What I need to believe to convert

[fbl9]

Paul from this forum said “without error” , i did not mean st. paul.

Um as far as the eucharist thing, yes.

duh me

Would you accept it if a lay person performed the Mass?

The preist has the authority to do so by aurthority handed down through history by the laying on of hand by the Apostle’s

 

[bingabinga]

yes i think i would.

 

[Warandpeace]

yes i think i would.

Then technically, any person could consecrate host. There are significate problems with this. There are too many sins being performed against the Eucharist as it is.

 

[fbl9]

the unconsecrated host part, I think I don’t know with certainty but I would hope that God would use that situation to be present through me to another. As I said, I think it is a mystery.

yes i think i would.

Why certain in the case of a lay person performing the Mass and uncertain of yourself? What is the difference?

 

[bingabinga]

I guess I believe that the eucharist is a mystery, and that God, when he recognizes the sincerity of the Christian, takes that into account, even if the Chrisitan is not a priest. That it isnt’ the priest who changes the bread and wine but God himself, and I am not sure that I believe that God would limit himself to only being really present if a priest presides over it.

So, for example, could the real presence be occuring in non-Catholic churches? Possibly. I don’t think the real presence is tied to the priestly apostolic succession thing.

 

[fbl9]

I guess I believe that the eucharist is a mystery, and that God, when he recognizes the sincerity of the Christian, takes that into account, even if the Chrisitan is not a priest. That it isnt’ the priest who changes the bread and wine but God himself, and I am not sure that I believe that God would limit himself to only being really present if a priest presides over it.

So, for example, could the real presence be occuring in non-Catholic churches? Possibly. I don’t think the real presence is tied to the priestly apostolic succession thing.

There are many christians who are sincere in their beleifs. How are we to judge that what they say is true? How is one to know the sincerity of another christian with the same certainity that God knows?

Catholics would not disagree with you that the change is made by God alone.

 

[Warandpeace]

Well…they don’t believe it’s the real presence so there’s a dilemma there.

 

[fbl9]

Well…they don’t believe it’s the real presence so there’s a dilemma there.

Some do though but not exactly as we beleive some are closer than others.

 

[pablope]

I don’t understand your first part, but, to the unconsecrated host part, I think I don’t know with certainty but I would hope that God would use that situation to be present through me to another. As I said, I think it is a mystery.

But that does bring up another point. why are some sacraments able to be administerd over by the laity (baptism for example) or particpated in by non-Catholics (marriage for example), but the eucharist has to be presided over by priest AND received by confirmed Catholics?

I hope this discussion by Jimmy Akin on the priesthood will help along…ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIEST3.HTM

Also…read about the rebellion of Kora…which is also discussed in the article above…:

Most of us know those two examples, but who was Korah and what was his rebellion? The story is found in Numbers 16, and it concerns precisely the issue which is before us today: Whether the fact that all believers are priests means that there is no ministerial priesthood. Korah said it does mean that, and he gathered a rebellion against Moses and Aaron to usurp the priesthood from them. Numbers 16 says: “Now Korah . . . and Dathan and Abiram . . . took men; and they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men; and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said . . . ‘You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?’”

"When Moses heard it, he fell on his face; and he said . . . “In the morning the LORD will show who is his, and who is holy . . . Do this: take censers . . . put fire in them and put incense upon them before the LORD tomorrow, and the man whom the LORD chooses shall be the holy one. You have gone too far, sons of Levi! . . . Is it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel . . . would you seek the priesthood also? Therefore it is against the LORD that you and all your company have gathered together; what is Aaron that you murmur against him?”

After this you can guess what happened. The men loaded up their censers and tried to offer incense before the Lord, but God caused the earth to open its mouth and swallow up Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, then he caused fire to come out of the Tabernacle and swallow up the two hundred and fifty men offering incense, showing that they were not to be priests, not the ones to offer incense, even though God had said that in one sense the whole congregation were priests.

 

[paul_c]

Sure Paul, so the way you framed the discusson, the big issue is whether or not I can

“believe that the Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ to teach the Truth about faith and Morals and to administer His sacraments?” And I think that you were inferring from this that if Jesus established the Church this way then it is also “divinely inspired”. I have a friend who converted this way. He basically decided on faith that the Church was infallible, therefore all the rest of the beliefs come along for the ride.

I think that the Catholic church traces its roots back to that original founding by Jesus, just as the Eastern Orthodox do, amongst a few others. I would say though that I don’t really think that there is any biblical evidence that Jesus’s own intention was to found a hierarchical structured Church with Pope, Bishops, priests, nuns and monks,etc. Don’t get me wrong, I think it is generally fine how that has turned out, but I don’t think that Christianity has to stand or fall with an ecclesial hierarchy.

I suggest that you reflect on Mathew 16: 16-19 to understand that Jesus did indeed set up an ecclesial heirarchy and then read teh pastorl letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus to see that bishops, preists and deacons were already being developed in the Apostolic age. Monks and nuns are do not receive the sacrament of Holy Orders and are not part of the ecclesial hierarchy, per se. As for your friend’s conversion, it was done in the only truly valid manner. When you become part of the church, you are deciding as he did that what it teaches is the Truth about salvation

i also don’t think that this founding says anything about the church being “divinely inspired” somehow.I guess it depends what divinely inspired means. It certainly doesn’t mean complete doctrinal agreement. Church history is filled with many great saints and theologians who believed differently from one another.

It most certainly does mean that the Church has complete doctrinal agreement. Don’t get confused between Chruch Doctrine (what it teaches) and Church practice (how it teaches). Church doctrines are eternal truths that no Catholic can disagree with. Church practices however change with time and place to better bring those truths to the faithful. (For instance, the use of the internet for evangelization is a new practice) . A heretic by definition is someone that denies basic church doctrine.

And it can’t be an inspiration of morals. The church had and continues to have moral failures.

The church teaches what is has been taught in terms of morality. This can be trusted, even though it is clear that individual members, even Popes, fail to live up to those teachings at all times. This does not mean the teachings are false or not divinely inspired, only that men are weak.

So if divinely inspired doesn’t mean a certain list of doctrines or beliefs (because there is now and has always been a diversity of opinions) and it can’t be some type of moral infallibility (avignon, Nazis, pedophillia), then where precisely does this divinely inspired piece lie and is it biblically based, or just a piece of logic used to fill in the blanks and quell our fears?

Divinely inspired means that the Church teaches what it was taught by Jesus and that Jesus and the Holy Spirit protect it from teaching error. Biblical references include Matthew 16: 16-19 and Matthew 28: 18-20,

So, Paul you asked me about the Pope, " Why would you doubt what he says? Are you more learned or inspired? Granted, sometimes things the Pope says might not sound right at first. In these cases, you have two choices. You can assume you are right and the Pope is wrong. Or you could assume the Pope is right and you are wrong and search out for better understanding. I think the wisdom in the second choice is fairly obvious."

Well, I guess I would doubt him less than I would doubt an ordinary person off of the street, but he is still human, and therefore able to misjudge things, even if he is perfectly well-intentioned, and also extremely well-read and educated. I think the current pope is especially gifted with theological talent and knowledge.

You are thinking of him as a normal, albeit talented man. You are failing to recognize that the Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error in faith or morals.

I guess we should make the distinction here between interviews, encyclicals, past books, etc and the ex cathedra thing right? Because technically, I can flat out disagree with an encyclical or about birth control until the cows come home, unless he speaks *ex cathedra * am i right about that?

No, as a Catholic you are not free to disagree with papal encyclicals- they are official teaching. As such, you should recognize that artificial birth control is an abject evil.

 

[paul_c]

I guess I need things to be clearer on this front. so for example, here is something from the Council of Trent:

“If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.”

Now, i don’t accept the vulgate as sacred. The vulgate is a great tanslation but we have since had more ancient sources come to light and these are in the original greek translations. I think I can take into account the vulgate, but its not like i want to completely accept that particular translation as sacred. so by doing that am I not fit to be Catholic? That was states in a council, so shouldn’t that be binding on me?

Council findings that have been approved by the Pope are valid teaching. What they are talking about in the quote from Trent had to do with two challenges from the Protestant reformation. 1. the rejection of the deutero-canonical books by the protestants and 2. the addition of “by faith alone” by Luther into the sacred text to support sola fide. Thus the reference to the books of the Vulgate in their entirety.

 

[bingabinga]

All due respect Paul, but I think you are wrong about the enclyclical thing. How many encyclicals are there? There must be hundreds. I thought i remember hearing that the Pope has only spoken ex cathedra twice? And that ex cathedra is the only time where the pope uses his office to proclaim something binding to all the faithful.

Anyone else understand it this way???

Also the Matthew passage says, to paraphrase, "You are Peter the Rock and on you I will build my church…etc. It does not say, “Peter you are the first of a long line of successors who rule be the head of my church, speak infallibly, create one approved liturgical system.”

The Matthew passage is a far cry from what is actually happening in todays church. You would have to admit that. I think you are reading “Papal Hierarchy” where the actual text just says Peter.

 

[MarkInOregon]

All due respect Paul, but I think you are wrong about the enclyclical thing. How many encyclicals are there? There must be hundreds. I thought i remember hearing that the Pope has only spoken ex cathedra twice? And that ex cathedra is the only time where the pope uses his office to proclaim something binding to all the faithful.

Anyone else understand it this way???

It’s not how I understand it. It is more complicated than that. I would do some research regarding the Magisterium or teaching authority of the Church–which consists of the Pope and bishops. It has been my understanding that there are three levels of authoritative teaching to which we are to adhere.

Also the Matthew passage says, to paraphrase, "You are Peter the Rock and on you I will build my church…etc. It does not say, “Peter you are the first of a long line of successors who rule be the head of my church, speak infallibly, create one approved liturgical system.”

Again there is more to this. For example we would see the “keys” as speaking to the “office” which is passed on. You will find threads that discuss this and which may provide additional resources. Regarding a “liturgical system”–I think you can already see the appointing of deacons, preists and bishops in Acts not to mention an authoritative Church Council which provide teaching. And I think you see the early form of worship in some of Pauls letters.

The Matthew passage is a far cry from what is actually happening in todays church. You would have to admit that. I think you are reading “Papal Hierarchy” where the actual text just says Peter.

How is what we see in Acts “a far cry” from what we see happening in the Church today? The Matthew passage shows the founding. Acts shows that founding playing out. Again I think you can find many threads on this which might prove helpful.

I wsih you luck on your journey. Just remember even if at some point you feel you can enter the Church–the journey and the learning and the study should never end.

Peace,
Mark

 

[pablope]

Also the Matthew passage says, to paraphrase, "You are Peter the Rock and on you I will build my church…etc. It does not say, “Peter you are the first of a long line of successors who rule be the head of my church, speak infallibly, create one approved liturgical system.”

.

Let me try to address this in this way…the tradition of that time and culture.

Consider the name change. Peter was the only one of the Apostles whose name was changed…and you can see Jesus saying this the first time they meet…in John 1:42…42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of [a]John; you shall be called Cephas” (which is translated **Peter).

Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status and authority of the person was changed…this was the culture and understanding of that time.

Consider the following significant name changes in the Bible and commands that followed the name change:

Abram to Abraham……Gen 17:15….Neither shall thy name be called any more Abram: but thou shalt be called Abraham: because I have made thee a father of many nations.

Jacob to Israel….Gen 35……. 10And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel………. 11And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;

Simon to Cephas/Peter…Matt 16…17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,** and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”****

 

[paul_c]

All due respect Paul, but I think you are wrong about the enclyclical thing. How many encyclicals are there? There must be hundreds. I thought i remember hearing that the Pope has only spoken ex cathedra twice? And that ex cathedra is the only time where the pope uses his office to proclaim something binding to all the faithful.

Anyone else understand it this way???

papal encyclicals are letters written by Popes to bishops to correct errors, etc. As such, they should be followed by all devout Catholics. Here is some information about them: newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm

Also the Matthew passage says, to paraphrase, "You are Peter the Rock and on you I will build my church…etc. It does not say, “Peter you are the first of a long line of successors who rule be the head of my church, speak infallibly, create one approved liturgical system.”

The Matthew passage is a far cry from what is actually happening in todays church. You would have to admit that. I think you are reading “Papal Hierarchy” where the actual text just says Peter.

It also says that the gates of Hades will not prevail over the Church. I ask you, why would God set up a hierarchy for one generation only? And really, even the orthodox have succession of their patriarchs, where each one is succeeded by another who has the same rights and privileges. Why should it be any different for the Bishop of Rome. And Peter exercised all the same power as the Popes of today.

 

[bingabinga]

How is what we see in Acts “a far cry” from what we see happening in the Church today? The Matthew passage shows the founding. Acts shows that founding playing out. Again I think you can find many threads on this which might prove helpful.

Peace,
Mark

Thanks Mark for your response. The “far cry” comment was meant only in the way Paul C was using Mt. 16 as if it was somehow stating, obviously, that what Jesus meant in that passage is exactly what exists today in the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[bingabinga]

papal encyclicals are letters written by Popes to bishops to correct errors, etc. As such, they should be followed by all devout Catholics. Here is some information about them: newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm

It also says that the gates of Hades will not prevail over the Church. I ask you, why would God set up a hierarchy for one generation only? And really, even the orthodox have succession of their patriarchs, where each one is succeeded by another who has the same rights and privileges. Why should it be any different for the Bishop of Rome. And Peter exercised all the same power as the Popes of today.

Thanks Paul. I think that is a fair point. Although I think it assumes that only way that Jesus’ promise (that the gates of Hades will not prevail) requires a visible and traceable apostolic succession. I think that is definitely one way the promise could be interpreted, but I don’t think it is the only way.

I guess part of this is that the Bible is not going to come out and affirm in a straightforward way all of the liturgical customs and the hierarchies of the Catholic church. These Scripture passages that we have discussed (and others) allow for multiple plausible interpretations but they can’t get us all the way to what we seen in contemporary Catholcism. For Catholics, some of this stuff is passed down through tradition and that tradition itself is seen as authoritative. I think that might be part of my problem. I can see the Catholic interpretations of these passages, in some cases as correct (e.g. Eucharist Presence stuff), and in some cases as plausible but not conclusive (Peter and the Rock, etc). Also, the entire Marian tradition rests on a great deal of tradition and custom rather than biblical expression.

It’s hard for my protestant sensibility to allow for this whole other source of authoritative teaching to change the shape and emphasis of my theology when I find only hints of it in Scripture. Does that make sense?

Thanks everyone for helping me through this. you are all being respectful of me, even when I am critizing or taking issue with some of your beliefs. Just know that I do have a deep respect for your faith and have been nourished spiritually through a local parish as well as many Catholic writers.

.

 

[paul_c]

Thanks Paul. I think that is a fair point. Although I think it assumes that only way that Jesus’ promise (that the gates of Hades will not prevail) requires a visible and traceable apostolic succession. I think that is definitely one way the promise could be interpreted, but I don’t think it is the only way.

I guess part of this is that the Bible is not going to come out and affirm in a straightforward way all of the liturgical customs and the hierarchies of the Catholic church. These Scripture passages that we have discussed (and others) allow for multiple plausible interpretations but they can’t get us all the way to what we seen in contemporary Catholcism. For Catholics, some of this stuff is passed down through tradition and that tradition itself is seen as authoritative. I think that might be part of my problem. I can see the Catholic interpretations of these passages, in some cases as correct (e.g. Eucharist Presence stuff), and in some cases as plausible but not conclusive (Peter and the Rock, etc). Also, the entire Marian tradition rests on a great deal of tradition and custom rather than biblical expression.

It’s hard for my protestant sensibility to allow for this whole other source of authoritative teaching to change the shape and emphasis of my theology when I find only hints of it in Scripture. Does that make sense?

Thanks everyone for helping me through this. you are all being respectful of me, even when I am critizing or taking issue with some of your beliefs. Just know that I do have a deep respect for your faith and have been nourished spiritually through a local parish as well as many Catholic writers.

.

The thing to remember is that Catholic Tradition predates the New testament. In fact, the new testament is simply a written subsegment of Catholic Tradition and can only be understood properly in relation to the Tradition from which it came. You see, Protestants came 1500 years after the fact and tried to re-intepret the bible according to their own traditions. This simply doesn’t work and its why they have such trouble with certain versus. Its really hard to defend sola fide (faith alone) when St. James clearly states that faith without works is dead. And its really hard to defend sola scriptura, when you need to depend on your traditions to define what is really scripture. And its really hard to defend predestination when man clearly has free will. And how do you defend OSAS when ST. Paul clearly says he is working on his salvation with fear and trembling. All Christian faiths read the bible using their Traditions as their “decoder ring” The problem is that only one Tradition addresses them all perfectly because only one was established by Jesus. Luther established the Lutheran Traditiion. Calvin defined the Reformed tradition. Henry VIII established the Anglicans. Joseph Smith defined Mormon tradition and on it goes. Every Protestant tradition has a proud founder and they are all men who have no particular credibility in being inspired by God.

 

[bingabinga]

Paul, I don’t know quite how to respond to that. If every church traditon has their “decoder ring” that they use to interpret the Scriptures how can i know that Catholic way is the correct way? Because judging by the way you have handled various scriptures it is clear to me that you are reading your tradition into the passages that do not say anything remotely similar to what you claim that they are saying.

Look, I can be a Catholic, if that means accepting the creeds, enjoying the liturgy, respecting the real presence of Christ in the eucharist, and staying on a journey of continual intellectual and spiritual conversion. I can be a Catholic if that means enjoying the rich tradition going back to Christ, and participating in my local parish. I would go to confession, I would make holy days of obligation. I will be reading Augustine. I will be reading the letters from the local bishops, I will read the encyclicals with an open mind.

I can’t and won’t agree with every encyclical. I can’t say that I conclusively believe that all forms of “artificial” birth control are wrong. I can’t say that the Catholic church is the only way to heaven. Do you think I have to wholeheartedly accept these things to become Catholic.

Here’s the thing Paul. You and I very different. Is there room for both of us in the Roman Catholic fold or not? What is your opinion?

 

[paul_c]

Paul, I don’t know quite how to respond to that. If every church traditon has their “decoder ring” that they use to interpret the Scriptures how can i know that Catholic way is the correct way?

Consider this. It is undeniable that the scripture came out of Catholic tradition. The Canon was defined in 382AD by Pope. St. Damasus and his groundrules were:

1. the new testament books had to be apostolic
2. they had to be recognized universally
3. they had to be consistent with Catholic tradition
4. they had to be useful for teaching and liturgical use.
   There are multiple sources that you can use to verify what I have written here.
   Now compare that Tradition with the alternatives. In 1517 Martin Luther made his stand against Catholicism. he had his own way to interpret the scripture and he had to delete 7 old testament books and add a few words to the new testament to even get close to making them match. Joseph Smith had to add whole new books to make his interpretation work. So it comes down to the credibillity of the developer of the tradition.

Because judging by the way you have handled various scriptures it is clear to me that you are reading your tradition into the passages that do not say anything remotely similar to what you claim that they are saying.

I’d be interested in the specifics but the problem at its essence is probably that we understand scripture from a different perspective given our traditions. An example is that Catholics know from our tradition that ST. Peter was the leader of the Apostles and we read Matthew 16: 16-19, John 21 and luke 22 with that in mind. Protestants, who have a vested interest in de-emphasizing Peter’s leadership, tend to read those passages differently. This is what I mean by the decoder ring.

Look, I can be a Catholic, if that means accepting the creeds, enjoying the liturgy, respecting the real presence of Christ in the eucharist, and staying on a journey of continual intellectual and spiritual conversion. I can be a Catholic if that means enjoying the rich tradition going back to Christ, and participating in my local parish. I would go to confession, I would make holy days of obligation. I will be reading Augustine. I will be reading the letters from the local bishops, I will read the encyclicals with an open mind.

This is good

I can’t and won’t agree with every encyclical. I can’t say that I conclusively believe that all forms of “artificial” birth control are wrong. I can’t say that the Catholic church is the only way to heaven. Do you think I have to wholeheartedly accept these things to become Catholic.

I would say that it is not unusual for someone in the conversion process to still have questions and things to work out. Catholicism embraces all truth and if you or I were to study for the rest of our lives, we would not be able to absorb it all. But you have to approach it with a sense of humility - recognizing that we are all limited in our knowledge and abilities - and leaving the door open that the church might actually be right, even about contraception. Being a Catholic means you are believe that following its teachings will lead you to heaven. And if you trust the church to do that, then why would you question it on issues that you simply find inconvenient.

Here’s the thing Paul. You and I very different. Is there room for both of us in the Roman Catholic fold or not? What is your opinion?

You know, the Catholic Church has one reason to exist: to help people get to heaven. So anyone that is willing to help others get to heaven by following Church teaching is more than welcome to join.