1
1beleevr
Guest
If Peter was your first pope(speculation at best) and Jesus founded the catholic church; would it stand to reason that the catholic church was started by a Jew?
- Status
1
1beleevr
Guest
Gotta disagree with elvisman, about where Jesus is; there so is the catholic church! How arrogant! It should be, where Jesus is, all are welcome! And, as far as insulting the pope, easy does it; just because we don’t recognize his authority(Matthew 23:9), or agree with him, does not mean we are disrespecting him!
J
jmcrae
Guest
It was.If Peter was your first pope(speculation at best) and Jesus founded the catholic church; would it stand to reason that the catholic church was started by a Jew?
J
jmcrae
Guest
That was St. Ignatius who said that. Elvisman was just quoting him. St. Ignatius was the child who sat in Jesus’ lap during the events of Mark 10:13-16. He wrote about the Catholic Church in 107 AD, when he was being taken away to be eaten by the lions, at the end of his life. This was the belief that he held all of his life, and then died for.
And who is not welcome in the Catholic Church? Anyone may convert.
R
ron77nyc
Guest
Converting was easy for the first christians.That was St. Ignatius who said that. Elvisman was just quoting him. St. Ignatius was the child who sat in Jesus’ lap during the events of Mark 10:13-16. He wrote about the Catholic Church in 107 AD, when he was being taken away to be eaten by the lions, at the end of his life. This was the belief that he held all of his life, and then died for.
And who is not welcome in the Catholic Church? Anyone may convert.
Acts 15
7 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.
19 It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God,
28 ‘It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, 29 namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’"
If the Church accepts her own baptized Catholics who don’t even believe in the Savior why do they reject other Christians who do not accept Catholic tradition?
M
mercygate
Guest
Of course Jesus was a Jew. What’s the question?If Peter was your first pope(speculation at best) and Jesus founded the catholic church; would it stand to reason that the catholic church was started by a Jew?
M
mercygate
Guest
Is this some Eastern tradtion? Ignatius of *Antioch? *He was evangelized by the Apostle John.
Stephen168
New member
I did. Then I pondered my history books. Now I’m pondering what that could possible mean to non-denominationals.Yo, codebilly! I had to read your post twice, and still I’m not entirely sure I understand what you are trying to say! Of course we non-denominationals and Protestants reject the "authority of the catholic church! And we also reject the pope as the evangelical leader of the world! He is just another man of God, anointed and ordained to lead his flock! If I could find some kind of Biblical directive for recognizing, and submitting to the "authority of the catholic church, then I may submit! And here’ something to ponder; what if Jesus was talking about Himself in Matthew 16:18?
Stephen168
New member
If Peter was your first pope(speculation at best) and Jesus founded the catholic church; would it stand to reason that the catholic church was started by a Jew?
Yes, we believe all are welcome, including Jews. There are Catholics of every race and we welcome them all.
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
It seems there is a small snag in the seamless garment of Apostolic tradition.
That’s why I and some other non-Catholics take our time and investigate things before accepting them-there are conflicting reports and texts and rather than have to create workarounds to make everything fit, we choose to suspend judgment on the unessentials rather than give an unqualified “yes” to everything and then have to backtrack on some point later.
It isn’t arrogance, but rather simple caution on our part.
M
mercygate
Guest
What do you mean “accept”? If a person is a baptized Catholic but falls away from the faith without leaving the pew, can you really say the Church “accepts” that? Of course not. That person has a defective faith.
Catholic teaching is Catholic teaching. “Accepting” non-Catholic teaching would be impossible and profoundly uncharitable. We’re in the truth business. Defecting from truth is not on the menu.
R
ron77nyc
Guest
I don’t want to get into infant baptism but baptism doesn’t automatically give a person faith. I know many Catholics who never had faith who were baptized and confirmed. My question is related to the “Invention of Catholicism” which I think is more accurately described as the progression of catholicism or the evolution of catholicism. The first christians had to have faith before being baptized. Today we haved baptized christians in all churches both Catholic and Protestant who have no faith in Jesus. So, if the RC Church wants to unite all then what is more important: those who accept Jesus or those who accept tradition? ; keeping in mind the first christians were not obliged to accept tradition.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Read closely. Child/infant baptism is most defiitely inferred in the scriptures! When people were baptized ans brought into the faith, there is often a reference to “their whole house.” This would imclude the children, and yes, infants. THe progression or evolution you suppose is non-existent. The lack of faith in our Church, and on ith Prtoestant churches, is problematic, But is less the fault of the Church and more the fault of the individual. Religion and religious education is not just an hour on sunday. It is every day. As for your comment on accepting tradition: It is impossible to accept the fullness of salvation offered by Jesus without accepting the Sacred Tradition of the Holy Mother Church. So much of what Protestants believe is simply the Sacred Tradition they wish to keep. The structure of Christian worship services aren’t in Scriptures, but in the Tradition of the early CHurch. Scripture itself is a result of Tradition. Weddings, Baptisms, Ordinations, Holy Communion are all Tradition deeply rooted in Scripture. Think about this. What parts of your Sunday worship service are explicitly spelled out in Scripture. Everything else is some kind of tradition that has been added on. Once Protestants understand this, we wil be one step closer to true Christian unity.
L
Love_is_Patient
Guest
Ah, but the notion that St. Igatious of Antioch was the child on Jesus’ lap is NOT Apostolic, Oral Tradition.It seems there is a small snag in the seamless garment of Apostolic tradition.
That’s why I and some other non-Catholics take our time and investigate things before accepting them-there are conflicting reports and texts and rather than have to create workarounds to make everything fit, we choose to suspend judgment on the unessentials rather than give an unqualified “yes” to everything and then have to backtrack on some point later.
It isn’t arrogance, but rather simple caution on our part.
It’s more in the category of “pious belief.” You can make up your own mind on it.
Hope that helps.
Love is Patient
L
Love_is_Patient
Guest
How do you separate teachings about Jesus (Apostolic Tradition) from Jesus? And why do you think the first Christians did not have to accept tradition, when St. Paul clearly states that they do?
Love is Patient
R
ron77nyc
Guest
A non-Catholic (Protestant or Jewish) who is a Christian is not accepted and not permitted to receive Catholic sacraments which provide grace but a non-believing Catholic is allowed to receive all sacraments. This is clearly placing tradition above faith.
M
mercygate
Guest
Yes: the OP does not distinguish between maturation and “invention.”
Only in the first wave. Infant baptism is early. VERY early, and there is evidence of it in the New Testament.
I don’t see this either/or as valid. Catholics accept tradition because Jesus promised to “be with you always” and to send His spirit “to guide you into all the truth.”
Paul refers to his teachings as “traditions” in I Cor and II Thessalonians. But maybe by “first Christians” you are referring to an earlier period. I Cor and II Thess were both written around 51 A.D. – 17 years after Pentecost.
R
ron77nyc
Guest
This is what St. Paul taught:How do you separate teachings about Jesus (Apostolic Tradition) from Jesus? And why do you think the first Christians did not have to accept tradition, when St. Paul clearly states that they do?
Phil 3:2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; 3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, 4 although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. 7 But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,
Isn’t faith the horse that pulls the cart of tradition? Without faith tradition is useless so my question is: Why is it acceptable for a faithless Catholic to participate in Church life and not acceptable for a faithful non-Catholic to participate?
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
I think Protestants will find that practically every Catholic tradition has some scriptural inference. That’s why I was at pains in this thread to distinguish between Christian belief up to the end of Acts and scriptural support for Catholic traditions.
I won’t attempt to restrain the discussion to my original thesis but I will remind everyone of this as necessary.
(There is another arrow in the Catholic quiver that, surprisingly, nobody has mentioned yet but I’ll save that for later.)
M
mercygate
Guest
Why would a non-believing “Catholic” want to receive any Sacraments?
And remember, if one approaches the Sacraments with an improper disposition, one does not receive the fruit of the Sacrament and can even bring condemnaton upon himself. So it’s not just a clubhouse think as you seem to be characterizing it.
- Status