Protestant eager to become Catholic

[Faithdancer]

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.

Fortunately the intellectual depth and the personal virtue of the last couple of Popes- make that many of the last dozen or so popes- has helped even the score. Popes Pius X, Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II, and now Benedict XVI were all accomplished theologians and in the case of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, positively brilliant.

Yeah, we had a few humdingers in medieval times, and in the Borgia and de Medici papacies in the Renaissance- but there were a number of good Popes, even then. Popes are people, too, and subject to personal failing and sin.

I’ve read that Pope John Paul II, now Blessed John Paul II and soon to be Saint John Paul II, made confession either weekly (one account) or daily (another account) because he didn’t want even the slightest venial sin to come between him and God. If all popes follow that lead, I predict a great many more beatified and canonized popes in the centuries to come.

 

[po18guy]

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

To be appointed, of course. Are they able to sin thereafter? Or, are they impeccable?

 

[paul_c]

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?

In fact, Jesus spoke to this in [BIBLEDRB]matthew 23: 1-4[/BIBLEDRB]

so in the same way, we are to follow the Popes but if they do evil, we are not to copy their actions.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

That’s ridiculous…that was how it is in the old covenant which is why God foretold a new covenant where the Lord is served by all. This is why there was a renewal just after the resurrection.

 

[paul_c]

That’s ridiculous…that was how it is in the old covenant which is why God foretold a new covenant where the Lord is served by all. This is why there was a renewal just after the resurrection.

Where did you get that? The Old Testament previewed and led to the New Testament. And yes, the Old Covenant was between the Israelites and God, whereas the New Covenant was between God and anyone who is baptized. But that doesn’t negate the lessons of the Old testament.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

The old testament did not have the life now given through the holy spirit (rom 7:1-5).

 

[paul_c]

The old testament did not have the life now given through the holy spirit (rom 7:1-5).

True. but how does this negate the fact that Jesus recognized the authority of those that sat on Moses seat, even though they were corrupt?

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

You have a point there.

How about the issue of those religions who reject Christ? Like Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc? What is there destiny since they do not have faith or baptism or repentance? I’ve always understood the scriptures to teach that without faith in Jesus christ no man can be saved.

 

[Faithdancer]

You have a point there.

How about the issue of those religions who reject Christ? Like Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc? What is there destiny since they do not have faith or baptism or repentance? I’ve always understood the scriptures to teach that without faith in Jesus christ no man can be saved.

That is what Scripture teaches. Our Catechism mentions special exceptions for those who live entirely virtuous lives and have never heard of Christ. Dante, for example, echoing the prevailing belief of his time, placed the virtuous pagans in the First Circle of Hell, with the implication that after the Last Judgment, they would take their place in the earthly Paradise, i.e. Eden, replacing those who proceed from Purgatory to Heaven. Hell itself will no longer exist.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

I read that part in the Catechism…I am a little bit confused however. Does the Catholic Church, when they preach to an unbeliever, warn a person of the danger of hell if they do not repent and believe ?

 

[paul_c]

You have a point there.

How about the issue of those religions who reject Christ? Like Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc? What is there destiny since they do not have faith or baptism or repentance? I’ve always understood the scriptures to teach that without faith in Jesus christ no man can be saved.

This is what the catechism says on the matter:
“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

 

[paul_c]

That is what Scripture teaches. Our Catechism mentions special exceptions for those who live entirely virtuous lives and have never heard of Christ. Dante, for example, echoing the prevailing belief of his time, placed the virtuous pagans in the First Circle of Hell, with the implication that after the Last Judgment, they would take their place in the earthly Paradise, i.e. Eden, replacing those who proceed from Purgatory to Heaven. Hell itself will no longer exist.

Why do you say that Hell itself will no longer exist? Hell is eternal separation from God.

 

[Pax]

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.

Erick_Ybarra in Christ,

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.

Even after fifteen years of preaching Paul headed to Jerusalem to consult with Peter, James, and John whom he described as being recognized as “pillars of the church.” Paul indicates that he went to consult with them to make sure that he was not running in vain. He then received the right hand of fellowship from them. Paul, who is the greatest evangelist in history, saw the necessity of hierarchy and submitted himself to it. The apostles including Paul were not going to live forever let alone into the next generation. Leadership was transferred as bishops died and as the Church grew.

Naturally, the authority and the articulation of that authority would emerge more clearly and definitively over time as would be expected especially as the Church grew. As far as a monarchical structure is concerned, I would say that we should clearly see that and expect it in the Church. The reason for this is quite clear. Christ’s Church is the kingdom. Jesus is our king. This kingship carries through forever in the Church and Jesus established a pattern for this in the giving of the keys in Matthew 16:19 where he says:

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."

That verse is filled with meaning and power and it is not limited to only the life time of Peter. A chief earthly shepherd/minister would be needed even more as the Church grew after the death of the last apostle. That verse harkens back to the structure of the Davidic line of kings in the OT. Jesus actually references a verse from Isaiah in granting the keys. We see this in the narrative concerning Shebna and Eliakim in Isaiah 22. Shebna was going to be removed from his office of chief minister of the king and Eliakim was to be made the chief minister. The salient portion of the narrative is Isaiah 22:20-23 where it says:

In that day I will call my servant 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; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.

Jesus paraphrases that passage and is establishing a norm for the chief steward/minister/shepherd of the Church. Jesus words would not have been lost on the apostles and the importance of what Jesus was doing would be well understood. The fact that Matthew found it important enough to record those statements of Jesus is significant and cannot be ignored or understated. Notice that in the giving of the keys that authority is granted and that the king’s chief steward will be a “father” to his people. The title of Pope means “papa” or father.

cont’d. on next post

 

[Pax]

cont.'d from prior post:

The same language concerning the keys in Isaiah is also found in Revelation 3 concerning Jesus. It is expressed as the “key of David” and that no one else will “shut” or “open.” Jesus is the king in the line of David and has all authority. The king always retains ultimate power and authority, but the King, Jesus, puts a structure in place until his return on the last day that puts a chief minister in charge with the keys to the kingdom. To assume that the apostles, specifically Peter, are ignorant of this would be to claim that they were ignorant of Jewish history concerning the Davidic line of kingship as well as being oblivious to the words of Jesus in Matthew. Moreover, it assumes that no one else was putting two and two together with the book of Revelation either until centuries later.

The evidence is both scriptural and historical from David to Jesus giving the keys to Peter. The evidence is also historical in that we have a clear line of bishops and chief shepherds in the Church since the day of Pentecost. The only real question would be to what extent did Jesus extend his authority by way of the keys to the chief minister in the kingdom. Frankly, based on the scriptural evidence it would be very extensive using the chief steward in the kingdoms within the Davidic lines as any kind of template. The difference in the case of the Pope is that we are talking about governance in the spiritual realm as opposed to governance in the secular realm.

The Church does not look at the Pope as some kind of dictator that can simply wing it and make things up as he wishes. Popes make decisions and so do the bishops. Studying the issue of that relationship brings to light the authority of the bishops and how the Pope generally does not mettle in the affairs of their episcopacy’s. The Pope’s most important and powerful role is in his determinations on matters of faith and morals. He is chief among the bishops and decisions he makes that are binding on the entire church will be free of errors. This is simply a negative protection provided by way of the Holy Spirit and is essential to the office. Remember, the keys mean that whatever is bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and that whatever is loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven.

If a Pope were to bind or loose in error on matters of faith and morals heaven would have a binding or loosening of an error within it. That of course cannot happen because that would be something unclean. Scripture informs us that "nothing unclean can enter it[heaven] in Revelation 21:27. No error on faith or morals can be bound in heaven and, therefore, the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit with a charism of infallibility when it comes to matters of faith and morals that would be binding on the entire Church. Papal infallibility is not what most non-Catholics think it to be, and Pope’s never make infallible decisions in a vacuum that lacks prayer, study, tradition, and consultation with the bishops.

Papal authority is limited, but the final decision on a specific matter of faith and morals may wind up requiring a Papal declaration. The buck must stop somewhere and it stops at the chair of Peter and his successors. It is the Holy Spirit that provides the charism, grace, and protection from making an error. The apostle Peter wrote two papal encyclicals which every Christian believes to be without error. How is it that we should not accept that fact and protection for Peter or not see it extended to his successors that are the chief steward/shepherds that subsequently hold the keys as did each succeeding chief steward/shepherd found in the Davidic line of kings in the OT?

God bless.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Erick_Ybarra in Christ,

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.

Even after fifteen years of preaching Paul headed to Jerusalem to consult with Peter, James, and John whom he described as being recognized as “pillars of the church.” Paul indicates that he went to consult with them to make sure that he was not running in vain. He then received the right hand of fellowship from them. Paul, who is the greatest evangelist in history, saw the necessity of hierarchy and submitted himself to it. The apostles including Paul were not going to live forever let alone into the next generation. Leadership was transferred as bishops died and as the Church grew.

Naturally, the authority and the articulation of that authority would emerge more clearly and definitively over time as would be expected especially as the Church grew. As far as a monarchical structure is concerned, I would say that we should clearly see that and expect it in the Church. The reason for this is quite clear. Christ’s Church is the kingdom. Jesus is our king. This kingship carries through forever in the Church and Jesus established a pattern for this in the giving of the keys in Matthew 16:19 where he says:

That verse is filled with meaning and power and it is not limited to only the life time of Peter. A chief earthly shepherd/minister would be needed even more as the Church grew after the death of the last apostle. That verse harkens back to the structure of the Davidic line of kings in the OT. Jesus actually references a verse from Isaiah in granting the keys. We see this in the narrative concerning Shebna and Eliakim in Isaiah 22. Shebna was going to be removed from his office of chief minister of the king and Eliakim was to be made the chief minister. The salient portion of the narrative is Isaiah 22:20-23 where it says:

Jesus paraphrases that passage and is establishing a norm for the chief steward/minister/shepherd of the Church. Jesus words would not have been lost on the apostles and the importance of what Jesus was doing would be well understood. The fact that Matthew found it important enough to record those statements of Jesus is significant and cannot be ignored or understated. Notice that in the giving of the keys that authority is granted and that the king’s chief steward will be a “father” to his people. The title of Pope means “papa” or father.

cont’d. on next post

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]

This is what the catechism says on the matter:
“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

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.

 

[lyrikal]

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.

Did you get a chance to read this? It clears up some of the misconceptions you may have.

philvaz.com/apologetics/a87.htm

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

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

Thank you !

 

[paul_c]

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.

No, it most certainly does not open the door to saying all religions are acceptable to God. It says that all people must follow the church’s teachings to be saved. If they reject the Catholic Church’s teachings, they will be condemned. If they have never heard of the Catholic Church, but still follow what the Catholic church teaches in terms of personal morality because they follow the natural law imprinted on their hearts (see Romans 2), then they could possibly be saved. Remember, this would apply to Old Testament figures like Moses and Abraham who could by the grace of God, be saved without being baptized into the Church. Granted, these cases may be very limited. The Church merely is recognizing that God can do what he wills. He told us to partake in the grace giving sacraments but if he wants to save someone who didn’t, who are we to complain.

 

[po18guy]

The old testament did not have the life now given through the holy spirit (rom 7:1-5).

Do you still follow the 10 commandments of the Old Covenant?

The 613 Mosaic laws have passed away, but the commandments remain.

God’s covenants have always been with man via a chosen human leader. Noah. Abraham. Moses. David. Christ is ascended, and also left someone in charge.