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

[miamited]

I have to get nit picky here or my point will be lost.
1. I gave a list of groups of which ALL the people in them reject the Catholic church: non-Christians, ex-Catholics, Fundamentalists.
2. Christianity is not a similar group because NOT ALL of the people in it reject the Catholic church.
3. I was asked why I didn't include Christianity in my list of groups, and I'm trying to clarify.

It's like when you were a kid playing the game, "One of these things is not like the others."

Hi OH,

First, you didn't qualify that you were only seeking groups in which all the people in that group reject the thesis. You merely asked, of a question that stated 'x', who these people would be and then listed 3 that you apparently think might fit the bill. Are you then claiming that there are no 'fundamentalists' among your group? There are no catholics who believe the fundamentals of the Scriptures? Here are a couple of definitions for you to ponder:

Fundamentalism has been defined by George Marsden as the demand for a strict adherence to certain theological doctrines, in reaction against Modernist theology.

A fundamentalist stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

You don't have any of those in your fellowship, right?

If so, then by your definition, you also cannot include 'fundamentalists' in your list because that would also overlap into the catholic subset. Because by your definition you wrote as to why you couldn't include 'christians': NOT ALL of the people in it reject the Catholic church. If not, then you can see just exactly why many 'christians' and 'born again believers' aren't willing to join with your fellowships and I think that pretty clearly answers the OP's question way back in post 1. Which, by the way, is what many on this thread have been saying.

You're doing a fairly good job of clarifying your position, I'm just not in agreement that your position is right and attempting to show why that is.

Nuff said!

God bless you
In Christ, Ted

 

[BobRyan]

Hi OH,

First, you didn't qualify that you were only seeking groups in which all the people in that group reject the thesis. You merely asked, of a question that stated 'x', who these people would be and then listed 3 that you apparently think might fit the bill. Are you then claiming that there are no 'fundamentalists' among your group? There are no catholics who believe the fundamentals of the Scriptures? Here are a couple of definitions for you to ponder:

Fundamentalism has been defined by George Marsden as the demand for a strict adherence to certain theological doctrines, in reaction against Modernist theology.

A fundamentalist stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

You don't have any of those in your fellowship, right?

If so, then by your definition, you also cannot include 'fundamental-ists' in your list because that would also overlap into the catholic subset.

That is a good point.

There may very well be Catholics that are "virgin-birthists" and "literal-resurrection-ists" and "literal 7 day creation week-ists" and "Jonah really swallowed by a fish-ists" and "world-wide flood-ists" -- just as is the case with the "Fundamentalists".

I think we have to give those Catholics their due as well.

 

[miamited]

Because when you list the group as a group which rejects Catholicism, you are saying that all Christians reject Catholicism. All the other groups in the list followed the rule: ALL ex-Catholics reject the Catholic, all Fundamntalists reject the Catholic Church, all non-Christians. ALL. All isn't true for 'Christians."

Hi OH,

No. The post was written that 'people' not 'groups' reject the RCC... And your question in return was what 'people' not 'groups' hold to such a belief. Now, in order to justify your statement, you want to change the question to be about 'groups' and not just 'people'.

So, there are 'people' who count themselves among the 'group' of Christianity that don't agree with the RCC. No one has ever defined or, even yourself, further clarified that 'now we are talking entire defined groups, not just 'people'.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi bob,

I agree. I've had discussions with OH before and he/she (I'm guessing she since they post such a cute cat picture for a profile pic) seems to preach from a position of indoctrination. I say that because when you start to press on issues a lot of confusion comes up in their ability to support said position and it often falls into, what I call, non-sensical gobbledygook.

Just as here, they have begun to argue against your statement concerning people and she has jumped from people to groups and further defined that said 'groups' must be disallowed if any of 'said' group could be practicing catholics. Total nonsense from my point of view, but I always allow to each their own truth.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Open Heart]

Interesting that you admit that they do identify doctrinal differences as their reason - but then claim this is not valid for them to say that. Yet it is impossible that they could be part of their new Christian community for many weeks before they 'detected' doctrinal differences.

I say it because they don't come into that new Church with doctrinal differences in tow. They learn about them while they are there in the new Church. These then become "supporting reasons" that make the conversion easier, even if they are not the primary reason.

 

[Open Heart]

While it is true that "some" Baptists (non-Catholic of whatever denomination) might join the RCC because of a marriage obligation - so that they "still believe Baptist doctrine - and not anything the RCC teaches" - I think it is more likely that a practicing Catholic - who is also ex-Baptist cannot go very long before they really need to accept some Catholic doctrine that is not held by Baptists.

There is no such thing as a Baptist that converts to Catholicism and still holds Baptist doctrine, unless they lied. I'm not talking about liars or people who just tag along with their wife to Mass. I said converts. It is a requirement of converts to vow before the entire assembly that they agree with Catholic teaching. Now becoming comfortable with an entirely new church culture is a different question, and certainly it's part of conversion, but I don't think our topic needs to go into that.

 

[Open Heart]

Albion and I have some points of difference and some points where we do not differ.

It was worded ambiguously, and I'm sorry. I meant to say that both you and Albion are painting with too broad a brush.

 

[Open Heart]

Fine - then the "body of Christ outside of the RCC" works. It is qualified.

Well worded.

 

[Open Heart]

You might be right.

have they also been complaining about "Sola Scriptura" on this board?

The subthread began as a response to this statement:

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.

 

[Open Heart]

First, you didn't qualify that you were only seeking groups in which all the people in that group reject the thesis.

I did. The nature of a list is to say we are looking at things of this sort. It was MY LIST that I MADE. You want me to add "Christian" and "born again believver" onto the list, and I'm saying, no way. Those don't fit the list. Look at the list. I quite deliberately divided "persons" into particular categories for a reason. I'm not going to change that reason or alter the criteria of my list.

And FWIW I think this subthread has devolved into absolute stupidity.

 

[Hank77]

There is no such thing as a Baptist that converts to Catholicism and still holds Baptist doctrine, unless they lied. I'm not talking about liars or people who just tag along with their wife to Mass. I said converts. It is a requirement of converts to vow before the entire assembly that they agree with Catholic teaching.

Huh.....no. I was baptisted in the RCC as an adult back in 1970 and there was no such requirement and still isn't. I received the Eucharist without doing any such thing. My baptism, confirmation, and receiving of the Eucharist was done all at the same time and in a private ceremony with only godparents and those I invited.
The RCC is not Jewish but does follow a lot of the ceremonial law. They actually follow the Law in this particular instance circumcision/baptism more closely than the Orthodox Jews. Which isn't surprising seeing the OJ follow oral law.
"A person who is baptized in the Catholic Church becomes a Catholic at that moment. One’s initiation is deepened by confirmation and the Eucharist, but one becomes a Catholic at baptism. This is true for children who are baptized Catholic (and receive the other two sacraments later) and for adults who are baptized, confirmed, and receive the Eucharist at the same time."
"Those who have been validly baptized outside the Church become Catholics by making a profession of the Catholic faith and being formally received into the Church. This is normally followed immediately by confirmation and the Eucharist."
http://www.catholic.com/documents/how-to-become-a-catholic

I believe you had said in another thread that you practiced Orthodox Judaism for five years. That would say to me that you were a convert not natural born? If you actually converted then you were required to live in a Orthodox community, be sponsored by a rabbi, and subject to the review by the Beit Din. It takes about 2 yrs. to convert and only then is one accepted by vowing to the beliefs, laws (both written and oral), baptisted, etc.

 

[Open Heart]

No. The post was written that 'people' not 'groups' reject the RCC...

I wrote the post. I know what the post said. I said "people" and then I gave a list of groups. It is obvious that by people I was referring to groups of people that shared things in common, one of those things being a rejection of Catholic doctrine.

I am loosing patience with this.

 

[Open Heart]

Huh.....no. I was baptisted in the RCC as an adult back in 1970 and there was no such requirement and still isn't. I received the Eucharist without doing any such thing. My baptism, confirmation, and receiving of the Eucharist was done all at the same time and in a private ceremony with only godparents and those I invited.
The RCC is not Jewish but does follow a lot of the ceremonial law. They actually follow the Law in this particular instance circumcision/baptism more closely than the Orthodox Jews. Which isn't surprising seeing the OJ follow oral law.
"A person who is baptized in the Catholic Church becomes a Catholic at that moment. One’s initiation is deepened by confirmation and the Eucharist, but one becomes a Catholic at baptism. This is true for children who are baptized Catholic (and receive the other two sacraments later) and for adults who are baptized, confirmed, and receive the Eucharist at the same time."
"Those who have been validly baptized outside the Church become Catholics by making a profession of the Catholic faith and being formally received into the Church. This is normally followed immediately by confirmation and the Eucharist."
http://www.catholic.com/documents/how-to-become-a-catholic

I believe you had said in another thread that you practiced Orthodox Judaism for five years. That would say to me that you were a convert not natural born? If you actually converted then you were required to live in a Orthodox community, be sponsored by a rabbi, and subject to the review by the Beit Din. It takes about 2 yrs. to convert and only then is one accepted by vowing to the beliefs, laws (both written and oral), baptisted, etc.

I don't know if they used a rite for you that was other than the Easter Vigil ceremony, but at that one, the candidates affirm their belief in what the Church teaches. I would think that even if your liturgy were different, that it would still be explained to you that you cannot become a Catholic without accepting Catholic teaching.

 

[BobRyan]

The subthread began as a response to this statement:

Your statement that the EO and OO don't mind ignoring the "sola scriptura" test when it comes to determining if the RCC doctrine is correct ... is something I wanted to see confirmed.

 

[BobRyan]

Like Albion, I think you are painting with too broad a brush. They don't all have the same reason. Many ex-catholics leave the church because they want to do things the Church teaches against, i.e. A lot convert to protestant churches because the small ones tend to have a greater sense of community and take care of each other--that's the same reason that Mormonism gets many converts.

L
I think very, VERY few people actually convert for doctrinal reasons, though they may spout doctrinal differences after conversion. I'm talking about converts to Catholicism as well.

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68404124, member: 235244"]

I have met many many ex-Catholics in my own denomination and in several evangelical denominations - not one of them that I ever met or saw making a statement on social media - gives the reasons you list above so far. All of them claim they have some doctrinal point of difference, even if some of them "also had" this or that critique about lack of personal touch. In many cases when they make the change it is at the 'cost' of personal touch with former friends, or sometimes even close family.

Interesting that you admit that they do identify doctrinal differences as their reason - but then claim this is not valid for them to say that. Yet it is impossible that they could be part of their new Christian community for many weeks before they 'detected' doctrinal differences.

While it is true that "some" Baptists (non-Catholic of whatever denomination) might join the RCC because of a marriage obligation - so that they "still believe Baptist doctrine - and not anything the RCC teaches" - I think it is more likely that a practicing Catholic - who is also ex-Baptist cannot go very long before they really need to accept some Catholic doctrine that is not held by Baptists.[/QUOTE]

There is no such thing as a Baptist that converts to Catholicism and still holds Baptist doctrine, unless they lied. I'm not talking about liars or people who just tag along with their wife to Mass. I said converts. It is a requirement of converts to vow before the entire assembly that they agree with Catholic teaching. Now becoming comfortable with an entirely new church culture is a different question, and certainly it's part of conversion, but I don't think our topic needs to go into that.

Then you agree that a doctrinal change is very much part of their joining the RCC.

And not too surprisingly - also the same thing when they leave it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dialogist]

Thanks for any responses to the thread title.

LOL - I don't know if you noticed, but that is a Russian Orthodox church mounted on the tank.

I am a former Catholic who converted to the Orthodox Church. No one would be happier than me if the Roman Catholic Church could reconcile with the Orthodox Church, but I think there is very little chance of that happening during my lifetime. I guess my answer would be, "It would take the Roman Catholic Church' reconciling its theology with Orthodox theology so that it could come into communion with the East." Then I wouldn't have to change parishes.

 

[BobRyan]

LOL - I don't know if you noticed, but that is a Russian Orthodox church mounted on the tank.

I am a former Catholic who converted to the Orthodox Church. No one would be happier than me if the Roman Catholic Church could reconcile with the Orthodox Church, but I think there is very little chance of that happening during my lifetime. I guess my answer would be, "It would take the Roman Catholic Church' reconciling its theology with Orthodox theology so that it could come into communion with the East." Then I wouldn't have to change parishes.

If you were to join an RCC parish tomorrow - which of your current doctrinal beliefs would you have to change?

Which ones would you have to add - that you now believe to be wrong?

 

[LoveofTruth]

It would take a total reformation of the RCC doctrine and gatherings and whole structure. Basically the RCC would have to join the christian church not the other way around. It would take a miracle.

 

[Hank77]

I don't know if they used a rite for you that was other than the Easter Vigil ceremony, but at that one, the candidates affirm their belief in what the Church teaches. I would think that even if your liturgy were different, that it would still be explained to you that you cannot become a Catholic without accepting Catholic teaching.

Do babies have any knowledge of the teachings when they are brought into the RCC, no, and yet they are members. So it was with me. I didn't have to deny some other faith because I had never been baptisted into any other faith. So for the RCC I was the same as a baby but old enough to understand as much as a child being confirmed and receiving the Eucharist. Many who grow up in the RCC become adults and realize that they don't know the scriptures and have never been born again. So it was with me and some of my close friends and their families. Some of them have stayed in the RCC and others left.
In my spouse's immediate family we have two members who are RCC and others who are Baptist, Pentacostal, and Non-Denominational. The two who are RCC believe the rest of us are at the minimum still part pagan, especially the wife, who was raised RCC. She will bring up religion and then lectures us about converting, about spending time in Purgatory, etc.. but won't listen to anything that we have to say. When we try to discuss actual scripture she avoids it and only wants to talk about the doctrines of the RCC. I find that very strange.

 

[Hank77]

opps sorry double post