Are there Protestants that don't believe that the RCC is the original church Jesus founded himself?

[Randy_Carson]

No, Randy, it is firmly still right there staring everyone in the face, not just me. The Greek word used isn’t implying something “pre-belief” or “pre-baptism” or “pre-membership.” The context of the verse is about sharing what we have with those who teach us, not that we are outside the faith. Further, it did not just happen on Pentecost that believers joined in one day, in fact, as you know, you can read about conversions throughout the NT. The RCC has made the journey into a winding jungle that can take a year or longer to wind up in the church. That is most assuredly not what is in scripture.

But it was the practice of the early church. Simply Google catechumenate and see what you find.

The Catholic Church today is doing nothing that was not done in the late Apostolic period.

Initiation in the Early Church

In the early Church, those interested in joining presented themselves to the catechists and had their names inscribed in lists kept by the deacons. The candidates, or catechumens, had to be accompanied by believers who could testify to the candidates’ intentions and commitment to the Christian faith. After the candidates were enrolled and presented, their lives, occupations, and motives for joining the Church were examined. They were questioned rigorously to insure that they could actually live the Christian life, with no pagan customs or immorality. The period of preparation generally lasted three years, and when it was over, the candidates spent Lent preparing intensively for Baptism. During this Lenten period they were examined a second time, and then their names were inscribed by the bishop in the “Book of the Church.” The Lenten rites also included the exorcism and the final rite of renunciation of Satan and joining with Christ.

 

[Nelka]

 

[Kliska]

But it was the practice of the early church. Simply Google catechumenate and see what you find.

Perhaps it was a practice of “the early church” in the “late Apostolic period” as called and defined by the RCC, but it definitely wasn’t the practice of the New Testament church that included the actual Apostles themselves as recorded in Holy Scripture. Others have already admitted they can see the changes, so there is either a good reason for them or not, and on which it is, we disagree.

The Catholic Church today is doing nothing that was not done in the late Apostolic period.

Initiation in the Early Church

In the early Church, those interested in joining presented themselves to the catechists and had their names inscribed in lists kept by the deacons. The candidates, or catechumens, had to be accompanied by believers who could testify to the candidates’ intentions and commitment to the Christian faith. After the candidates were enrolled and presented, their lives, occupations, and motives for joining the Church were examined. They were questioned rigorously to insure that they could actually live the Christian life, with no pagan customs or immorality. The period of preparation generally lasted three years, and when it was over, the candidates spent Lent preparing intensively for Baptism. During this Lenten period they were examined a second time, and then their names were inscribed by the bishop in the “Book of the Church.” The Lenten rites also included the exorcism and the final rite of renunciation of Satan and joining with Christ.

Exactly, thank you for the stark contrast as held up by what we see in scripture; people hearing the word, believing, and being baptized the same day.

 

[Kal2012]

I am a Protestant convert to Catholicism, and I previously believed Jesus founded “the church”, i.e., every person collectively who was a Christian worldwide, but not a singular institution that itself was the “one true Church.” I thought the Catholic Church was simply the creation of pagans being forced into Christianity shortly after the reign of Constantine. Before that everything was “Protestantish”. But lo and behold, that was most emphatically not so… It was further history and Scripture study that changed my mind.

Yep - agree. When I was a Protestant, the RCC may have been the ‘original’ church, but it wasn’t “really” Christian anymore.

 

[Duane1966]

No, Randy, it is firmly still right there staring everyone in the face, not just me. The Greek word used isn’t implying something “pre-belief” or “pre-baptism” or “pre-membership.” The context of the verse is about sharing what we have with those who teach us, not that we are outside the faith. Further, it did not just happen on Pentecost that believers joined in one day, in fact, as you know, you can read about conversions throughout the NT. The RCC has made the journey into a winding jungle that can take a year or longer to wind up in the church. That is most assuredly not what is in scripture.

From orthodoxwiki: In the ancient Church, the catechumenate, or time during which one is a catechumen, often lasted for as much as three years and included not only participation in the divine services but also catechesis, formal instruction from a teacher, often the bishop or appointed catechist.

I have listened to several speakers on the radio over the years. They said that in the very beginning, when the Church was not yet persecuted, the time it took for someone to convert to Christianity was short. But later, as the Church began to become persecuted, where to be found a Christian in certain places meant martyrdom (like in certain places today), the time it took to become accepted into the Church was expanded to three years. Christians wanted to be sure that the people joining, were not going to turn around and hand them over to the authorities.

By the way for anyone who thinks that the Catholic Church wasn’t there until Constantine, how do you reconcile that with this following historical fact? Taken from this website catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2014/12/pope-victor-and-second-century-papacy.html

Part 1.

Pope Victor and the Second-Century Papacy
Pope St. Victor I
In October, I wrote about a fascinating conflict in the first-century church of Corinth. When a dispute broke out within their church, they wrote to Rome. Pope Clement wrote back, issued some orders, and resolved the dispute. Under any circumstances, this would be interesting, because it shows the way that papal authority worked in the primitive Church. But this is all the more telling in that all of this happened while the Apostle John was still alive.

Today, I want to share an epilogue, of sorts, to that story. About a century after Clement intervened in Corinth, we find the papacy once again involved in Asia Minor. The pope was St. Victor, who reigned from 189-99. The controversy was primarily a liturgical one. The various parts of the early Church had different liturgical calendars for Easter, and different Lenten periods of fasting prior to Easter.

At the heart of the dispute was this: in Asia Minor, in those churches dating back to the Apostle John, Easter was celebrated on the 14th of Nisan, the date of the Jewish Passover. Most of the Church rejected this Passover Easter practice, since it meant Easter was frequently on a weekday. They always celebrated Easter on the Lord’s Day, Sunday, even if it meant it didn’t sync up with the Jewish calendar.

Several popes tolerated these contrary liturgical practices, since each practice traced back to at least one Apostle. Pope Victor took a different course, deciding to unify the entire Church’s Easter calendar. He ordered the Asian churches to abandon their old practice in favor of the Easter Sunday dating. They refused. The Church historian Eusebius records their response, written by a bishop named Polycrates. Their basis for refusal is that this was the unbroken practice of the Apostle John, St. Polycarp, and others.

The letter has a few interesting characteristics. First, it refers to the Apostle “John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate.” If these second-century bishops are to be believed, this means that the Apostle John wore the golden plate of a high priest (Exodus 28:36-38). This gives us a clear indication of the fact the early Church understood their clergy in a sacerdotal way: that is, we have priests, not just pastors.

Second, the letter answers Pope Victor’s demands by quoting Acts 5:29, “We ought to obey God rather than man.” But that’s St. Peter’s response to the high priest. It’s not the sort of thing you say to someone beneath you. So even in arguing that Victor has exceeded his authority over them, the Asian bishops aren’t really refuting that he has authority there. As Campion says, Pope Victor isn’t treated like a foreign power or an outside meddler.

Third, both sides in the dispute are appealing to Tradition, to chains of unbroken practice from the Apostles down to the present (and since John seems to have instituted a different practice than the other Apostles, both sides of the dispute seem to be right). We have what could be a beautiful story about coexisting liturgical traditions, the embrace of different customs, and the diversity of the Body of Christ. Only that’s not how this story turns out. Instead, it was an ugly clash of obedience and authority on the one hand, with liturgical tradition on the other.

That’s because Pope Victor responded to the Asian bishops’ disobedience with a mass excommunication of those who refuse to switch to Easter Sunday. Other bishops – even ones who agreed with Victor – were, quite reasonably, shocked at the harshness of this punishment. St. Irenaeus (who held to an Easter Sunday date, and a believer in the Roman papacy) was one of the bishops who intervened to ensure that cooler heads prevailed. He pointed out that Pope Anacletus had communed with St. Polycarp, despite their difference on this matter.

 

[Duane1966]

Part 2.

It’s not entirely clear (at least to me, and to the sources that I’ve read) what happened to the excommunication after Irenaeus and the other bishops spoke up. Eusebius concludes his account by saying simply:

Thus Irenæus, who truly was well named [Irenaeus' name comes from the Greek word for peace], became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this mooted question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers of the churches

This leaves open the question of why the question was moot. Was it because Victor recanted the excommunications? Or because the excommunications were there to stay? My hunch is the former, simply because we don’t hear of the excommunications later on, but that’s all it is: a hunch.

In any case, the ultimate outcome of the conflict is striking: Victor won. Asia Minor switched from Passover Easter (a tradition established by the Apostle John!) to Easter Sunday, at the demand of the pope. Within a relatively short period of time, those still holding on to the 14th of Nisan dating have been reduced to an insignificant pocket, and as far as I know, they have since gone extinct.

Now, in a way, this story might affirm Protestant fears about the papacy, given the harshness of Victor’s response, and the Apostolic origins of the Asian liturgical calendar. But it’s worth remembering that this story isn’t from some imperious Renaissance Pope. It’s from one of the early Christian martyr popes, and the whole thing happened before the end of the second century. Literally, it’ll be over a century before we even arrive at the Edict of Milan’s legalization of Christianity, much less anything like the Council of Nicaea. Christians of a certain stripe long for the early days of Christianity, imagining highly-centralized structures like the papacy to be a later development (or invention). But this is early Christianity. The papacy has been at the heart of the Catholic Church from the start, as history shows us with both Pope Clement and Pope Victor.

 

[Duane1966]

Some questions for those who think that RCIA is too long.

In the early Church we see that some were accepted and baptized into Christianity in one day, do we know how many turned around and abandoned the faith the next?

Do you think it is an advantage for Protestant churches to accept someone as a member the first service they go to, even if that person is going to switch to another denomination within a month? (My sister has belonged to multiple denominations and churches, all within the past ten years. Everyone of them was “perfect” and “spiritually fulfilling” at the time.)

I listen to the Journey Home radio program all the time.

Several of the clergy converts say that there were several verses that they either did not understand, or they felt that they could not preach on because the message in that verse seemed to be in conflict with what their individual church or denomination believed.

In light of the above paragraph, is that healthy for the members of that congregation, to get a buffet of Scripture, where you only pick and choose what you like?

Several of the converts said it is a better model that the Church uses because before you are accepted, all the cards are on the table, YOU KNOW FULL WELL WHAT YOU ARE GETTING INTO. Several reverts said it was amazing how easy it is to leave the Church and join another denomination, and then leave that one for a different one, because something was said or done that they didn’t like.

In light of the above paragraph, for acceptance into the Faith, who has a better model?

Finally, church hopping can be a lot like marriages. I think it is interesting and somehow a direct corollary that the explosion of divorce in Christendom has coincided with the explosion of individual churches in Christendom. (Some institution should give me a million dollar grant to study this phenomenon). And yet, as it has become acceptable to marry someone after one, or a few dates, and divorce them a few months later for a “better” model, so too it has become acceptable, or even smiled upon for one to join a church instantly, and then trade it in for a “better” church within a few months.

Does anyone really think that this is acceptable to Jesus?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Perhaps it was a practice of “the early church” in the “late Apostolic period” as called and defined by the RCC, but it definitely wasn’t the practice of the New Testament church that included the actual Apostles themselves as recorded in Holy Scripture. Others have already admitted they can see the changes, so there is either a good reason for them or not, and on which it is, we disagree.

Exactly, thank you for the stark contrast as held up by what we see in scripture; people hearing the word, believing, and being baptized the same day.

Would you marry someone that you only met a couple of hours ago? No engagement period…just straight to the courthouse? Marriage is a big, lifelong commitment…just like being a follower of Jesus.

Why do you suppose, Kliska, that the Early Church STOPPED having people join the same day?

Could it be that experience taught the Church that some seed sprouted quickly but withered in the sun because it had no root as Jesus had taught?

Could it be that experience taught the Church that people needed to mature in their faith and commitment before joining so they wouldn’t fall away and be lost?

 

[Duane1966]

Would you marry someone that you only met a couple of hours ago? No engagement period…just straight to the courthouse? Marriage is a big, lifelong commitment…just like being a follower of Jesus.

Why do you suppose, Kliska, that the Early Church STOPPED having people join the same day?

Could it be that experience taught the Church that some seed sprouted quickly but withered in the sun because it had no root as Jesus had taught?

Could it be that experience taught the Church that people needed to mature in their faith and commitment before joining so they wouldn’t fall away and be lost?

Ummmm. You just stole my post, wording it differently.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Perhaps it was a practice of “the early church” in the “late Apostolic period” as called and defined by the RCC, but it definitely wasn’t the practice of the New Testament church that included the actual Apostles themselves as recorded in Holy Scripture. Others have already admitted they can see the changes, so there is either a good reason for them or not, and on which it is, we disagree.

Exactly, thank you for the stark contrast as held up by what we see in scripture; people hearing the word, believing, and being baptized the same day.

Orthodox and Catholics agree:

**JOINT COMMISSION FOR THE THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE BETWEEN
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE ORTHODOX CHURCH **

DOCUMENT SUPPLEMENT

Bari, June 1987

FAITH, SACRAMENTS
AND THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH

1. The early pattern included the following elements:
2. 1. For adults, a period of spiritual probation and instruction during which the catechumens were formed for their definitive incorporation into the Church;

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19870616_bari_en.html

 

[Thorolfr]

If you or another Protestant don’t believe, please tell me why.

I don’t think that Jesus Christ founded the Roman Catholic Church or that there was one unified church in the beginning. Rather, Christianity was really a kind of Judaism just as was the beginnings of what became Rabbinic Judaism. According to the blurb at Amazon about University of California Professor Daniel Boyarin’s book, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006):

The historical separation between Judaism and Christianity is often figured as a clearly defined break of a single entity into two separate religions. Following this model, there would have been one religion known as Judaism before the birth of Christ, which then took on a hybrid identity. Even before its subsequent division, certain beliefs and practices of this composite would have been identifiable as Christian or Jewish.In Border Lines, however, Daniel Boyarin makes a striking case for a very different way of thinking about the historical development that is the partition of Judaeo-Christianity.

There were no characteristics or features that could be described as uniquely Jewish or Christian in late antiquity, Boyarin argues. Rather, Jesus-following Jews and Jews who did not follow Jesus lived on a cultural map in which beliefs, such as that in a second divine being, and practices, such as keeping kosher or maintaining the Sabbath, were widely and variably distributed. The ultimate distinctions between Judaism and Christianity were imposed from above by “border-makers,” heresiologists anxious to construct a discrete identity for Christianity. By defining some beliefs and practices as Christian and others as Jewish or heretical, they moved ideas, behaviors, and people to one side or another of an artificial border—and, Boyarin significantly contends, invented the very notion of religion.

amazon.com/Border-Lines-Partition-Judaeo-Christianity-Divinations/dp/0812219864/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1419494524&sr=8-2&keywords=daniel+boyarin

There is also no evidence that Peter founded the Church in Rome. We know from Paul’s epistles that he knew Peter, but he does not mention him in his Epistle to the Romans which probably means that Peter was not there yet. There is also evidence that there were different and competing Christian groups including Gnostic Christians in Rome and elsewhere rather than a unified church in the early years of Christianity. There does not appear to have been one bishop (i.e. a pope) over all the different Christian groups in Rome until the second half of the 2nd century. See, University of Heidelberg Professor Peter Lampe’s book From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (Fortress Press, 2003).

amazon.com/Paul-Valentinus-Christians-First-Centuries/dp/B002SG7LB0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1419495038&sr=8-1&keywords=from+paul+to+valentinus+christians+at+rome+in+the+first+two+centuries

Other historian have also demonstrated that there was considerable friction between Paul on the one hand and other Christians in Jerusalem such as Peter and James the Lord’s brother. Even at this early date, this does not look like a unified church.

 

[whatsmyname]

In reply to Duane
Some questions for those who think that RCIA is too long.

1. In the early Church we see that some were accepted and baptized into Christianity in one day, do we know how many turned around and abandoned the faith the next?

How many cradle Catholics have abandoned the faith? Many. We’re sinful and have short attention spans. A long RCIA process isn’t a guarantee of anything, even a guarantee that the catechumens and candidates will learn anything much about the faith.

Also, are the sacraments God’s gift of grace to us, a special help that give us better understanding, stronger faith, resistance to temptation, etc? If so, don’t new believers need those sacraments as much or more than someone who is a practiced Catholic? Could the lack of that grace, lack of the sacraments, be the reason some weren’t strong enough to complete the RCIA process.

1. Do you think it is an advantage for Protestant churches to accept someone as a member the first service they go to, even if that person is going to switch to another denomination within a month?

I’ve never attended a Protestant church that allowed membership without the prospective member taking a class (some a one-day class, others months-long classes) and giving their testimony to the pastor/elders/deacons. I’m sure there must be churches that allow someone to join with no preparation, but I don’t know of any personally. I think it is critical to understand what your church believes and to share those beliefs before joining.

3.In light of the above paragraph, is that healthy for the members of that congregation, to get a buffet of Scripture, where you only pick and choose what you like?

I haven’t attended that type of church with poorly educated clergy. There are certainly plenty of resources for pastors to research, but I’ve also never attended a church where the pastor didn’t have a doctorate. More often than not, at my churches that didn’t use a common lectionary system of readings (or whatever you’d call that), the pastors did a series, going through one book of the Bible at a time or through certain doctrines over the course of several weeks or months. Nobody ever seemed to skip the difficult or boring passages.

1. In light of the above paragraph, for acceptance into the Faith, who has a better model?

My own personal experience has been that the Protestants have a better model in practice, but the Catholics probably have a better model in theory. By that I mean the Protestant Inquirers classes (multiple different denominations) I have attended had a group of pastors, elders and deacons explain in a very clear and concise manner exactly what the church believes and what expectations they had for me as a member. They then interviewed me, after I had learned about them and chosen to seek membership, to find out my background and beliefs and decided whether to accept me or not. The RCIA program in practice does not do that. Volunteers willy nilly choose to tell you any sort of random things that may or may not be church teaching, they treat everyone from devout mature baptized Christians to Muslims in fear of their lives for converting to completely ignorant pagans exactly the same. The process must take at least a year (or 9 months if that’s more convenient for them) regardless of your level of knowledge or your spirituality. Everyone must join the church on the same day of the year, Christian or not. That may not be the theory of RCIA, but it is the reality.

5.Finally, church hopping

Does anyone really think that this is acceptable to Jesus?

I’m 47 years old and I’ve moved to new towns or states 24 times in my life. I’ve church hopped a lot. I also spend 12 to 21 days traveling each month. For a year, I lived in Texas and attended church in Hawaii because I was always in Honolulu on Sundays. My practice when I move is not to look for the nearest (insert denomination name here) church. It is to look for a relatively conservative church with well-educated clergy. In the past, that’s been Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, non-denominational, Lutheran, Calvary Chapel, and a few others I’m sure I’m forgetting. Mostly I want to know, are they pro-life? Do they feed and care for the less fortunate? Are there good, meaty Bible studies and small groups? Are the senior pastors male? Do they prohibit gay clergy and gay marriage? Do they prohibit divorced/living together people from positions of church leadership? And yes, I prefer a pastor who is an interesting and informative speaker over one who puts me to sleep or spouts platitudes. Do they offer services at some time I can possibly attend?
I’ve found this in my local church in all of these denominations. Is it acceptable to Jesus? You’d have to ask Him. I move a lot. I go to a new church each time I move.

I’m looking at over a year in RCIA ahead of me. I’ve already lived here 2 years. I can’t fathom I’ll still be living in the same town when the church will allow me to join. I know for a fact a future Catholic church won’t let me join without going through their whole RCIA process. I’m also quite certain I will miss more than half of the RCIA processes (I’ve called them programs, classes and meetings in the past and each time been emphatically corrected that this is a process not a program or class, so I’ll call the weekly class a process) since I’ll be out of town, meaning I’ll have to spend at least another year trying to make up the missed processes.

 

[Duane1966]

In reply to Duane
Some questions for those who think that RCIA is too long.

1. In the early Church we see that some were accepted and baptized into Christianity in one day, do we know how many turned around and abandoned the faith the next?

How many cradle Catholics have abandoned the faith? Many. We’re sinful and have short attention spans. A long RCIA process isn’t a guarantee of anything, even a guarantee that the catechumens and candidates will learn anything much about the faith.

Also, are the sacraments God’s gift of grace to us, a special help that give us better understanding, stronger faith, resistance to temptation, etc? If so, don’t new believers need those sacraments as much or more than someone who is a practiced Catholic? Could the lack of that grace, lack of the sacraments, be the reason some weren’t strong enough to complete the RCIA process.

1. Do you think it is an advantage for Protestant churches to accept someone as a member the first service they go to, even if that person is going to switch to another denomination within a month?

I’ve never attended a Protestant church that allowed membership without the prospective member taking a class (some a one-day class, others months-long classes) and giving their testimony to the pastor/elders/deacons. I’m sure there must be churches that allow someone to join with no preparation, but I don’t know of any personally. I think it is critical to understand what your church believes and to share those beliefs before joining.

3.In light of the above paragraph, is that healthy for the members of that congregation, to get a buffet of Scripture, where you only pick and choose what you like?

I haven’t attended that type of church with poorly educated clergy. There are certainly plenty of resources for pastors to research, but I’ve also never attended a church where the pastor didn’t have a doctorate. More often than not, at my churches that didn’t use a common lectionary system of readings (or whatever you’d call that), the pastors did a series, going through one book of the Bible at a time or through certain doctrines over the course of several weeks or months. Nobody ever seemed to skip the difficult or boring passages.

1. In light of the above paragraph, for acceptance into the Faith, who has a better model?

My own personal experience has been that the Protestants have a better model in practice, but the Catholics probably have a better model in theory. By that I mean the Protestant Inquirers classes (multiple different denominations) I have attended had a group of pastors, elders and deacons explain in a very clear and concise manner exactly what the church believes and what expectations they had for me as a member. They then interviewed me, after I had learned about them and chosen to seek membership, to find out my background and beliefs and decided whether to accept me or not. The RCIA program in practice does not do that. Volunteers willy nilly choose to tell you any sort of random things that may or may not be church teaching, they treat everyone from devout mature baptized Christians to Muslims in fear of their lives for converting to completely ignorant pagans exactly the same. The process must take at least a year (or 9 months if that’s more convenient for them) regardless of your level of knowledge or your spirituality. Everyone must join the church on the same day of the year, Christian or not. That may not be the theory of RCIA, but it is the reality.

5.Finally, church hopping

Does anyone really think that this is acceptable to Jesus?

I’m 47 years old and I’ve moved to new towns or states 24 times in my life. I’ve church hopped a lot. I also spend 12 to 21 days traveling each month. For a year, I lived in Texas and attended church in Hawaii because I was always in Honolulu on Sundays. My practice when I move is not to look for the nearest (insert denomination name here) church. It is to look for a relatively conservative church with well-educated clergy. In the past, that’s been Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, non-denominational, Lutheran, Calvary Chapel, and a few others I’m sure I’m forgetting. Mostly I want to know, are they pro-life? Do they feed and care for the less fortunate? Are there good, meaty Bible studies and small groups? Are the senior pastors male? Do they prohibit gay clergy and gay marriage? Do they prohibit divorced/living together people from positions of church leadership? And yes, I prefer a pastor who is an interesting and informative speaker over one who puts me to sleep or spouts platitudes. Do they offer services at some time I can possibly attend?
I’ve found this in my local church in all of these denominations. Is it acceptable to Jesus? You’d have to ask Him. I move a lot. I go to a new church each time I move.

I’m looking at over a year in RCIA ahead of me. I’ve already lived here 2 years. I can’t fathom I’ll still be living in the same town when the church will allow me to join. I know for a fact a future Catholic church won’t let me join without going through their whole RCIA process. I’m also quite certain I will miss more than half of the RCIA processes (I’ve called them programs, classes and meetings in the past and each time been emphatically corrected that this is a process not a program or class, so I’ll call the weekly class a process) since I’ll be out of town, meaning I’ll have to spend at least another year trying to make up the missed processes.

Thanks for the reply. I would suggest talking to a priest, asking for private instruction, explain your situation. There is no reason that in your case, the process can’t be accelerated.

Merry Christmas!

 

[JonNC]

=Duane1966;12600465]Some questions for those who think that RCIA is too long.

In the early Church we see that some were accepted and baptized into Christianity in one day, do we know how many turned around and abandoned the faith the next?

Do you think it is an advantage for Protestant churches to accept someone as a member the first service they go to, even if that person is going to switch to another denomination within a month? (My sister has belonged to multiple denominations and churches, all within the past ten years. Everyone of them was “perfect” and “spiritually fulfilling” at the time.)

Can you direct me to a specific communion that practices this? Maybe a website where they explain this?

Finally, church hopping can be a lot like marriages. I think it is interesting and somehow a direct corollary that the explosion of divorce in Christendom has coincided with the explosion of individual churches in Christendom. (Some institution should give me a million dollar grant to study this phenomenon). And yet, as it has become acceptable to marry someone after one, or a few dates, and divorce them a few months later for a “better” model, so too it has become acceptable, or even smiled upon for one to join a church instantly, and then trade it in for a “better” church within a few months.

Are those that move from any given protestant communion to the Catholic Church considered “church hoppers”?

Does anyone really think that this is acceptable to Jesus?

Clearly not!

Jon

 

[Thorolfr]

Can you direct me to a specific communion that practices this? Maybe a website where they explain this?

I’ve been to a couple of other Protestant churches (Baptist and Presbyterian) before I became a Lutheran and none of them allowed anyone to become a member after the first service. Most churches I know of require a membership class of some sort before hand.

 

[wildrumpus]

Of course!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Can you direct me to a specific communion that practices this? Maybe a website where they explain this?

Are those that move from any given protestant communion to the Catholic Church considered “church hoppers”?

Clearly not!

Jon

I’ve been to a couple of other Protestant churches (Baptist and Presbyterian) before I became a Lutheran and none of them allowed anyone to become a member after the first service. Most churches I know of require a membership class of some sort before hand.

So, you guys are in agreement that http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/avatars/091219/bunny_stripes_50x50.gif is in error when she asserts that the Catholic Church is doing something unbiblical by not allowing people to join on day one.

 

[wildrumpus]

The Catholic (Universal) Church is often called “Roman” because its’ leader is the Bishop of Rome. The name “Roman Catholic” originated as a derogatory term in England to differentiate English “Catholics” (the Anglican communion) and the “papists”.

The Catholic Church is not Roman. It’s catholic. Universal. The Latin (Roman/Western) rite is one of 20-some other rites within the Church.

Most Catholics don’t take offense to being called “Roman Catholic” but if you’re aiming for political correctness, we’re just Catholic.

Not quite.

The word “catholic” with a lower-case ‘c’ means universal. That is why Christians, including non-Catholics, recite the Nicene creed, which includes “And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.” This is the one, true, universal church founded by Jesus Christ. It is His church family.

The word “Catholic” with an upper-case ‘c’ refers to a particular group of people, a subset of all believers. Some Catholics are offended by being called a Roman Catholic, and some are honored. It is a personal feeling and has different definitions depending on who you are asking. Sometimes Catholic means Roman Catholic (i.e., under the authority of the Pope in Rome), but sometimes it refers to Greek Orthodox.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not quite.

The word “catholic” with a lower-case ‘c’ means universal. That is why Christians, including non-Catholics, recite the Nicene creed, which includes “And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.” This is the one, true, universal church founded by Jesus Christ. It is His church family.

The word “Catholic” with an upper-case ‘c’ refers to a particular group of people, a subset of all believers. Some Catholics are offended by being called a Roman Catholic, and some are honored. It is a personal feeling and has different definitions depending on who you are asking. Sometimes Catholic means Roman Catholic (i.e., under the authority of the Pope in Rome), but sometimes it refers to Greek Orthodox.

The Catholic Church is not a subset of Christianity. ALL believers in Christ become members of His body. How many bodies does Jesus have? One. He promised to build ONE Church upon Peter, the rock.

That Church began calling itself the “Catholic Church” as early as the end of the first century or within the lifetime of the last living apostle, John.

 

[JonNC]

So, you guys are in agreement that http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/avatars/091219/bunny_stripes_50x50.gif is in error when she asserts that the Catholic Church is doing something unbiblical by not allowing people to join on day one.

Correct.

Jon