you have gone by the bible alone up to this point. Of course, I can see that it is changing. You are seeking, and that is a transitional time in faith, which can produce a sense of insecurity. Yet, your own faith is developing while you simultaneously remain uneasy with a Church which also developed. The deposit of faith was delivered, once and for all, to the Saints - but it was neither instantly comprehended or practiced. Like any love, it matures over time.

The Church and her relationship with God is like a marriage in one respect: even though a man and wife may be married for 50 years, do they ever fully understand one another? Did they on their wedding day? Yet, we are fully understood by God. It is our task first to love Him and then to understand as He grants us. As with the covenant of marriage, the new and everlasting covenant requires time to more fully understand.

You continue to engage all here at CAF and, although you are not yet satisfied, the Holy Spirit is impelling you to keep seeking. That can only be good.

 

[paul_c]

Where does Justin martyr mention praying to saints?

we were talking about Marian DEVOTION. he clearly had that, describing her as the new eve.

I don’t have any problem with Mary being the queen of the universe or that she is the mother of God or that she is the 2nd eve and mother of all the redeemed. No problem with this. I do have a problem with every catholic from all over the world praying and thanking Mary for saving grace and asking for her infinite presence in their lives…this is definitely why is assumed when they pray for her salvation and presence.

When do Catholics pray to Mary for saving grace? That would be addressed only to the Trinity.

Here is the Hail Mary, by far the most popular Marian Prayer:
1)Hail Mary, Full of Grace, the Lord is With you
2) Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus
3)Holy Mary, Mother of God, Pray for us sinners now and at the Hour of our death AMEN

phrase1 is the words spoken to Mary by the Archangel Gabriel at the annunciation
phrase 2 is Elizabeth’s greeting in Luke 1
Phrase 3 is the meat of the prayer, where we ask Mary to pray for us.

 

[Pax]

Erick_Ybarra in Christ,

In an earlier post you mentioned that Peter had no idea of succession to his office. Could you prove that assertion?

Your concerns about Mary are IMHO exaggerated by whatever your experience has been versus the reality of Catholic teaching. I have never met a non-Catholic Christian that refused to ask his fellow Christians for prayers on his behalf. Moreover, I’ve never met a non-Catholic Christian that refuses to extoll the virtues of other Christians that they hold in respect and high esteem. Moreover, the level of respect and high esteem that they have for others varies greatly depending upon how much they happen to be impressed by the different individuals that they respect. Their level of love for their fellow Christians also varies depending upon how closely acquainted they are. I could go on with this point, but I think that you’re getting the idea.

Christians mediate and intercede for one another through praying for one another. All of that is good and beneficial, but it is all dependent upon and subordinate to the complete work of Christ and the grace that flows from the Lord. Mary and the saints make up part of the great cloud of witnesses that surround us in heaven as described in Hebrews 12. Moreover, Hebrews 12:22-24 goes on to say this:

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel.

That passage is telling us that as Christians we have come to the place where the entire assembly of heaven, including the souls of just men made perfect, are gathered with Jesus the mediator of the new covenant. We have not come just to Jesus alone. We are now part of the body of Christ which includes the saints in heaven. We are all one body in Christ. The saints in heaven are the souls of the just made perfect. James 5:16 tells us something important about the just. He says:

The prayer of a just man has great power in its effects.

Since we appreciate and understand the power of intercessory prayer by our fellow Christians, surely we should see that the power of intercessory prayer by the souls of just men “made perfect” will be of greater effect and consequence. Can Mary and the saints help in our salvation? They surely can if the prayers of our fellow Christians can have an effect on a person’s salvation. None of that, however, means that Mary or any other of God’s creatures is our savior and the Church never teaches anything different on that score. Reverence and veneration do not mean that we elevate Mary or anyone else to a position that even remotely resembles the role of Jesus in our salvation. Moreover, the veneration we do give should be expected and praised.

I see many of my non-Catholic friends get super excited about sports and sports figures. When someone is made a member of the baseball or football halls of fame these people get enormously excited. Moreover, as sports fans they will continue during the course of their lives to study and speak of the exploits of Cobb, Ruth, DiMaggio and others ad infinitum without a second thought. Catholics simply look at Mary and the saints as our heavenly hall of famers, and we thus give them the praise and veneration that is appropriate. If someone goes past the limit of what the Church rightly teaches in this regard, then it is their problem and it is not the fault of the Church. One must listen to and follow what the Church teaches.

God bless.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

With regard to Peter not under the impression that he had a successor, there is no evidence that he did not know.

However, there is no claim to this anywhere in Scripture or in early tradition either.

The amount of authority that the bishop of Rome takes up on himself is a monarchial shepherd who has universal and supreme authority over all the churches. That the succession to Saint Peter is a perpetual rock which holds the church in place and making sure it never gets prevailed by the gates of hell.

This type of perpetual succession which holds the same principle of “rock” is what should have been understood in the early Church, however the East was not aware of this…therefore it could not have been an essential teaching in early discipleship of the first couple centuries.

 

[paul_c]

With regard to Peter not under the impression that he had a successor, there is no evidence that he did not know.

However, there is no claim to this anywhere in Scripture or in early tradition either.

The amount of authority that the bishop of Rome takes up on himself is a monarchial shepherd who has universal and supreme authority over all the churches. That the succession to Saint Peter is a perpetual rock which holds the church in place and making sure it never gets prevailed by the gates of hell.

This type of perpetual succession which holds the same principle of “rock” is what should have been understood in the early Church, however the East was not aware of this…therefore it could not have been an essential teaching in early discipleship of the first couple centuries.

Of course the East was aware of this as was the early church. In the first century, the case of the Corinthians was appealed to St. Clement , the 4th bishop of Rome. We have his response (its available here: wwvv.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm ). Corinth was definitely in the East and the Apostle John was still living near by → yet they appealed to Rome. And even in the great schism, the Orthodox were willing to recognize the Bishop of Rome as first among equals (whatever that really means). And remember, it was far from a unanimous schism. When the Eastern churches (30% of the total) broke with Rome, fully 30% of those churches broke with the Orthodox and returned to communion with Rome (these are the 21 eastern rite churches). So to say that the Eastern Churches didn’t recognize the authority of Rome is overstating the case. Some of them didn’t, to be sure but it was far from universal.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

I am 100% sure that the whole of the Church in the first 4 centuries understood that the Bishop of Rome and that the church of Rome both had primacy and authority over the other apostolic successions. With regard to the issue in Corinth, nothing tells us they did not appeal to John in Ephesus. Even if they did, it still shows that they appealed to Rome despite this possibility, which also shows Rome was of a determinate authority.

There is no question that the Apostolic See had the authority of the apostle Peter’s succession. However, what is of an issue here is that whether this succession consists of Peter’s function as Rock. In other words, if the apostle Peter is the rock of Christ’s Church, which we all agree, wouldn’t that mean he is at the bottom of the structure? And not in and throughout the rest of the building? Once the rock is laid, must it be continued to be laid again and again?

One might say to this that what perpetuates is the stability that the Rock continues to provide. Granted.

But it still remains a possibility, precisely because no ancients over 450 ever speak of the successors actually being the “rock” as well as Peter, that the successors of Peter do not function as the “rock” of the Church.

If the successors do not continue to function as the “rock” of the Church, then they do not retain an infallibility. What do we say of ungodly pope’s? That they are infallible ex cathedra and they rightfully have authority over the universal church of God? By what prinicple do we maintain Pope’s who have not the grace of Christ as being true Shepherds and infallible teachers? By the office itself which God maintains as the perpetual seat of Peter? Then we can stick Satan in that chair and the blessings remain the same? All of this does not make any sense.

I just watched a video on youtube concerning the Catholics and there is some very proud violence that occurs from the Popes. I mean when you have a Pope who requires kings to kiss his ring and then sentences people to death by torture, this makes me look down and think again…

 

[po18guy]

The Pope is not the rock. He is the sucessor to the rock.

 

[paul_c]

I am 100% sure that the whole of the Church in the first 4 centuries understood that the Bishop of Rome and that the church of Rome both had primacy and authority over the other apostolic successions. With regard to the issue in Corinth, nothing tells us they did not appeal to John in Ephesus. Even if they did, it still shows that they appealed to Rome despite this possibility, which also shows Rome was of a determinate authority.

agreed

There is no question that the Apostolic See had the authority of the apostle Peter’s succession. However, what is of an issue here is that whether this succession consists of Peter’s function as Rock. In other words, if the apostle Peter is the rock of Christ’s Church, which we all agree, wouldn’t that mean he is at the bottom of the structure? And not in and throughout the rest of the building? Once the rock is laid, must it be continued to be laid again and again?

Honestly, what do you mean by the Rock? When I think of Peter as the Rock, I think of him as the solid head of the church. Peter’s role as Pope is laid out in scripture. He interprets scripture and clarifies doctrine (acts 15). He replaces Judas with Matthias, setting the precedent for apostolic succession. He speaks for the Church. He defines scripture (in 2peter 3). He excommunicates Simon Magnus. He travels around the world spreading the gospel. He administers the sacraments. All these things are done by current popes. As for being at the bottom of the structure, he is. The Pope serves us all and his burden is very great.

One might say to this that what perpetuates is the stability that the Rock continues to provide. Granted.

But it still remains a possibility, precisely because no ancients over 450 ever speak of the successors actually being the “rock” as well as Peter, that the successors of Peter do not function as the “rock” of the Church.

They are the rock. they provide the stability the church requires.

If the successors do not continue to function as the “rock” of the Church, then they do not retain an infallibility.

How do you jump to this point?

What do we say of ungodly pope’s? That they are infallible ex cathedra and they rightfully have authority over the universal church of God? By what prinicple do we maintain Pope’s who have not the grace of Christ as being true Shepherds and infallible teachers? By the office itself which God maintains as the perpetual seat of Peter? Then we can stick Satan in that chair and the blessings remain the same? All of this does not make any sense.

This is a common but false argument. Granted, Popes sin. Some more than others. This should come as no surprise. Afterall, Peter himself denied the Lord 3 times. But just because they sin doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit doesn’t guide their teaching. The principle that we use to define that the Popes are true shepherds and infallible teachers is that Jesus set up the office, gave the Popes the power to bind and to lose, said that the gates of hell would never prevail against it and said that he would be with the church until the end of the age. If the church taught error, it would collapse. Why would God allow that?

I just watched a video on youtube concerning the Catholics and there is some very proud violence that occurs from the Popes. I mean when you have a Pope who requires kings to kiss his ring and then sentences people to death by torture, this makes me look down and think again…

Don’t believe everything you see on youtube. There are countless people that want to see the church fail, spurred on by Satan.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

As a Catholic, how do you maintain the confidence of continuing in the Catholic tradition when there are Pope’s who did very evil things ? It is an honest question.

Is it just like Israel when they had a bad king? The faithful did not abandon Judaism, but they recognized the evil of the king?

 

[po18guy]

As a Catholic, how do you maintain the confidence of continuing in the Catholic tradition when there are Pope’s who did very evil things ? It is an honest question.

Is it just like Israel when they had a bad king? The faithful did not abandon Judaism, but they recognized the evil of the king?

King David, whose throne Christ inherited, caused the death of Uriah the Hittite and stole his wife Bathsheba, because he saw her bathing and desired her. Solomon, David’s son, had hundreds of wives and fell under their influence so as to allow idol worship. Do you truthfully expect the successor of these God-chosen men, and of God-chosen sinful Peter to be perfect?

No Pope - none - ever changed the teaching of the Church. Despite their personal failings. Despite corruption. Despite political power and ambition. Never.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

But is there not a moral element which is required in Bishops that, if unqualified, disable them from being true Bishops? (Titus 1)

 

[Faithdancer]

Erick, apologies if you’ve already addressed this, I haven’t read through all the posts, but- I’m wondering if you have been to Reconciliation yet? I know that confession to a priest is something a lot of non-Catholics have a hard time with, but Father Michael Kevin Magee, who authored an audio lecture series on the New Missal, has a wonderful take on it. Essentially, he points out that confession is a very positive thing, because it allows us to own our mistakes, acknowledge our faults, and seek to do better, rather than do what many people do, which is to make excuses and shirk accountability.

At any rate, you do not have to be a confirmed Catholic to visit the confessional. Personally, I love going to confession and when I made my life confession- what a load off it was! I levitated out of the church!

To think that people pay many thousands of dollars for psychoanalysis but Catholic Christians get the same effect, only far more lasting and infinitely more spiritual, through a Sacrament that is free!