Why should I embrace the Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Masihi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
@Masihi,

Peter clearly had primacy in Scripture and was recognized as holding a primacy by the earliest Fathers.

He received the “Keys of the Kingdom,” which was a direct reference to the position of CHIEF STEWARD in the Davidic Kingdom. Matthew was writing for Jews. Jesus was a Jew. Jesus is the New David, the New King. He knew what his listeners would understand by the “keys of the kingdom”: Namely, that Peter would be the royal steward and minister who held the authority under the king.

Early Christians understood Peter to be chief and leader of the Apostles:

Another Eastern Father, Ephraim the Syrian:
“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1, 4th century).
Click to expand...
From the Council of Ephesus:
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Irenaeus of Lyons, in modern day France, said this about Rome in the AD 180s:
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2).
Click to expand...
Here Irenaeus is arguing against the Gnostic heretics and how one can authentically determine the Faith of the Apostolic Church: Look to the bishops who succeed the Apostles. But he points out Rome as the chief example, because it is the superior church, and because of its foundation, “all churches” must “agree” with it.

Similarly, Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (Northern Africa) in the mid-200s says that the Successor of Peter in Rome is the Chair and foundation of the Church’s unity. In order to be in communion with the One Catholic Church, one must be united to Peter in Rome:
“On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair, and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition).
Click to expand...
Cyprian often butt heads with the Pope, because he had different views on heretical Baptism. “Yet on the fundamental principle his position is clear. He attributed an effective primacy to the pope as the successor of Peter. He makes communion with the See of Rome essential to Catholic communion, speaking of it as “the principal Church whence episcopal unity had its rise” [link]”
 
Last edited:
Here’s how St. Damasus I, Bishop of Rome, describes the nature of the ancient patriarchates, writing in the fourth century:
“Although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad throughout the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: “You are Peter …(Matt 16:18-19).” In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name “Christians” was first applied, as to a new people.” (Decree of Damasus 3, 382 A.D.)
Click to expand...
The Byzantine idea that the Church of Rome and its Bishop held primacy merely because of political reasons is just that: A Byzantine idea. It was a later development in Constantinople.

Witness to this is given from the fact that other Eastern traditions also professed belief in Rome’s apostolic primacy. Please see this article.

@Masihi
East and West both accepted the fact of Roman primacy, but the theory of a merely canonical primacy, deriving from convention or from Rome’s location as seat of the Empire is a later and exclusively Byzantine development. On the contrary, the earliest arguments for Roman primacy were exclusively theological¸ based on Rome’s fidelity to apostolic tradition or upon apostolic succession. The oldest theory we know of explaining the primacy of Rome’s bishop was given by Pope Stephen I (254-257), who claimed unambiguously to sit in cathedra Petri.

In what follows, I wish to consider some of the evidence that this claim was understood, acknowledged, and even embraced by Catholic Christians East and West from antiquity to our own day. Only then can we properly understand the Archbishop’s essay. That that end, I would suggest we consider four lines of evidence: Papal theology in the Syriac tradition, the witness of the sui iuris churches (especially the Maronites), the surprising acquiescence to Roman claims by even professed Byzantine anti-Romanists, and the full acceptance of Roman claims by at least some pre-schism Byzantines.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
If we believe that Jesus Christ is indeed the Living Son of God, then we know that Christ cannot lie to us. Here is a short list of reasons to embrace the Catholic Church:

1.Peter’s Confession About Jesus. Matthew Chapter 16: 13-19
2.The Bread of Life Discourse. John Chapter 6: 22- 71 Especially 53-58
3.The Lord’s Supper. • Matthew Chapter 26: .26-28 • Luke Chapter 22: 19-20
Mark Chapter 14: 22-24 • 1 Corinthians Chapter 11: 23-32
4Christ’s First Appearance to His Disciples after His Resurrection:
John Chapter 20: 21-23:
 
And then I also made a casual blog post on how revisiting Peter’s primacy and role in Scripture can help us better understand the Pope’s function


This explores Peter as Rock, as Steward, as Shepherd, and as Spokesman.
 
What about the supposed infallibility of the Pope? I’m struggling to understand how the Popes of Rome are free from error.
 
Masihi: Only when the pope speaks of matters of the faith “Ex cathedra” meaning sitting in the bishop’s chair in St John Lateran Basilica in Rome (which is the bishop’s cathedral in Rome). Before the pope speaks there will be lots of preparations regarding what the teaching will mean, usually going through all previous writings and teachings for several centuries or even millennia.

The pope is under the council and the council is under the pope. The pope can’t make up something new but declare some church teaching as true (dogma) that the Church has taught for years, centuries and millennia.
 
catholic1seeks said:
Early Christians understood Peter to be chief and leader of the Apostles:

Another Eastern Father, Ephraim the Syrian:
Click to expand...
Where can I find the full text for this Homily from Ephraim? I can’t find it with his other writings on
New Advent. Is there any indication that he - or others of his day (4th century) - believed that Peter passed down this special role to the bishops of Rome?
catholic1seeks said:
Here Irenaeus is arguing against the Gnostic heretics and how one can authentically determine the Faith of the Apostolic Church: Look to the bishops who succeed the Apostles. But he points out Rome as the chief example, because it is the superior church, and because of its foundation, “all churches” must “agree” with it.
Click to expand...
Irenaeus wrote that all churches that can trace their leaders back to the apostles taught the same thing and were to be trusted over the Gnostics who disagreed with the apostolic churches and each other. He used Rome as an example. Not only was this the city where Gnostics Marcion and Valentinus were preaching, but he wrote that this church was founded by Peter and Paul. Although we know the Roman Church existed before Paul arrived in Rome, there is evidence that both were there. However Irenaeus did not believe that Peter was the Bishop of Rome at the time of his death. He believed that Peter (and Paul) ordained Linus as the Bishop of Rome and then departed from the city. So according to Irenaeus, Linus was the Bishop of Rome while Peter was still alive. This is in conflict with the Roman Catholic claim that Peter was the Bishop of Rome at the time of his death and then Linus became Bishop of Rome after Peter died. But Irenaeus’ writing does show the importance of the Roman Church as one of the leading churches in early Christianity.
 
catholic1seeks said:
Similarly, Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (Northern Africa) in the mid-200s says that the Successor of Peter in Rome is the Chair and foundation of the Church’s unity. In order to be in communion with the One Catholic Church, one must be united to Peter in Rome:
Click to expand...
Cyprian wrote nothing about Rome here. This writing used Peter as an example for unity. The version you provided is not the one accepted by scholars. Here is the one I can find on the internet: On the Unity of the Church. Chapter 4
catholic1seeks said:
Cyprian often butt heads with the Pope, because he had different views on heretical Baptism. “Yet on the fundamental principle his position is clear. He attributed an effective primacy to the pope as the successor of Peter. He makes communion with the See of Rome essential to Catholic communion, speaking of it as “the principal Church whence episcopal unity had its rise” [link]”
Click to expand...
This quote is from the Catholic Encyclopedia?
These 2 bishops did not get along. Didn’t they excommunicate each other? Or at least threaten to? Cyprian and 87 Bishops held a council in which they objected to Stephen and his accepting of the baptism of heretics. Cyprian wrote, “For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.”
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm
I just don’t think this is the writing of someone who thinks it is essential to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Cyprian never agreed or complied with baptism as it was done in Rome. Yet he is a "S"aint in the Roman Catholic Church.
 
Last edited:
Correct. The Pope never makes an error when he is speaking on faith and morals from the chair of Peter (Ex Cathedra). An easy example is whenever he pronounces a saint. One of the most famous pronouncements that was not a canonization was Pius IX’s pronouncement on Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception back in the 1800s.

You won’t find very many of these pronouncements other than pronouncing a saint is in Heaven.
 
But if he speaks of matters of faith and morals in general he is capable of error. Also to be a Catholic am I required to like any Pope that is elected? Because I do criticize many Popes.
 
Last edited:
The Catholic Church has what is referred to as “the fullness of the Faith”.
 
You are free to criticize anything the Pope says that is not infallibly stated. However, there are certain subjects that are part of the “Ordinary Magisterium of the Faith” meaning that all Catholics must accept it with filial obedience and agree with it. Unless, and there is an unless here, a Catholic reads up on the topic. Basically, if you know nothing about the topic, you have to agree because you take it on faith the Church is right. If you feel the Church is wrong on an “Ordinary Magisterium of the Faith” you have to look into instead of just spouting off that you disagree. Once you read up on it (and I don’t mean merely reading a tract about it) you are free to disagree and criticize.

As for the Popes, I personally don’t like Francis that much. I criticize him a bit. But I still acknowledge him as Pope and if he came to my house, I would kneel down and kiss his ring as the personal representative of Christ. I respect the office of Pope. I don’t always have to respect the person.

But of course, we should always try to give him the benefit of the doubt. Until we can’t.
 
My biggest problem with the Catholic Church was mostly the certain Popes it had running it in history.
 
Last edited:
You know what? That’s my biggest problem as well. We’ve had some super jerk Popes. But one thing that I try to keep in mind is that while the Pope is Christ’s Vicar on earth, he is still human. And as a human, he is going to fall. Just like the Apostles did. Obviously the Apostles were probably greater men than most Popes (with the exception of Peter since he was an actual apostle). They bickered amongst themselves over who was the greatest, Peter denied Christ three times, they fell asleep during Christ’s agony, and all but one ran away when Christ was crucified. But God used them and they became great saints.

And, as a last thought, I suppose it could be more awe-inspiring to consider how many great Popes the Catholic Church has had. In perspective, the Church has had very few bad Popes. Which doesn’t minimize the bad things the bad Popes did of course. But the Pope as a person did that, not through his office.
 
You know I have Melkite and Maronite ancestry. I always wanted to keep the Eastern traditions but I always wondered if I was ready to accept the primacy of the Pope.
 
Very well said here. I have recently rekindled my faith in the Catholic Church and turned to catholic answers for help defending my faith. I am one who had left bcz of the corruption I saw but was also left unsatisfied by Protestant churches. coming home has been an opportunity for me to see the truth about the catholic faith
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top