Questions from a Lutheran looking for truth

  • Thread starter Thread starter Psalm89
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pope Damasus I:
“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. 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” (Decree of Damasus 3 A.D. 382]).

Jerome:
“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 A.D. 393]).

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (Letters 15:2 A.D. 396]).

Augustine:
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 A.D. 412]).
 
Jerome:
“[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome” (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. **383]).

“Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle” (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 A.D. 396]).

“Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact” (Letters 15:1 A.D. 396]).

–

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (ibid., 15:2).

“The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria” (ibid., 16:2).

Augustine:
“If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman
church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?” (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 A.D. 402]).

"**If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . ** " (Letters 53:1:2 A.D. 412]).
 
Cyprian of Carthage:
"[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with [the heretic] Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way" (Letters 69[75]:3 A.D. 253]).

Augustine:
"[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 A.D. 397]).
 
The List of Popes (First 50 – in order)

For the full list (See: newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm)
  1. St. Peter (32-67)
  2. St. Linus (67-76)
  3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
  4. St. Clement I (88-97)
  5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
  6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
  7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) – also called Xystus I
  8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
  9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
  10. St. Pius I (140-155)
  11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
  12. St. Soter (166-175)
  13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
  14. St. Victor I (189-199)
  15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
  16. St. Callistus I (217-22)
  17. St. Urban I (222-30)
  18. St. Pontain (230-35)
  19. St. Anterus (235-36)
  20. St. Fabian (236-50)
  21. St. Cornelius (251-53)
  22. St. Lucius I (253-54)
  23. St. Stephen I (254-257)
  24. St. Sixtus II (257-258)
  25. St. Dionysius (260-268)
  26. St. Felix I (269-274)
  27. St. Eutychian (275-283)
  28. St. Caius (283-296) – also called Gaius
  29. St. Marcellinus (296-304)
  30. St. Marcellus I (308-309)
  31. St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
  32. St. Miltiades (311-14)
  33. St. Sylvester I (314-35)
  34. St. Marcus (336)
  35. St. Julius I (337-52)
  36. Liberius (352-66)
  37. St. Damasus I (366-83)
  38. St. Siricius (384-99)
  39. St. Anastasius I (399-401)
  40. St. Innocent I (401-17)
  41. St. Zosimus (417-18)
  42. St. Boniface I (418-22)
  43. St. Celestine I (422-32)
  44. St. Sixtus III (432-40)
  45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
  46. St. Hilarius (461-68)
  47. St. Simplicius (468-83)
  48. St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
  49. St. Gelasius I (492-96)
  50. Anastasius II (496-98)
 
Psalm89,

For a very good summary of why sola scriptura is wrong please check out this website:

geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html

As for ex cathedra statements of the Pope, they should be compare to the statements made by all previous Pope, and you will see that they consistant. Make sure you compare ex-cathedra statements. In oridinary statements the Pope can make mistakes.

Check out this link to see what ex cathedra means:
newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm

and may God bless you
 
Another good article…by a Protestant who converted to Catholicism and is now doing apologetic work.

150 Reasons Why I am a Catholic
Featuring 300 Biblical Evidences Favoring Catholicism

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ103.HTM
 
40.png
Psalm89:
Please recommend some good Catholic Books with theological meat.
Click to expand...
Probably the two main issues that divide Catholics and Protestants are on Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) and Sola Fide (Faith Alone). Which ever view you accept on these two issues will also determine other beliefs that divide us.

For an in-depth study on Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, “Not by Scripture Alone” and “Not by Faith Alone” both by Robert Sungenis are a must. Trust me, it will take you a while to digest the extensive material.
 
Hi Psalm89

I like to keep things simple. Look at Matt 16:18 -
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Notice that Jesus doesn’t say, Peter, go build my church. He says that He will do it. That means that Peter, and every pope since, is an instrument in the hands of Jesus. Jesus is the head of the Church. He’s in charge. He promised that the gates of hell will not prevail over it. And from where I’m standing, if all the bad Catholics, bad priests, heretics, reformers, and yes, even a few bad popes haven’t been able to bring down the Church from within, the gates of hell don’t stand a chance.

The Church is the kingdom on earth. Its in Luke 22:29, where Jesus says to the apostles, ‘I confer on you a kingdom, just as My Father has confered one on me.’ That earthly kingdom is the Church, modeled after the Davidic Kingdom; complete with King (Jesus), Prime Minister (pope), Queen Mother (Mary).

Keep searching for the truth. It’ll lead you home.
God Bless.
 
40.png
theMutant:
All Catholic Bibles should have all 73 writings of the Catholic canon. The writings rejected by the reformers, and which they called apocryphal, were included in every Bible ever made before the Reformation. All of these writings are accepted as the rest of the books of the Bible because they are all equally the inspired Word of God. This is a defined article of the Catholic faith. It was implicitly taught prior to the Council of Trent and explicitly taught at that Council.
Click to expand...
Actually the Septuagint did not orignially include the deutero-canonical books. No offense but you overstated your case a bit. 🙂

Mel
 
40.png
Melchior:
Actually the Septuagint did not orignially include the deutero-canonical books. No offense but you overstated your case a bit. 🙂

Mel
Click to expand...
Mel, I’m afraid you are wrong, the Septuagint most certainly did contain the deutero-canonicals. Where do you get your information?
 
40.png
martino:
Mel, I’m afraid you are wrong, the Septuagint most certainly did contain the deutero-canonicals. Where do you get your information?
Click to expand...
No I am not. The Jews who translated the the OT into Greek did not consider the deutero-canonical books scripture. They excluded them. Now this was after the Lord had already come and I am not arguing that they were correct since the were not believers. I am just stating a fact of history. It was said that the deuteros were included in every Bible ever made before the Reformation. This is simply not true. Again I am not making an argument for or against these books I am just addressing an overstatement. It does not do the enquirer any good to state something that is not true. A good case can be made for these books without resorting to (I am sure unintentional) falsehood.

If he said most and not every then I would not have chimed in.

It should also be noted that the Orthodox have more books than the Catholic Church. They include the additional Apocryphal books that Catholics exlude from the Deutero-canonicals. Why is that? I honestly don’t know I am just curious.

Mel
Mel
 
I just wanted to add that the deuterocanonicals were also never included in thw Hebrew canon.

And regarding the later Septuagint that contained more books than the Catholic Church accepts, such as III and IV Maccabees, but the Orthodox do accept. Why is this? I am not trying to challenge anyone I am just trying to harmonize all this.

Mel
 
I am not talking about the Hebrew canon, I am talking about the Septuagint which did include the deutero-canonical books. I am well aware that the Jews after Jesus had come and gone threw them out of the their canon once and for all. The septuagint which was common around the time of Jesus did contain the books, the Jewish council that threw them out wasnt until 70ad. They remained in the Christian canon until the Reformation. If I am wrong then please correct me.🙂
 
40.png
Melchior:
I just wanted to add that the deuterocanonicals were also never included in thw Hebrew canon.

And regarding the later Septuagint that contained more books than the Catholic Church accepts, such as III and IV Maccabees, but the Orthodox do accept. Why is this? I am not trying to challenge anyone I am just trying to harmonize all this.
Click to expand...
Mel,

The Septuagint was translated in stages. It began with the 5 books of Moses and progressed from there to the point of including the deuterocanonicals. The Septuagint has come down to us with variants (some manuscripts contain Psalm 151, 3-4 Maccabees, etc. and some don’t). The most familiar versions of the Septuagint come from Codex Vaticanus and Codex Siniaticus which also contain the New Testament with them. However, even the New Testament portions contain additional books in these codices (Shephard of Hermas, Clement of Rome I and II, etc.). The Church therefore was responsible for recognizing the extent of the canon for both the NT and OT at the same time.
 
“Melchior]No I am not. The Jews who translated the the OT into Greek did not consider the deutero-canonical books scripture. They excluded them. Now this was after the Lord had already come and I am not arguing that they were correct since the were not believers. I am just stating a fact of history. It was said that the deuteros were included in every Bible ever made before the Reformation. This is simply not true. Again I am not making an argument for or against these books I am just addressing an overstatement…”

Mel,

Some history on the Septuagint and the Hebrew Cannon.

During the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, (285-246BC), a translation of the entire Hebrew Bible into Greek was begun by 70-72 scholars. From this Alexandrian translation (completed b/w 250-125BC) we get the term Septuagint, Latin for 70, the number of translators. The total number of books it contained numbered 46. Please note, at this time, there was no established “Hebrew Cannon”.

Since Greek was the common language used during this time throughout the Mediterranean world, the Septuagint was the preferred. Hebrew was a dying language, as most Jews of this time were speaking Aramaic. So, not surprising that the Septuagint was the translation used by Jesus and his disciples, as well as the New Testament writers.

It was not until 90-100AD, 200+ years after the translation of the Septuagint, that the Jewish Rabbis at the Council of Jamnia formally canonized the Hebrew Scripture. This cannon only contained 39 books. Perhaps the need to establish this cannon was reactionary to the Christians utilized the Alexandrian Cannon (Septuagint). The council of Jamnia used the following criteria to determine their cannon.
  1. Code: 
     Written in Hebrew
  2. Code: 
     conformity to the Torah
  3. Code: 
     Older than the time of Ezra (400BC)
  4. Code: 
     written in Palestine.
Hope this helps you Mel in deepening your understanding of the history regarding Scripture. Peace be with you…david
 
40.png
Psalm89:
Please recommend some good Catholic Books with theological meat. I do like Peter Kreeft, is he a reliable source?
Click to expand...
The Salvation Controversy, James Akin
On Being Catholic, Thomas Howard
By What Authority, Mark Shea
 
On what basis can the Catholic Church claim that it is the one true church established by Jesus Christ?

One could easily answer this question by saying that it is revealed in Scripture.

Matthew 16:18-19

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 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."

The Church founded by Christ must go back in history to the time of Christ, its doctrines must be the same as those of the Apostolic Church, and its leaders must be able to trace their authority back to the Apostles. Thus, history, Apostolic doctrines, and Apostolic authority are the sure guidelines for determining which Church Jesus founded. Only the Catholic Church meets these requirements.

**History: **Any objective history book will show that only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Christ. No Protestant denomination found today existed before 1517 AD.

***Apostolic Doctrines: ***The early Church Fathers are our indispensable link to Apostolic Christianity. Their writings tell us what the first Christians believed. A careful study of the early Church Fathers shows they all taught distinctively Catholic doctrines.

***Apostolic Authority: ***The Bible and Sacred Tradition are very clear that Christ left a Church that would be governed by a hierarchy of bishops, presbyters, and deacons with the successor of St. Peter as the head. Only the Catholic Church has such a governing hierarchy that can trace its authority – in an unbroken succession – back to the Apostolic authority established by Christ Himself.

But let’s dive into this topic a little deeper.
 
**Truth **

The Bible tells us that truth is necessary for salvation – we need to have truth.

John 14:6

6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.

Truth therefore, is a person, not just some concept that each individual can bend according to his or her whims.

John 8:31-32

31 Jesus then said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

John 18:37

37 Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice."

So we’ve established that truth is a concept that is of the utmost importance. We must know the truth in order to be set free.

Where then do we go to find the truth?

As Christians, we know that the Bible is the Word of God. To find the truth, many Christians (especially those outside of the Catholic Church) think all they need to do is pick up the Bible, start reading, and they will come to the knowledge of the truth guided by the Holy Spirit.

Does the Bible tell us that this is the case? Actually it pretty much tells us just the opposite.

2 Peter 3:15-16

15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
 
The Bible itself is telling us that there are things difficult in scripture to understand. If it is difficult for the individual to understand, then the individual may have some difficulty arriving at truth on a particular point.

2 Peter 1:20-21

20 First of all you must understand this, that **no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, **21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

So how do we as individuals come to the knowledge of the truth that we need in order to be set free?

The Bible tells us something about this. In the Bible we find one source that scripture points us to in several places. That source or that institution is the Church.

Matthew 16:18

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Mathew 18:17

17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
1 Timothy 3:14-15

14 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, 15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top