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

[Dialogist]

But given the fact, that unlike the rest of Christian groups, the RCC does not change teachings on faith and morals.

I think one of the main issues preventing Roman Catholic-Eastern Orthodox reunion is that the Orthodox Church holds that the Roman Catholic Church has, in fact, changed its teaching on faith over the centuries, perhaps beginning with its revision of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and culminating perhaps with the doctrine of ex cathedra and the ex cathedra declarations of the dogma on the Conception and the Dormition (Orthodox term)/Assumption (Roman Catholic term) of the Mother of God immediately thereafter.

I am sure this is ground that has been trodden over and over again, but I am curious about your opinion on this.

(I converted from the Roman Catholic Church to the Eastern Orthodox Church five years ago)

 

[Willtor]

I considered the RC and EO churches about 8-9 years ago. After being raised Baptist and attending Baptist and non-denominational churches for most of my life, I began reading the early church fathers as an undergrad and finding myself persuaded by a lot of what they had to say. Their interpretations, emphases, and approaches to theology were very compelling.

Eventually, I ended up in the Episcopal church because of N.T. Wright, but I considered myself fairly anglo-catholic. Later, I married a Presbyterian pastor, who assured me I would make a great Presbyterian because of my love of Calvin and Barth. I do like the Presbyterian church, but my heart still leans anglo-catholic.

For the OP: What would it take for me to join the RCC?

There are a few hurdles and a few barriers. I won't mention the hurdles because there are hurdles for me in the Presbyterian church, but if there's space for the laity to advocate change, I can handle that. Barriers, however:

* Transubstantiation: I believe the elements are more than symbolic. But I don't know that they physically change. My intuition is that they don't. Admittedly, intuition is a poor substitute for empiricism or reason. But, inasmuch as I am not convinced, it would be inappropriate for me to ascent to the position during the Eucharist. If I can't receive communion in a church, I'm probably at the wrong church.
* Women clergy: My wife would have to transfer her ordination... but the Catholic church doesn't believe it is authorized to ordain women. I would consider attending a different church from my wife. There are certain doctrinal positions that I consider really essential, and that would cause me to attend a different church from her, but they are few in number, and almost none are in dispute by any of the major churches. So the Catholic church would have to recognize its authority to ordain called women before I could join.
* Ex cathedra: I know it's only been used a handful of times. Nevertheless, I don't accept that God has vested anyone with that kind of systemic authority. The Pope would have to renounce the authority, recognizing it was never his, nor his predecessors'.

The last "barrier" (to use the term more loosely than above) is the lack of impetus to switch. I am unlikely to attend a Catholic church when my wife has a week of vacation because we know that we cannot receive communion there. In many other denominations, we are perceived as siblings in Christ who are separated by secondary points of doctrine or even mere organization -- not faith. How, then, will we find a Catholic church that we would want to join?

 

[Open Heart]

There is strong evidence that Babylon the Great is connected to the RCC. I am not alone in this understanding, many have written about it.

Not nearly as many have written about it as who write that the RCC is the Church that Jesus founded. If it's a numbers game you want to play, we Catholics are going to win every time.

 

[Open Heart]

but there are doctrines of the RCC that I just don't see anywhere in the scriptures.
Ash Wednesday, fish on Fridays, etc. where is all that in scripture?

I'm sure you recognize, though, that Catholics believe virtually all of our dogmas are in the scriptures. I think the Assumption of Mary is the only one we concede is not in the scriptures at all, not even a hint.

Ash Wednesday and fish on Fridays are traditions, not dogma. Every church has traditions that are not in Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture does it mention an altar call, for example. Or the four spiritual laws. Or the sinners prayer. Or having the band play a special song while the offering is taken up.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Not nearly as many have written about it as who write that the RCC is the Church that Jesus founded. If it's a numbers game you want to play, we Catholics are going to win every time.

No its not a numbers "game", I am not playing games with your soul or any others. And broad is the way that leadeth to destruction and >many" there be that go that way.

 

[Open Heart]

* Transubstantiation: I believe the elements are more than symbolic. But I don't know that they physically change. My intuition is that they don't. Admittedly, intuition is a poor substitute for empiricism or reason. But, inasmuch as I am not convinced, it would be inappropriate for me to ascent to the position during the Eucharist. If I can't receive communion in a church, I'm probably at the wrong church.

You said you were Anglican at one point. Do you still believe in Real Presence as the Anglican church teaches? If so, then should you ever be in a situation where you cannot get to your local denominational church for communion, you can receive communion in the Catholic church under those unique circumstances.

 

[Open Heart]

No its not a numbers "game", I am not playing games with your soul or any others. And broad is the way that leadeth to destruction and >many" there be that go that way.

Switching the goal posts around, eh? First it was like, "Many scholars" to validate your point. Now you are saying it's the minority position that is right. LOL Don't you know that truth has nothing to do with numbers at all? Sometimes the truth is believed by the majority, other times by a minority. You have to actually weigh the evidence and reasoning behind each truth statement to get to the truth. Looking for numbers is like rolling a dice.

Let me guess. You want to shift the goalposts again and say that you go to the Holy Spirit for the truth or something of a similar nature. LOL Anything rather than actually deal with the reasoning in a post.

 

[Willtor]

You said you were Anglican at one point. Do you still believe in Real Presence as the Anglican church teaches? If so, then should you ever be in a situation where you cannot get to your local denominational church for communion, you can receive communion in the Catholic church under those unique circumstances.

That's interesting. I didn't know that. Yes, I believe Real Presence.

 

[Open Heart]

That's interesting. I didn't know that. Yes, I believe Real Presence.

Another little tidbit. I've met Protestants in my parish who come because they are married to Catholics and want the family to attend Church together. They have no home church. Because they accept Real Presence, they are allowed to receive Eucharist, even though they are not in full communion with Rome.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Switching the goal posts around, eh? First it was like, "Many scholars" to validate your point. Now you are saying it's the minority position that is right. LOL Don't you know that truth has nothing to do with numbers at all? Sometimes the truth is believed by the majority, other times by a minority. You have to actually weigh the evidence and reasoning behind each truth statement to get to the truth. Looking for numbers is like rolling a dice.

Let me guess. You want to shift the goalposts again and say that you go to the Holy Spirit for the truth or something of a similar nature. LOL Anything rather than actually deal with the reasoning in a post.

Im not saying the minority or the majority is right. I just quoted Jesus saying few there be that find the narrow path. and many go the broad way.

by the way, do you believe all the traditional Catholic teachings?, why do you say you are a Hebrew catholic?

And I can deal with your reasoning quite easily, you have no hard arguments to struggle with.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

I think one of the main issues preventing Roman Catholic-Eastern Orthodox reunion is that the Orthodox Church holds that the Roman Catholic Church has, in fact, changed its teaching on faith over the centuries

They were in Full Communion until the 11th Century. In those times, there was no central pope- the authority rather rested in the apostolic spectrum altogether.
The Patriarchs in the East and West were at odds with dogmas, and upon splitting, the Roman Church declared the Seat of Peter, which lies in Rome, as the infallible seat.
Destining Moses' Seat, you see. According to Roman Catholicism, the Pope is essentially God Himself.

 

[Dialogist]

They were in Full Communion until the 11th Century. In those times, there was no central pope- the authority rather rested in the apostolic spectrum altogether.
The Patriarchs in the East and West were at odds with dogmas, and upon splitting, the Roman Church declared the Seat of Peter, which lies in Rome, as the infallible seat.
Destining Moses' Seat, you see. According to Roman Catholicism, the Pope is essentially God Himself.

I don't think Roman Catholics believe the Pope is God.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

I don't think Roman Catholics believe the Pope is God.

Oh, yes they do. They have simply done a good job of downplaying it. The man, according to them, is a direct vessel of God.

 

[Hank77]

I think we could get into a problem here with semantics.

Ash Wednesday and fish on Fridays are traditions, not dogma.

I am aware of that. I didn't say they were dogma, I said doctrines. You are calling them traditions of men? Can they be ignored by a RCC member? I remember that they were mandatory in order to fulfill obedience. Please correct me if I am wrong about that though.

Every church has traditions that are not in Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture does it mention an altar call, for example.

It is not a tradition of men as defined by scripture, not oral law. They are simply to give anyone who desires to pray with others a place to come together to do that. Whether it is to receive the Lord or other prayer. There is no church rule that says that is what must be done or where it is done. It could be in another room after church or sitting in pews or in the garden.

Or the four spiritual laws.

Not sure what you are referring to here unless you are talking about the Jerusalem Council decision. I would not consider them to be traditions but commandments that need to be kept. They are all forms of idolatry.

Or the sinners prayer.

Turning to God in repentance for justification cannot ever be called a tradition. That is a commandment given to all men everywhere.
There is no such thing as 'the' sinners prayer. That term, when used, is simply referring to when a person first turns to God in repentance for justification in Yeshua. There is no particular words or prayer that is said.

Or having the band play a special song while the offering is taken up.

Not a tradition of men as defined by scripture. No oral law.
No church has to play any music at any time. One Baptist church may play music and other may not. Maybe one Sunday they do and another Sunday they don't, again no set observance in church rules, no law.

Everything you have mentioned are not the same thing as traditions of men.
Would you say that saying the rosary is a tradition of men like the handwashing? An oral law?
I remember the French priest who told the nuns that they didn't need to say the rosary, he was arrested and kept in prison. That was hundreds of years ago but still at that time it was considered church law, has that changed?

 

[Hank77]

Another little tidbit. I've met Protestants in my parish who come because they are married to Catholics and want the family to attend Church together. They have no home church. Because they accept Real Presence, they are allowed to receive Eucharist, even though they are not in full communion with Rome.

Not all priests would even ask. In the summer many people on vacation would come to our church. They weren't asked what they believed. If they went forward to receive the sacrament it was given to them without hesitation.

 

[Tangible]

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

That wasn't the point I was addressing. And yes, I realize that. However, it's not just a blanket recognition. It has to be a Christian baptism, the washing of water with the Word, in the name of the Triune God. Mormon or Oneness baptisms are not valid.

Now if they would only do the same with Holy Communion where the Real Presence is discerned and confessed ...

 

[Goodbook]

I think it would take blind faith or they convinced themselves it was good to join, possibly cos of family pressure or they wanted to marry a catholic. I dont see any other reasons.

God has never told me to join any catholic church, in fact, He tells me to stay away from it.
So it just seems like a weird question to me.

I know heaps of ex catholics. But no ex-non catholics. I would be very surprised if a born again believer up and joined the catholic church. It would really only happen if they somehow married a catholic. Which is what a lot of people seem to do that were not catholic before.

Of course catholics read scripture, but only take what conforms to their church doctrine. Theres heaps of scripture in the bible that is contrary to their church doctrine that I think they deliberately gloss over.

OP why do you ask?

 

[miamited]

Hi hank,

Since you bring up annulments, if I may expound. You mention that the RCC in some cases will authorize one in the cases of physical abuse or desertion. That isn't actually the whole truth as far as the reasons under which the RCC grants annulments. The RCC has devised this scheme by which they can actually bring about the result of a divorce without actually having to use that word. Example:

My parents were married for 25 years. My father had often been seeing other women throughout this period of time. Not always, of course, but it was fairly regular that he would have a 'girlfriend'. He was a man with a wandering eye and I loved him as my father and it wasn't until I was well into my teens that I caught on to his activities. My parents marriage had had its rough patches throughout those 25 years, but from their union 4 children were born. However, 25 years was to be the end of their marriage. My father was then sleeping with his secretary at work and had been for quite sometime. Of course, the secretary that he was sleeping with was a 'good' catholic girl.

After the legal divorce, my father and the secretary (the 'good' catholic girl) wanted to be married. However, being a 'good' catholic girl, she would only marry my father if it would be sanctioned by the 'church'. Of course, my father was not a part of the catholic organization throughout all of this time, but after his divorce and while continuing his relationship with the 'good' catholic girl, he had converted and I suppose done all the catechism and what not that brings one into their fold. So, my father applied for an annulment of his 25 year marriage to my mother. Now my mother had never been physically or mentally abusive to my father. She had never abandoned the marriage bed and they had been married by a 'christian' pastor - my grandfather. He had been and was a preacher of the truth for all of his life. He became a pastor as his very first job and pastored up until his health just wouldn't allow it any longer, but even in his very late years he was often called to fill in for vacationing or temporarily empty pulpits. He was a godly man and a praying man and spent his life teaching the love of Christ. My parents were married in his fellowship in a sanctuary with all the accouterments that a formal wedding usually has. My mother wore a lovely white wedding gown and my father stood dapper looking in his fine tuxedo. It was a real wedding performed in the presence and with the knowledge that they were being joined together under God's decree of joining two flesh to become one.

However, the RCC, and I was never privy to the actual testimony that my father gave them in his request, granted the annulment. My father married the 'good' catholic girl and life goes on.

This is probably one of the main reasons that I would never be a part of such a farcical group. How in the world someone can think that they can make a determination as to whether a marriage of 25 years was a 'real' marriage or not just absolutely escapes me. How, with the supposed authority of God, a man can just up and say that a marriage performed in the 'church', of course catholics won't agree that their marriage was 'in' the 'church', wasn't valid is totally outside of my limited ability to understand or comprehend. And all 'good' catholics are ok with these things simply because they happen with the 'churches' blessings.

I don't agree that the 'church' has such authority. Two people who commit their lives together in marriage, even if it's not done in a fellowship service, are married. If the two stand and vow to each other that they are committed to each other until death do they part, they are married. As I honestly understand, and I believe the Scriptures teach, my father's relationship and marriage to his secretary was nothing more or less than fornication and the 'good' catholic girl married a divorced man. But, the catholic organization teaches that they have the power and authority to break the vows that two people make before God and to God. They teach that they have the power and authority to make things that are, as if they were not.

Thanks for allowing me to give my testimony in these things.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Albion]

Yours is an account that could be told by most of the people involved with one of the approximately 100,000 annulments that are granted annually by "the Church" in the USA alone. All that is necessary is for the one seeking the annulment to say that he wasn't fully aware of what he was getting into with marriage at the time of the ceremony. The other spouse, usually the victimized one, isn't even allowed to comment or testify to the accuracy of the facts as alleged. Of course, nothing is finalized unless the money is paid to the church...and it's a lot more than many people suspect.

It's ironic, I've always thought, that Henry VIII was denied an annulment--not a divorce but an annulment for having been married, in a political arrangement, to his brother's widow, which was against church regulations--whereas today the same "Church that never changes" grants hundreds of thousands of actual divorces, justifying that policy by calling them "annulments."

Hi hank,

Since you bring up annulments, if I may expound. You mention that the RCC in some cases will authorize one in the cases of physical abuse or desertion. That isn't actually the whole truth as far as the reasons under which the RCC grants annulments. The RCC has devised this scheme by which they can actually bring about the result of a divorce without actually having to use that word. Example:

My parents were married for 25 years. My father had often been seeing other women throughout this period of time. Not always, of course, but it was fairly regular that he would have a 'girlfriend'. He was a man with a wandering eye and I loved him as my father and it wasn't until I was well into my teens that I caught on to his activities. My parents marriage had had its rough patches throughout those 25 years, but from their union 4 children were born. However, 25 years was to be the end of their marriage. My father was then sleeping with his secretary at work and had been for quite sometime. Of course, the secretary that he was sleeping with was a 'good' catholic girl.

After the legal divorce, my father and the secretary (the 'good' catholic girl) wanted to be married. However, being a 'good' catholic girl, she would only marry my father if it would be sanctioned by the 'church'. Of course, my father was not a part of the catholic organization throughout all of this time, but after his divorce and while continuing his relationship with the 'good' catholic girl, he had converted and I suppose done all the catechism and what not that brings one into their fold. So, my father applied for an annulment of his 25 year marriage to my mother. Now my mother had never been physically or mentally abusive to my father. She had never abandoned the marriage bed and they had been married by a 'christian' pastor - my grandfather. He had been and was a preacher of the truth for all of his life. He became a pastor as his very first job and pastored up until his health just wouldn't allow it any longer, but even in his very late years he was often called to fill in for vacationing or temporarily empty pulpits. He was a godly man and a praying man and spent his life teaching the love of Christ. My parents were married in his fellowship in a sanctuary with all the accouterments that a formal wedding usually has. My mother wore a lovely white wedding gown and my father stood dapper looking in his fine tuxedo. It was a real wedding performed in the presence and with the knowledge that they were being joined together under God's decree of joining two flesh to become one.

However, the RCC, and I was never privy to the actual testimony that my father gave them in his request, granted the annulment. My father married the 'good' catholic girl and life goes on.

This is probably one of the main reasons that I would never be a part of such a farcical group. How in the world someone can think that they can make a determination as to whether a marriage of 25 years was a 'real' marriage or not just absolutely escapes me. How, with the supposed authority of God, a man can just up and say that a marriage performed in the 'church', of course catholics won't agree that their marriage was 'in' the 'church', wasn't valid is totally outside of my limited ability to understand or comprehend. And all 'good' catholics are ok with these things simply because they happen with the 'churches' blessings.

I don't agree that the 'church' has such authority. Two people who commit their lives together in marriage, even if it's not done in a fellowship service, are married. If the two stand and vow to each other that they are committed to each other until death do they part, they are married. As I honestly understand, and I believe the Scriptures teach, my father's relationship and marriage to his secretary was nothing more or less than fornication and the 'good' catholic girl married a divorced man. But, the catholic organization teaches that they have the power and authority to break the vows that two people make before God and to God. They teach that they have the power and authority to make things that are, as if they were not.

Thanks for allowing me to give my testimony in these things.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi albion,

Thanks for your input. As I said, this particular point really sticks in my craw. I guess because it did personally effect me. I remember my mother saying that as the catholic organization actually sees it, we four children were bastards since we were conceived and born by parents who were never married. I had a friend at one time, who still held on to her claim of being a catholic, even though the 'church' had refused to baptize her children when they were babies because they were seen as bastard children, unworthy of their practice of baptizing babies.

I had another friend who had converted from the catholic organization who was always giving testimony that she had never really read the Scriptures for herself while practicing catholicism and was never encouraged to. At one point, she was even told that it wasn't necessary. If she had any questions just come to the priest and he would explain things to her. She was one of the most joyful believers I have ever met once she got out from under their thumb. Always sharing the gospel with total strangers and always had a song about Christ to sing. Little ditties and such. She and I shared in working in a homeless ministry and it was her true testimony that real joy in the Lord can only be found outside of the aforementioned affiliation. Of course, by the time we met she had read the Scriptures through several times and she believed that her eyes were opened through the Scriptures and not through the teachings or practices of the catholic organization. She even once said to me, "Oh a great veil had been thrown over my eyes when I was there."

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted