What would it take for non-RC Christians to join the RCC?

concretecamper said:

I don't think any Christian would intentionally go against scripture....and.... I am sure you do think many Catholic teachings are opposed to scripture. But your thinking it doesn't make it true.

There is but one truth.....a pearl of great price if you will.

Click to expand...

Hi CC,

I am in complete agreement with what you wrote.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

BobRyan said:

It is a "given" that the reason people are not Catholic - is that they find some doctrine in the RCC that contradicts sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and practice.

Click to expand...

What "people"????? Non-christians? Ex-Catholics? Fundamentalists?

Rick Otto said:

Sacraments ARE what the church does. What sacraments do is about what God does for the church.

Click to expand...

No, Sacraments are what God does for us; the administration of the Sacraments is what the Church does; but the working of grace is done by God.

Sacraments/sacramentals = What god does for us.
Sacrificial acts = what we do (prayer, singing hymns, doing God's work, administering the Sacraments, living a godly life, repenting etc.) Since we can't do any of this without the Holy Spirit; one might also make the argument that these things constitute a "sacramental life"; if we do not have God, we do non of these things.

Open Heart said:

What "people"????? Non-christians? Ex-Catholics? Fundamentalists?

Click to expand...

Well, the question of the thread asked about "non-RC Christians" so I'm sure most of us have understood that to be referring mainly to Protestants.

Open Heart said:

What "people"????? Non-christians? Ex-Catholics? Fundamentalists?

Click to expand...

How about EO for one? Or OO?

Open Heart said:

What "people"????? Non-christians? Ex-Catholics? Fundamentalists?

Click to expand...

I noticed it in 1st grade catechism class at Parochial school.

Open Heart said:

What "people"????? Non-christians? Ex-Catholics? Fundamentalists?

Click to expand...

Hi OH,

Yes, that would be some of them. I think the only two groups you are missing would be 'christians' and 'born again believers'. Not all, of course, of either of those two groups, but I believe the range would be a few to many.

You see, I'm a 'christian' and a 'born again believer' and I don't agree with many of the practices and declarations of the catholic organization. So, I know that there is at least one in those two groups and judging by some of the responses to this thread I imagine several here, who would claim of themselves to be in those groups, are also not in agreement.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Tangible said:

Well, if we're splitting hairs, sacraments are what God does through the hands of his Church. God has ordained baptism and holy communion. These are sacraments not because of what the Church does but because God's Word is attached to the signs in the sacraments. In baptism, it's not the water that accomplishes God's act but God's word in and with the application of water that accomplishes it. In the Eucharist, it is not the bread and wine that accomplish God's act but the God's word in and with the bread and wine that both promises and delivers to us the true body and blood of Our Lord.

So both statements are true. Sacraments are what God does for and through the Church, and sacraments are acts done by the Church through which God acts.

Click to expand...

The Catholic Church conceded that baptism is universal and no less legitimate outside of it's churches.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

...or they are just comfortable where they are; that is why everyone is not a confessional Lutheran... Including you, Bob

Click to expand...

Indeed if we suppose that nobody notices the doctrinal differences between denominations -- then the only reason everyone does not skip around from week to week - is that they are happy wherever they are - because they have "friends there".

But if you look at the actual Protestant Reformers AND the start of every major christian denomination (including the start of what Christianity Today calls the fifth largest Christian denomination on the planet as of Feb 2015) -- they all start with a focus on the Bible and some doctrinal difference/statement/focus that they find to be incredibly important and distinctive.

How is that historic fact not "a given" as to why they do not all collapse into a single group??

Some may argue that today the average member of the laity has an understanding of God's Word that is an inch wide and an inch deep - really only there to see friends... and I would not refute that such is very often the case.

for others it may be a mile wide and an inch deep. So then - yet another problem scenario.

WarriorAngel said:

"they find"
Seek the Traditional teachings and see why the Church constructs an understanding from the Greek.

Click to expand...

All the Catholic Theologians and scholars that started the various protestant groups - would have had a vaild claim to "read Greek".

All the Christian denominations today (even the RCC admittedly) have scholars supporting them that "read Greek" - and Hebrew.

I think that is a given.

Crowns&Laurels said:

The Catholic Church conceded that baptism is universal and no less legitimate outside of it's churches.

Click to expand...

The Catholic Church claims that the New Covenant - that ALL christians claim to be saved under - ie. Gospel to most of us - is confined solely to the Catholic Mass "This cup is my blood in the New Testament" and denies open communion with most other Christian denominations.

They no longer claim that non-Catholics are not saved - just that God has to figure out some "other way" to save them - other than the Bible-documented "New Covenant".

I think that is also a point that all can read about from Catholic sources.

WarriorAngel said:

I can tell by reading this - you didnt use actual writings of the historical fathers of the Church to conclude a sound reasoning on the matter.
It appears you found opinions online from outside sources who do not identify with the Popes decisions...or rather perhaps even rewrote what they did or had written.
The few miscreants that alleged the chair of Peter - either were resisted and removed or had no interest in the Papal teachings and did nothing extraordinary to explaining the teachings.

.

Click to expand...

The RCC has a list of what it calls "wicked popes" - unchallenged who fill in the "unbroken line".

History has a list of multi-Pope ages where multiple lines - each with their own successors and their own papal armies -- exist at the same time.

BobRyan said:

It is a "given" that the reason people are not Catholic - is that they find some doctrine in the RCC that contradicts sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and practice.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ with you.
There are many reasons why some people are not Catholic, and not all of those reasons have to do with dogma.

Also the Catholic Church is not based only on Sola scriptura.
So if that were a reason given for not being Catholic,
then the influence to reject the Catholic Church would have had to come from another source
outside of the Catholic Church itself.

and that in turn would mean that this would not be an actual case of rejection of the Catholic Church,per se,
but instead it would exemplify a deliberate choice of another church based upon that church's belief in Sola scriptura.

nice try, but no cigar this time.

Albion said:

Well, the question of the thread asked about "non-RC Christians" so I'm sure most of us have understood that to be referring mainly to Protestants.

Click to expand...

Most Protestants don't even know the phrase Sola Scriptura. These days most of the Protestants I know think of Catholicism as just another denomination, as good as any other, but they prefer their praise band. I would say you are describing a less nominal Protestant. I would agree they have ceretainly been taught a line about how "We don't believe what Catholics believe about Mary because it's not in the Bible." They have never explored what Catholics actually believe much less why we believe it.

BobRyan said:

History has a list of multi-Pope ages where multiple lines - each with their own successors and their own papal armies -- exist at the same time.

Click to expand...

You make it sound like the few exceptions of the anti-popes were the norm.

Open Heart said:

Most Protestants don't even know the phrase Sola Scriptura.

Click to expand...

The phrase itself? Maybe. How about the meaning? I doubt that it is foreign to them.

These days most of the Protestants I know think of Catholicism as just another denomination, as good as any other, but they prefer their praise band.

Click to expand...

Oh, how charmingly condescending. Shall we now pair it with something about getting your pants dirty from keeling all the time? Or perhaps that old favorite...Baptism just gets you wet.

Open Heart said:

Most Protestants don't even know the phrase Sola Scriptura.

Click to expand...

Most Protestant denominations do. But the laity of all denominations is becoming less and less informed -- on average. (I suspect)

These days most of the Protestants I know think of Catholicism as just another denomination,

Click to expand...

agreed.

as good as any other, but they prefer their praise band. I would say you are describing a less nominal Protestant. I would agree they have ceretainly been taught a line about how "We don't believe what Catholics believe about Mary because it's not in the Bible."

Click to expand...

agreed.

They have never explored what Catholics actually believe much less why we believe it.

Click to expand...

As is the case with most Catholics when it comes to this or that Protestant denomination.

Still - it would be hard to find a Protestant of any flavor who is not aware that there are doctrinal differences.

Even Catholics on average would know that.

I think that is a given.

in Christ,

Bob

Open Heart said:

You make it sound like the few exceptions of the anti-popes were the norm.

Click to expand...

1.None of them claim the title "Anti-pope" nor did any of their millions of followers claim that for them. They all claim to be "Pope" and they claim that the other rival popes were "antichrist".

2. To address the "unbroken line" claim one does not need to go to the extreme of claiming that there were more often multi-popes than single popes or that among the single Popes more were wicked than not. I don't make any of those claims.

BobRyan said:

It is a "given" that the reason people are not Catholic - is that they find some doctrine in the RCC that contradicts sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and practice.

Click to expand...

Open Heart said:

What "people"????? Non-christians? Ex-Catholics? Fundamentalists?

Click to expand...

The body of Christ that exists outside of the RCC. Some of them ex-catholics - but not all of them ex-catholics. Certainly I don't claim to be ex-catholic.

Standing Up said:

How about EO for one? Or OO?

Click to expand...

The differences between the RCC and the EO or OO have nothing to do with sola scriptura.