To protestant converts:

[katy]

Originally Posted by MSSheBear

What started me intellectually in converting was early Church history. I was raised Protestant and I assumed that the Church added things in the Middle Ages. I still felt pulled toward Catholicism but remained staunchly Protestant. Then several years ago I started looking into how the early Christians worshipped. Oops! They seemed pretty Catholic!

Also I had discovered that I was told at my Protestant churches that I was to interpret the Bible myself and then realized that I couldn't really. Other people in the church assumed I needed to follow someone else's interpretation and if I came to another conclusion I was just silly. So if I attended a Bible Study I read a commentary so I would come up with the right answer which of course often was the wrong answer since there are so many interpretations.

I came to realize that Protestantism didn't make sense. Since I started attending Mass I realized that I had really been missing something!

The above. Plus, I had occasion to read the old Baltimore Catechism and found it made a great deal of sense.

[Della]

Originally Posted by Koineman

I'm not here to have a debate, but I'll say this: I understand where you're coming from, and I've heard that explanation many times before. The sticking point for me, though, is this: How can I know that the Catholic Church has those "legitimate claims to apostolic succession"?

There is no need to debate because the issue is settled. It's there in the Church's history. Right from the beginning the Church operated as is does today. The very first Church council is recorded in Acts. The Early Church Fathers, who sat at the feet of the Apostles wrote about it. The Didache supports it.

If the Church doesn't have the right to make claim to apostolic succession, who does? The Lutherans or Episcopalians or the Presbyterians? No. The Evangelicals or Pentecostals? A big no. Which Protestant denomination did Christ found and commission to teach and preach and baptize if he didn't found the Catholic Church? These are questions that need addressing more than challenging the Church's claims which are right there in the NT, the Church Fathers and the witness of history itself.

Remember, I came from a staunch Protestant background. All this was news to me because I never heard it in the Episcopal Church or the Assemblies of God or any other Protestant community I had connections with. The issue of authority was either glossed over, set aside, or simply ignored. But it's vitally important, for if Christ founded a Church it would still be alive and active today because he promised it would be. Which one can actually point to the moment in which Christ founded it? The Catholic Church. No others can do that. It's just that simple, even if it can be hard to accept.

[Koineman]

Thanks for your answer. First off, I'm not "challenging" anything. My question was sincere. I am honestly looking into these issues with an open heart. I am seriously and sincerely reexamining the Catholic Church's claims to be the one true apostolic church, after leaving it some 27 years ago.

Now as to what you wrote...

Originally Posted by Della

There is no need to debate because the issue is settled. It's there in the Church's history. Right from the beginning the Church operated as is does today.

See, this is where I have trouble with it because I see some practices today in the Catholic Church that don't seem to have been there "right from the beginning," not even in seed format, like the doctrine of the Trinity. (By "seed format" I mean when a doctrine was not spelled out explicitly but was inferred over time before it was finally articulated by the church, like a seed that must be watered before it can grow. For example, the word "Trinity" is not explicitly used in the Bible, nor is the doctrine of the Trinity spelled out explicitly in one single, neat passage, but the doctrine was inferred from many biblical texts taken together.) Now of course I could be wrong since I'm not a scholar in the writings of the church fathers, so could you give me some quotes that were written way back in the beginning of the church that clearly indicate (or clearly imply) the early church at the time of the apostles practiced the following:

prayer to saints
purgatory
the 5 sacraments other than baptism and communion
priests
adoration of the eucharist

Those are just some. Again, I'm not challenging at all. I've been reading Patrick Madrid's book, Why is THAT in Tradition?, but I've noticed that most of his quotes from the church fathers were written about 100 years after the time of the apostles, some later. I don't have it in front of me right now, and I'm not finished with it, but that is the trend I've noticed so far.

Thanks, and I look forward to further discussion.

[Layman F]

Originally Posted by Koineman

Thanks for your answer. First off, I'm not "challenging" anything. My question was sincere. I am honestly looking into these issues with an open heart. I am seriously and sincerely reexamining the Catholic Church's claims to be the one true apostolic church, after leaving it some 27 years ago.

Now as to what you wrote...



See, this is where I have trouble with it because I see some practices today in the Catholic Church that don't seem to have been there "right from the beginning," not even in seed format, like the doctrine of the Trinity. (By "seed format" I mean when a doctrine was not spelled out explicitly but was inferred over time before it was finally articulated by the church, like a seed that must be watered before it can grow. For example, the word "Trinity" is not explicitly used in the Bible, nor is the doctrine of the Trinity spelled out explicitly in one single, neat passage, but the doctrine was inferred from many biblical texts taken together.) Now of course I could be wrong since I'm not a scholar in the writings of the church fathers, so could you give me some quotes that were written way back in the beginning of the church that clearly indicate (or clearly imply) the early church at the time of the apostles practiced the following:

prayer to saints
purgatory
the 5 sacraments other than baptism and communion
priests
adoration of the eucharist

Those are just some. Again, I'm not challenging at all. I've been reading Patrick Madrid's book, Why is THAT in Tradition?, but I've noticed that most of his quotes from the church fathers were written about 100 years after the time of the apostles, some later. I don't have it in front of me right now, and I'm not finished with it, but that is the trend I've noticed so far.

Thanks, and I look forward to further discussion.

Prayers to saints: John 3:16, ...life everlasting. If I ask "Bob" to pray for me, it's fine because Bob is alive. Similar to saints, whose bodies are gone, they're alive. Just because our bodies are gone, aren't we given the gift of "life everlasting"? If we are grafted into the vine of Christ, are we cut off because our bodies no longer have breath in them?

Eucharist: if it IS the body and blood of the living God, why not? It makes logical sense to me.

Purgatory: Jews have a practice of paying for the dead. Maccabees has reference to it, as well as subtle NT verses, like Jesus preaching to the spirits in prison, etc.

priests: all through the NT there are references of a hierarchy, a well a the OT priestly order. The ability to loose and bind on Earth is expressed in the gospels.

It's all there.

[Della]

Originally Posted by Koineman

Thanks for your answer. First off, I'm not "challenging" anything. My question was sincere. I am honestly looking into these issues with an open heart. I am seriously and sincerely reexamining the Catholic Church's claims to be the one true apostolic church, after leaving it some 27 years ago.

Now as to what you wrote...



See, this is where I have trouble with it because I see some practices today in the Catholic Church that don't seem to have been there "right from the beginning," not even in seed format, like the doctrine of the Trinity. (By "seed format" I mean when a doctrine was not spelled out explicitly but was inferred over time before it was finally articulated by the church, like a seed that must be watered before it can grow. For example, the word "Trinity" is not explicitly used in the Bible, nor is the doctrine of the Trinity spelled out explicitly in one single, neat passage, but the doctrine was inferred from many biblical texts taken together.) Now of course I could be wrong since I'm not a scholar in the writings of the church fathers, so could you give me some quotes that were written way back in the beginning of the church that clearly indicate (or clearly imply) the early church at the time of the apostles practiced the following:

prayer to saints
purgatory
the 5 sacraments other than baptism and communion
priests
adoration of the eucharist

Those are just some. Again, I'm not challenging at all. I've been reading Patrick Madrid's book, Why is THAT in Tradition?, but I've noticed that most of his quotes from the church fathers were written about 100 years after the time of the apostles, some later. I don't have it in front of me right now, and I'm not finished with it, but that is the trend I've noticed so far.

Thanks, and I look forward to further discussion.

Jesus said to his Apostles that the Holy Spirit would "lead" them into all truth. Why did he say that? Because he knew they would have to hammer out doctrine and dogma, that they'd have to make decisions as to what was orthodox teaching and what wasn't. Today's reading is appropriate because it tells how Paul and Barnabbas met with the Apostles and presbyters (priests) to decide if the Gentile believers had to be circumsized or not. According to the OT they did, but the Church council decided the law had been fulfilled. If we were going to go strictly by what Scripture they had at the time, we might disagree, as the Pharisee converts did then. It's truly a matter of authority. Does the Church have the authority from Christ to decide matters of faith and morals or doesn't it? If it doesn't, then who does? You see the difficulty? It's not whether or not we can ask the saints in heaven to pray for us or if there's a purgatory, etc. that's important but whether or not the Church is right about these things and why claims that it is. What other Church existed when Jesus commissioned the Apostles and who were their successors? These are the questions that are important. All the rest follow from them.

[Koineman]

Originally Posted by Della

Jesus said to his Apostles that the Holy Spirit would "lead" them into all truth. Why did he say that? Because he knew they would have to hammer out doctrine and dogma, that they'd have to make decisions as to what was orthodox teaching and what wasn't.

I agree 100%, hence my earlier reference to the articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. It isn't spelled out in one verse in the Bible, but over time the church articulated it by inferring it from the Scriptures.

Today's reading is appropriate because it tells how Paul and Barnabbas met with the Apostles and presbyters (priests) to decide if the Gentile believers had to be circumsized or not.

Yes, I heard that in mass today--twice.

According to the OT they did, but the Church council decided the law had been fulfilled. If we were going to go strictly by what Scripture they had at the time, we might disagree, as the Pharisee converts did then. It's truly a matter of authority. Does the Church have the authority from Christ to decide matters of faith and morals or doesn't it?

That requires us first to answer this question: How do we determine what is the true church? That was why I asked that question earlier. Since the church's job was obviously to pass on tradition directly from the apostles, anything it teaches must line up with what the apostles taught. Otherwise it cannot be said that it is the true church. So for me the litmus test is whether a church holds doctrinally to what the apostles taught, having faithfully kept and passed on what they received from God.

If it doesn't, then who does? You see the difficulty?

Yes, I do. Ultimately someone decides matters of faith and morals, but who? Answer: the true church, but that begs the question: How can I know that the Roman Catholic Church of today is the same church that existed during the early days of Christianity? Given the church's responsibility to keep and pass on apostolic tradition, the answer is: You know it's the same church if it teaches the same doctrine the apostles taught. That's why I asked you for quotes from the church fathers supporting the Catholic teachings I listed in my earlier post, quotes that date back to the earliest days of the church. That would seal the deal for me, so to speak.

It's not whether or not we can ask the saints in heaven to pray for us or if there's a purgatory, etc.

It is precisely those kinds of teachings that make Protestants like me doubtful about whether we should return to Rome. Why do they make me doubtful? Because they raise doubt about whether the Catholic Church is the true church, based on my point about tradition above.

that's important but whether or not the Church is right about these things and why claims that it is. What other Church existed when Jesus commissioned the Apostles and who were their successors?

There was one church back then, but how do I know (and again I'm not challenging but asking a sincere question) that what started as the true church ended up drifting from apostolic tradition by adding to it many things the apostles never even thought of, and that in time Christ raised up the Reformers to steer the church back in the right direction, in keeping with His word that He would build His church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it?

[Layman F]

That last part, about the reformers: Wouldn't Hell have "won" for many years preceding the reformation? I mean, what changed doctrinally in the hundred years preceding the reformation? If the reformation was the correction, why is Catholicism still the largest single Christian body? If the Church was "corrected", why are the teachings all over the place in the Protestant lines? Where any of my points considered from the prior post? They were all scriptural references. Isn't that early enough? What about second century catacombs that have prayers for the dead scrawled in them?

[Koineman]

Originally Posted by Layman F

Prayers to saints: John 3:16, ...life everlasting. If I ask "Bob" to pray for me, it's fine because Bob is alive. Similar to saints, whose bodies are gone, they're alive. Just because our bodies are gone, aren't we given the gift of "life everlasting"? If we are grafted into the vine of Christ, are we cut off because our bodies no longer have breath in them?

Thanks for that answer. I read an explanation like that recently, maybe in the Catechism or in Patrick Madrid's book. I am totally with you when it comes to the communion of the saints: Believers aren't cut off from the body of Christ when they die, so they are still connected with us spiritually, in some way I can't understand. Groovy. But how does that mean that they can hear me when I pray to them?

Eucharist: if it IS the body and blood of the living God, why not? It makes logical sense to me.

Okay, I can see that. If it truly is the body and blood of the Lord, then he is actually present with us during the mass,which means it's like we were actually at the foot of the cross back on the day he was crucified. If I were kneeling at the foot of the cross back then, I'd be worshiping. :-)

Purgatory: Jews have a practice of paying for the dead. Maccabees has reference to it, as well as subtle NT verses, like Jesus preaching to the spirits in prison, etc.

There are some passages in the NT that seem to talk about punishment in the next life, but they are such vague references that it can be tough to say they must refer to a place called purgatory. It's possible: I'll grant you that much. :-)

priests: all through the NT there are references of a hierarchy, a well a the OT priestly order.

I know there are references to pastors and elders, but where is the OT priestly order recorded in the NT as being in the church?

The ability to loose and bind on Earth is expressed in the gospels.

That makes sense.

[Koineman]

Originally Posted by Layman F

That last part, about the reformers: Wouldn't Hell have "won" for many years preceding the reformation?

That's a fair question in response to what I wrote. I'll have to think on it.

I mean, what changed doctrinally in the hundred years preceding the reformation? If the reformation was the correction, why is Catholicism still the largest single Christian body? If the Church was "corrected", why are the teachings all over the place in the Protestant lines?

I'm not sure what you mean by teachings all over the place in the Protestant lines.

Where any of my points considered from the prior post?

Yes, I just posted a response.

What about second century catacombs that have prayers for the dead scrawled in them?

Were they scrawled on the catacomb walls by apostles or successors who received that doctrine from the apostles?

[Layman F]

Originally Posted by Koineman

But how does that mean that they can hear me when I pray to them?

I guess one way to be reassured is that there are times in the Bible that living people talk to dead ones, or dead ones talk to others. Lazarus speaking across the chasm comes to mind.(am I remembering that right?) Point being, death doesn't equal silence. With me, I'm kind of at the point that almost every objection I had has a resolution, so the few remaining I've accepted. "Well, they've been right on all of these others, so these two I'm probably the one that's wrong."

Originally Posted by Koineman

There are some passages in the NT that seem to talk about punishment in the next life, but they are such vague references that it can be tough to say they must refer to a place called purgatory. It's possible: I'll grant you that much. :-)

This can be solved by looking at the formation of the canon. It's in the books removed during the reformation. The 73 book one, that has stood as Scriptures since 397AD, spells it out well. Add that with the vague NT ones and, voila!

Originally Posted by Koineman

I know there are references to pastors and elders, but where is the OT priestly order recorded in the NT as being in the church?

Honestly, I always assumed that would have been something that the early church took for granted (in the true sense, not our current negative one). "of course there are"

[pablope]

Originally Posted by Koineman

T

In the Catholic churches that I've been exploring in my area, however, I've noticed that they all have daily masses. I like the idea of frequent communion (even if I won't receive the Eucharist) and quite frankly cannot understand why so many evangelical churches celebrate such an important sacrament only once a month.

Actually....all Catholic parishes all over the world have daily mass. So there is worship going all the time at every time zone....kind of the one in Revelations...where there is worship to God all day and night.

[pablope]

Originally Posted by Koineman

I'm not here to have a debate, but I'll say this: I understand where you're coming from, and I've heard that explanation many times before. The sticking point for me, though, is this: How can I know that the Catholic Church has those "legitimate claims to apostolic succession"?

I will use the example of St. Paul......

from 1John 4.....6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.



Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.
Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Paul had a direct revelation from Christ. Yet, from the two passages above, he goes to visit Cephas/Peter and submits himself to Peter. Gal 2: 2 states his purpose...to present his gospel/message to make sure it is in line with the Apostles and what they were handed down from Christ.

Paul submits to the Apostles.



Now look at Acts 13:
1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

Look at verse 3 and see what the Antioch Church elders do...."they placed their hands on them and sent them off."

This fulfills Romans 10:
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[g]


Before Paul and Barnabas went on their first missionary journey, he submits himself to Church authority and are ordained by laying of hands. Then they are sent out to their mission. Paul, by the laying of hands, first becomes an Apostle, he gains apostolic authority, thereby, the Churches he founds have apostolic succession.

This is how it is in the Catholic Church....one does not decide if one is to become a priest...one is sent.....by the bishop...which are the successors of the Apostles.

By submitting and obedience to the bishop...we know they are from Christ.

Finally this....Clement of Rome writes this in his Epistle to Corinth....in accordance with the passages above....

42:4 Preaching, therefore, through the countries and cities, they appointed their firstfruits to be bishops and deacons over such as should believe, after they had proved them in the Spirit.
42:5 And this they did in no new way, for in truth it had in long past time been written concerning bishops and deacons; for the scripture, in a certain place, saith in this wise: I will establish their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.
44:1 Our Apostles, too, by the instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ, knew that strife would arise concerning the dignity of a bishop;
44:2 and on this account, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned as bishops and deacons: and then gave a rule of succession, in order that, when they had fallen asleep, other men, who had been approved, might succeed to their ministry.

[pablope]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Koineman

Thanks for your answer. First off, I'm not "challenging" anything. My question was sincere. I am honestly looking into these issues with an open heart. I am seriously and sincerely reexamining the Catholic Church's claims to be the one true apostolic church, after leaving it some 27 years ago.

Hopefull, I can be of help....you may have to do a lot of reading....

prayer to saints

Try this site.....http://www.scripturecatholic.com/saints.html

purgatory

This very extensive and comprehensive......Purgatory-Holy Fire.....http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...cs/ap0091.html

the 5 sacraments other than baptism and communion......adoration of the eucharist
.

http://www.scotthahn.com/scott-hahn-books.html

I find this very helpful.....http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/038...SIN=0385501706

And this......http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/038...SIN=0385509316

priests

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIEST3.HTM

Those are just some. Again, I'm not challenging at all. I've been reading Patrick Madrid's book, Why is THAT in Tradition?, but I've noticed that most of his quotes from the church fathers were written about 100 years after the time of the apostles, some later. I don't have it in front of me right now, and I'm not finished with it, but that is the trend I've noticed so far.

Keep in mind...the Catholic was underground for 300 yrs....being pursued and persecuted by Romans. The first popes were all martyred.
Romans kept on hunting the bishops and feeding to the lions in the coliseum.

Thanks, and I look forward to further discussion.

God bless....

[pablope]

Originally Posted by Koineman

So for me the litmus test is whether a church holds doctrinally to what the apostles taught, having faithfully kept and passed on what they received from God.


Yes, I do. Ultimately someone decides matters of faith and morals, but who? Answer: the true church, but that begs the question: How can I know that the Roman Catholic Church of today is the same church that existed during the early days of Christianity? Given the church's responsibility to keep and pass on apostolic tradition, the answer is: You know it's the same church if it teaches the same doctrine the apostles taught. That's why I asked you for quotes from the church fathers supporting the Catholic teachings I listed in my earlier post, quotes that date back to the earliest days of the church. That would seal the deal for me, so to speak.


against it?

Try this book and blog....http://www.thefathersknowbest.com/

Some quotes.....

And St. Ignatius of Antioch...... (d. 107 AD) wrote:http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavor that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled.4


Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.


Against the Gnostic heresy......St. Irenaeus (d. AD 200) writes:

But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.10

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

[choliks]

I think one way of knowing for sure if the Catholic Church is the True Church is to know the holder of the Keys.

If we understand the relationship between Jesus, Peter (and his successors), and the Church, I think it will shed some light on the answer to your question.