For Non-Catholics, why not join RCIA today and become Catholic?

[Napsack]

I’m just really curious as to the actually reason(s) people have for not becoming Catholic.

What specifically is keeping you away from the Church Christ established on St. Peter the Apostle? The Catholic Church.

In light of the wealth of Biblical and Historical proofs which clearly show that the Roman Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, why do people stay out of her?

I’d like to hear from you Non-Catholics. Thanks!

For the same reason I’m not the least bit interested in becoming Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness. I’m interested in the truth, not institutionalized rhetoric and propaganda.

 

[With_Questions]

You may not be aware, but this line of questioning is really condescending. Let me reword the same questions back at you.

I’m just really curious as to the actually reason(s) people have for not becoming Catholic.

I’m just really curious as to the actual reason(s) people have forf not becoming .

What specifically is keeping you away from the Church Christ established on St. Peter the Apostle? The Catholic Church.

What specifically is keeping you away from <a denomination that is clearly superior to yours, which of course is my denomination>.

In light of the wealth of Biblical and Historical proofs which clearly show that the Roman Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, why do people stay out of her?

In light of the wealth of Biblical and Historical proofs which clearly show that , why do people stay out of .

I’d like to hear from you Non-Catholics. Thanks!

I’d like to hear from you . Thanks!

 

[gcnuss]

I’m just really curious as to the actually reason(s) people have for not becoming Catholic.

What specifically is keeping you away from the Church Christ established on St. Peter the Apostle? The Catholic Church.

In light of the wealth of Biblical and Historical proofs which clearly show that the Roman Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, why do people stay out of her?

I’d like to hear from you Non-Catholics. Thanks!

Monica,

I’m a Lutheran who remains a Lutheran because I have yet to be convinced that I should be anything else. I have not been persuaded that it is necessary to be subject to the Bishop of Rome in order to be fully Christian. What you refer to as “the wealth of Biblical and Historical proofs” are not as persuasive to me as they are to you. Perhaps the Holy Spirit hasn’t gotten hold of me yet.

All the same, I continue to pray for the unity of all Christians and
I consider it a blessing to converse with my brothers and sisters in Christ on this forum.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I wish it was that easy.
I am not baptized and arried to a catholic woman, for one year we have attended the church and i am just waiting for me to get baptized but it just delays.
One year is not enough says the priest it must take at least two years and during this time i am studying reading and all that.

Sometimes it really feels hopeless and i wanna go to another church and baptise there to have it done.
The church is not making it easy for the ones who wants to be a part of it.

I got previous marriages which will be declared invalid according to pauline privilege at the time of my baptism so my wife now also is set apart and cant take her communion until that day of baptism.

I have been talking to the priest about this over and over again but nothing happens i am not even counted as a catechumen yet after ONE year, and my wifes daughter is in the first communion classes.

But all the priest says is that God has time and it must take at least 2 years and we must continue to go to mass and so on.

Maybe, but just maybe i will be accepted as a catechumen at ashes wednesday because the priest says it is not so important to be instated as a catechumen or not because God knows what is in your heart.
Maybe he is right but for me it would make a difference as it would for me be a sign that i am progressing.

I was in catechesis classes last summer but after that not very much has happened.
I will not be in RCIA, the parish is small and the priest will himself hold the catechesis and he already knows that im not new to catholic faith.

As he said, you impress me more and more with your knowledge everytime we meet.

Well in my point of view delayance can be both good or bad some need more time and some do not, just because we are rather new in this parish my baptism is delayed and i dont see the reason to delay it more.
It could be done at this easter vigil so we could have our marriage convalidated and also my wife would be in communion with the church again.
But it is the priest who decide he was mentioning to me that maybe 2011 i can be baptised but i guess he forgot the year that already passed, but he always keep on saying that it must take two years.

In my opinion the church should be more flexible, some need more time and others already did the time they need some way or another.

The Church is much more flexible than she was in the past when it comes to converts. In the early days of the Church - around the 200’s to 700’s someone wanting to convert had to completely give up their former life, job, family, etc. and move in with a Catholic Christian Family and live with them learning the Faith day in and day out for 3 years all the while they were not even permitted to remain in the Mass from beginning to end, they had to leave after the Scripture Readings. It was only after their Baptism and Confirmation that they would be able to remain at the Mass during the Consecration of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

I understand your frustration, but perhaps it will be of some comfort what others in your situation had to endure before you…certainly they’d be jealous of your position today.

Blessings and Peace to you and your family! It is worth the struggle!

 

[NDfan]

I’m just really curious as to the actually reason(s) people have for not becoming Catholic.

What specifically is keeping you away from the Church Christ established on St. Peter the Apostle? The Catholic Church.

In light of the wealth of Biblical and Historical proofs which clearly show that the Roman Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, why do people stay out of her?

I’d like to hear from you Non-Catholics. Thanks!

Monica I grew up Catholic and after studying church History I don’t hold to the belief that the Roman Catholic church is the church Christ founded. I also disagree with some doctrines the church teaches and simply don’t feel comfortable going to a church that professes something I don’t believe in.

The wealth of proofs you claim don’t prove what you are proposing.

PEACE

 

[SingleMomMonica]

For the same reason I’m not the least bit interested in becoming Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness. I’m interested in the truth, not institutionalized rhetoric and propaganda.

Thank you for responding!

I was raised Baptist and understand how you’d never become a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness or Catholic because I was taught all 3 are satanic as you probably were as well.

But like you, I’m totally interested in the Truth. So I researched each of those religions as each claim to the be Truth. Mormon and Jehovah’s Witness Churches were easily dismissed based on their theology conflicting with the Bible and also with their own prior writings of theology which dismiss their current theology because it completely contradicts them.

In researching the claims of the Catholic Church and reading Eastern Orthodox Christian and Catholic Christian writings from the early centuries forward, reading the Bible, reading the canons of the early Church, reading the decisions of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils, reading the writings of those who attended the Council of Florence in the 1400’s, reading the current Catechism of the Catholic Church. Looking closely at the issues which separated the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches in 1054 and looking at that issues of what separated the Protestant Churches from the Catholic Church. I’ve done more than a decade of research, study and prayer on the issue and know for a fact that the Catholic Church is exactly what she claims to be: The One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I am curious in your desire for the Truth what specifically have you researched and studied? I am curious since you have come to a different conclusion then mine. Have you studied something I haven’t or visa versa?

Since you and I have a common goal: the Truth, we ought to share our sources for our conclusion while being willing to admit we could be wrong. I’m sure you, like me, would never allow something as silly as pride get in the way of obtaining the Truth.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Monica I grew up Catholic and after studying church History I don’t hold to the belief that the Roman Catholic church is the church Christ founded. I also disagree with some doctrines the church teaches and simply don’t feel comfortable going to a church that professes something I don’t believe in.

The wealth of proofs you claim don’t prove what you are proposing.

PEACE

Thank you for responding!

I am curious about what in History has caused you to come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church was not founded by Christ? How far back in History did you read?

I am surprised and curious because in reading the Eastern Orthodox Christian Saints from the Early Church, up to the 5th Century specifically, even they were very clear on that point, namely, that the Catholic Church was founded on St. Peter by Christ Himself and that the Bishop of Rome (aka Pope) has the jurisdiction of the “world entire” and “entire universe” unlike the other Bishops/Patriarchs who had jurisdiction over their own area.

Blessings to you!

 

[Xandria]

Hi!

I want to convert but am still hesitant of actually going through with it. Some reasons why I have started to explain in this thread

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=305327

I have started RCIA last year but dropped out. I’m going through a very hard time and I just don’t know if I’m in a state of mind to make such a far reaching and lifelong decision.

I don’t now if I can live according to the Church’s teaching when the opportunity comes (I’m single).

Currently I think that maybe the Church has too many rules that one has too worry about. Just look at all the countless threads here where people ask if this or that thing is a sin (often things I never would have worried about and don’t intend to). I also have trouble accepting the whole mortal sins teaching.

 

[LutheranDK]

I’m just really curious as to the actually reason(s) people have for not becoming Catholic.

What specifically is keeping you away from the Church Christ established on St. Peter the Apostle? The Catholic Church.

In light of the wealth of Biblical and Historical proofs which clearly show that the Roman Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, why do people stay out of her?

I’d like to hear from you Non-Catholics. Thanks!

I’m going to give this thread the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is not a baiting-thread, as most of these kinds of threads usually are, but an honest question:

The very thing you try to present as undeniable historical and biblical facts, that the RC church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, is to a non-RC not obvious - quite the contrary.

Come, let us reason together :

I follow Christ. I want to surrender my life, my will, my entire existance to Him. That I fail often enough (as did Paul - as we can read in Romans 7) is a different story. I get back up, Dei gratia, and move on.
Now, IF I believed what you say about the RC church, and if I believed that all historical and biblical sources point to IT as the One True Church, then of course I’d join it! I want to follow Christ, as I said, and if I believed that He founded the RC church for all Christians to be a part of, then I’d join immediately. But I don’t, and I cannot go where I do not believe Christ wants me to go.

And I’m quite honestly on the verge of saying something very, very uncharitable when certain posters (please don’t think I’m referring to you, 'cause I’m not at all ) say that non-RCs are following Satan, and are not Christians, etc. I am a Christian.
I can say “Amen” to all three of the symbols: Apostolicum, Nicaenum and Athanasium, and, as said, I want to follow Christ more than anything in my life. HE is the One who is most important to me. So whereever He leads me, I want to follow.

I truly believe that the RC church is not the church that Jesus founded, and, moreover, that is has erred in matters of faith.
If I were to become RC, I would have to proclaim that I believe everything that the church teaches, and I cannot do that, because that would mean that I would have to renounce what to me is basic Christian truths.

I say with Martin Luther: “Here I stand. I can do no other.”

Hope this gave you a better understanding

LDK

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Ok, I am Lutheran - born into a Lutheran pastor’s family - now in my mid-50s. I was never taught hostility against the Catholic Church (Dad would have never stood for it). But I was raised a Lutheran, so doctrinally here are some things.

1. Primacy and Power of the Pope
2. Doctrine on justification
3. Sacrifice of the Mass (as meriting to us)
4. purgatory
   Anything else probaably relates to these. I am currently in the process (as are our communions) of sorting these out.

Jon

Thank you for responding!

1. Primacy and Power of the Pope - I too had a problem with this one until I began reading Eastern Orthodox Church Early Church Fathers. You see the Eastern Orthodox Churches today, do not believe or teach that the Pope of Rome has Supremacy over the other Patriarchs, nor over the entire Church. So when I discovered that their own Fathers from the early Church days believed and taught that the Pope of Rome has jurisdiction over “the entire universe”, etc. This was very enlightening for me. St. John Chrysostom and others taught this.
2. Doctrine of Justification - The Catholic Church teaches that we are justified by Grace (you wouldn’t believe how many people mistakenly think that Catholics believe that we are justified by works! Silly, isn’t it?) as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 1987: The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” and through Baptism:" Although to be sure, the Bible is clear, that Faith without works is Dead. If we truly have been justified by Grace, we will have Faith and it is through our works that we prove our Faith - James 2: 14-26.
3. Sacrifice of the Mass (merit) - Merit, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states in paragraph 2010 reads: “Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.” my bolding, since it touches on justification which was mentioned in your 2nd concern. What I see here is that once we are justified by Grace by God, we still have our sinful habits and sinful desires and we need to be purified/made holy as God our Father is Holy/sanctified and by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and love (charity) we can obtain increase of graces for our continued growth in holiness - the reception of the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Our God in the Most Holy Eucharist during Mass is certainly one of the best ways of receiving more of His graces for our growth in holiness.
4. Purgatory - great one! This is something I had trouble with, but with the Eastern Catholic way of describing sin and it’s affects, made it make much more sense in my mind then it did soley on hearing the Roman Catholic way of describing it - just worked better for my brain and perhaps yours too? The Church is a hospital given to us by God, our Divine Physician, for the healing of our souls and bodies from sin. Every sin causes us injury to our soul (and some sins to our bodies), like getting a paper cut, when we have a habit of a particular sin, it becomes more like an serious infection/disease which needs to be cured. Nothing unholy will enter into Heaven, so by God allowing those of us, who have no mortal sin (the cancer has been removed by surgery aka confession), but still are healing from the affects of the cancer, not yet fully healed, God allows us a place where we will remain temporarily while we continue to heal from the affects of our sins and once purified, we will then be able to enter into Heaven and behold the face of God, we will see Him as He is. Just as an example, which many people can relate to: Let’s say that I am addicted to coffee, I absolutely HAVE to have it every day or I can’t function. Well, I die tomorrow. I no longer have my body, but I still have all my same desires, since as Christ taught, the desires come from our hearts, because the Resurrection has not yet come I no longer have my body. I WANT my coffee, but I can’t have it…it’s simply not possible to drink coffee without a body. I am miserable and suffering because although I want my God, but I want my coffee too! Over time I begin getting accustom to not having coffee because more and more the desire for union with God wipes away my secondary desire for coffee, eventually, I am fully healed from my addiction, that is anything I “have to have” besides or in addition to God and so then I am free to enter into union with God in Heaven. On the other hand, if I’d died with a mortal sin injury at the time of death, there is no other hope for me. I will spend all eternity in hell becaue of my decision to committ that grave sin. The time to seek help for mortal sin injuries is here on earth by going to the hospital Christ died to give us, that is His Church for surgery which is confession. We as Christians, must strive, not just to remove all mortal sin from our lives, but to also strive to do all we can to get and remain full healed of all sin…we are called to strive for holiness. The Sacraments of the Most Holy Eucharist and Confession are like making sure you are eating right and getting exercise…it is how to get and remain healthy spiritually. I now see Purgatory as a Mercy of God, since the vast majority of us who die free of mortal sin are not yet completely holy and pure to be able to enter into Heaven. Thanks be to God for his abundant Mercy!

Maybe this will help and then again, maybe it won’t.

Peace and blessings to you!

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I’m going to give this thread the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is not a baiting-thread, as most of these kinds of threads usually are, but an honest question:

The very thing you try to present as undeniable historical and biblical facts, that the RC church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, is to a non-RC not obvious - quite the contrary.

Come, let us reason together :

I follow Christ. I want to surrender my life, my will, my entire existance to Him. That I fail often enough (as did Paul - as we can read in Romans 7) is a different story. I get back up, Dei gratia, and move on.
Now, IF I believed what you say about the RC church, and if I believed that all historical and biblical sources point to IT as the One True Church, then of course I’d join it! I want to follow Christ, as I said, and if I believed that He founded the RC church for all Christians to be a part of, then I’d join immediately. But I don’t, and I cannot go where I do not believe Christ wants me to go.

And I’m quite honestly on the verge of saying something very, very uncharitable when certain posters (please don’t think I’m referring to you, 'cause I’m not at all ) say that non-RCs are following Satan, and are not Christians, etc. I am a Christian.
I can say “Amen” to all three of the symbols: Apostolicum, Nicaenum and Athanasium, and, as said, I want to follow Christ more than anything in my life. HE is the One who is most important to me. So whereever He leads me, I want to follow.

I truly believe that the RC church is not the church that Jesus founded, and, moreover, that is has erred in matters of faith.
If I were to become RC, I would have to proclaim that I believe everything that the church teaches, and I cannot do that, because that would mean that I would have to renounce what to me is basic Christian truths.

I say with Martin Luther: “Here I stand. I can do no other.”

Hope this gave you a better understanding

LDK

Thank you for responding!

You do not believe that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus founded…okay, but why? Sorry to sound like a two year old. It seems that you agree that Jesus did establish a Church, but if it was not the Catholic Church, what Church was it. What other Church historically has been around going all the way back to Christ and his Apostles?

You say that by becoming a Catholic you’d have to “give up” teaches that you believe to be basic Christian truths. I am curious as to the specifics and hope you will share.

No, I don’t think that you are satanic…it’s funny you mention it, because when I was raised as a Baptist, I was taught that Catholics were satanic and worshipped Satan. I’ve met 2 Satanists and would never confuse a seeker of the Truth for a satanist.

Blessings and peace to you!

 

[SingleMomMonica]

You may not be aware, but this line of questioning is really condescending. Let me reword the same questions back at you.

My questions are not condescending. You’re reading into the questions what is not there.

I’m just really curious as to the actual reason(s) people have forf not becoming .

What denomination? You must be a Protestant because only that part of Christianity has denominations.

What specifically is keeping you away from <a denomination that is clearly superior to yours, which of course is my denomination>.

In light of the wealth of Biblical and Historical proofs which clearly show that , why do people stay out of .

The only Biblical and Historical proofs I’ve personally come across in the last 15 years all point to the Catholic Church. There are only 2 Churches which go back to Christ and his Apostles - the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and even Eastern Orthodox Saints - St. John Chrysostom and others viewed the Pope of Rome as having authority and jurisdiction over the “world entire” and “entire universe”.

I’d like to hear from you . Thanks!

I’d love to answer the rest of your questions, but am unable to do so, because I have no idea which Protestant Denomination you are. I am a convert to the Catholic Church, there is a possibility that I used to be a member of your denomination.

Peace and blessing to you!

 

[NDfan]

Thank you for responding!

I am curious about what in History has caused you to come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church was not founded by Christ? How far back in History did you read?

Monica I studied as far back as you can possibly go so I read and studied probably many of the same things you did plus maybe even more and in great detail.

The church was never called Catholic by Christ and if you study scripture Christ said HE was building an ekklesia. Ekklesia is Greek for public assembly and in the Christian sense it’s the body of believers in Christ. The church was always referred to as the Christian church that held to orthodox beliefs and was katholikos in nature. Katholikos is the Greek word for catholic which is an adjective meaning universal. The church was described by Ignatius as being universal meaning wherever Christ was there also was HIS church. I don’t deny that the roots of the Christian church can be traced back to the early church father’s, but it really gets its roots from Pentecost.

The Roman Catholic church as we know it today is an outcropping of the church of Christ but doesn’t represent the original church Christ founded. Actually the Orthodox church may be closer to the original church if one wants to split hairs.

I am surprised and curious because in reading the Eastern Orthodox Christian Saints from the Early Church, up to the 5th Century specifically, even they were very clear on that point, namely, that the Catholic Church was founded on St. Peter by Christ Himself and that the Bishop of Rome (aka Pope) has the jurisdiction of the “world entire” and “entire universe” unlike the other Bishops/Patriarchs who had jurisdiction over their own area.

I think the readings you focused on are too narrow. What works are you referring to that explicitly state the church was founded on St. Peter that encompass the feelings of all the patriarchs?

Point of fact the Bishop of Rome was never considered the actual head of the church. Most Bishops recognized that Rome was probably first in honor only because Peter and Paul had died there. But not in authority. It wasn’t until Leo in the 5th century worked to centralize the authority of the church to Rome. Without getting into too much detail Leo basically appealed to the Roman Emperor who sided with him and gave Leo the title of Pontificate. Which incidentally is the same title ascribed to the Roman Emperor. The roman government had more influence on the structure of the church than anyone and given the world at that time was dominated by Rome it made sense they centralized the power of the church there.

But that doesn’t then translate into the church at Rome as being the original church of Christ. It’s one of HIS churches/ekklesias among many. Using Matthew 16 as scriptural evidence for Rome just doesn’t hold water.

 

[jmcrae]

Monica I studied as far back as you can possibly go so I read and studied probably many of the same things you did plus maybe even more and in great detail.

The church was never called Catholic by Christ and if you study scripture Christ said HE was building an ekklesia. Ekklesia is Greek for public assembly and in the Christian sense it’s the body of believers in Christ.

But, even in the time of St. Paul, they had to be united in doctrine, and united under the authority of the Apostles, especially St. Peter. St, Peter was given a special commission by Christ, in both Matthew 16:18, in which he receives a new name (which signifies the individual chosen by God to be the instigator of a new Covenant - Abram/Abraham, Sarai/Sarah, Jacob/Israel, etc.)

The church was always referred to as the Christian church that held to orthodox beliefs and was katholikos in nature. Katholikos is the Greek word for catholic which is an adjective meaning universal. The church was described by Ignatius as being universal meaning wherever Christ was there also was HIS church.

He said, “Where the Bishop is, there is Christ’s Church.” There were also heresies abounding, even at that early stage of the game, and Ignatius was reminding the people to listen to the Bishops who had been appointed by the Apostles.

I don’t deny that the roots of the Christian church can be traced back to the early church father’s, but it really gets its roots from Pentecost.

And the Early Fathers were appointed by the men who were present at Pentecost. There is no “either/or” with that. The line between Pentecost and the Early Fathers is unbroken and unwavering.

The Roman Catholic church as we know it today is an outcropping of the church of Christ but doesn’t represent the original church Christ founded. Actually the Orthodox church may be closer to the original church if one wants to split hairs.

If you believe this, then why not choose one of the Orthodox churches, and become a member of it?

I think the readings you focused on are too narrow. What works are you referring to that explicitly state the church was founded on St. Peter that encompass the feelings of all the patriarchs?

There is a series of books called “The Sunday Sermons of the Fathers of the Early Church,” with the sermons arranged by topic according to the Tridentine liturgical calendar. There are several sermons for Pentecost Sunday that go into the theology of Peter’s primacy, not only in honour but also in authority. A great many of those sermons were written within the first three centuries of the Church, by some of the Eastern Fathers.

I was surprised when I saw that, too - up until I looked at those, I had thought that the Eastern Church had never recognized the Papacy. But the Sermon for Pentecost by St. John Chrysostom sounds a whole lot like the declarations of Vatican I - it seems as though Vatican I was actually quoting him directly.

Point of fact the Bishop of Rome was never considered the actual head of the church. Most Bishops recognized that Rome was probably first in honor only because Peter and Paul had died there. But not in authority.

St. Irenaeus disagrees with you. Writing in 180 AD, he points to the Bishop of Rome as “that most eminent Church” and lists off the Bishops of Rome going back to Sts. Peter and Paul, to prove the authority of the Catholic Church, in contrast to the heretical churches that were claiming authority for themselves during his own time.

But that doesn’t then translate into the church at Rome as being the original church of Christ. It’s one of HIS churches/ekklesias among many. Using Matthew 16 as scriptural evidence for Rome just doesn’t hold water.

According to St. Irenaeus, Matthew 16:18 shows us that Peter is the head of the Church. St. Irenaeus uses history to show that St. Peter passed his authority down to St. Linus in Rome, and that the authority of Peter had remained in Rome from that time until the time that St. Irenaeus was writing (in 180 AD).

Unless you can show that it moved from there, and then did not return again back to Rome, (that is, that the true successor of Peter moved away from Rome and then appointed a successor in the Lutheran church, or in some other church) it seems that the lineage of St. Peter still remains, even to this day, in Rome.

 

[NDfan]

But, even in the time of St. Paul, they had to be united in doctrine, and united under the authority of the

I don’t disagree that we should be united in doctrine. But some of the doctrines the RCC has created are not supported scripturally.

With regard to Peter, you’re reaching when saying his name change signified a changing of a new covenant. Jesus re-named him Peter because he was the first to confess Jesus to be the Christ. The confession that our faith is based on. The church itself is not based on Peter. That makes no sense at all. Peter was probably one of the first great leaders no doubt but Paul in his letter to the Galatians tells us he’s no less of an Apostle than Peter James and John who were considered to be the pillars of the church. Notice not Peter singularly. Paul was commissioned directly by Jesus and in no way implies that he falls under any authority of Peter. That language is just not there.

He said, “Where the Bishop is, there is Christ’s Church.” There were also heresies abounding,

Almost right on the money. Ignatius faced the terrible heresy of the gnostics and specifically Marcion. Ignatius wanted someone in the church to be the go to person per se that would dispense the sacraments and be versed in the Gospel according to Christ. Ignatius saw the Bishop as being the best person suited for this role but never used the term Apostolic appointment. Ignatius said we need people like “us”, people who are familiar with Apostolic teachings. Ignatius felt the best way to get that was to have the Bishops come from the population of people that either followed the Apostles or were intimate with their writings. He never called for the Bishop to be appointed by the Apostles. That would be impossible since by then they were all dead.

And the Early Fathers were appointed by the men who were present at Pentecost. There is no “either/or” with that. The line between Pentecost and the Early Fathers is unbroken and unwavering.

That’s a joke Jmcrae. You have no proof that all church leadership was appointed by those at Pentecost. Absolutely no writings exist that could even possibly support that.

If you believe this, then why not choose one of the Orthodox churches, and become a member of it?

I had considered it but in my area Orthodox churches are hard to find. GOD led me to where I am now.

There is a series of books called “The Sunday Sermons of the Fathers of the Early Church,” with the sermons arranged by topic according to the Tridentine liturgical calendar.

This proves nothing at all. These writings do not originate with the Apostles and represent the theological interpretations of their writers. There are plenty of Church Fathers that wrote commentary counter to this during the same time frame.

The problem with Roman Catholics is they think because someone said it in the 300s AD that it must have come from the Apostles. We have no writings from the ECFs that may have had contact with the Apostles that state anything to support your claims. If we look at Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, and Clement all of whom may have had contact with either Peter, John or both, none of their writings make mention of doctrines that were passed to them by the Apostles that is not found in scripture. And the later Fathers who had contact with these ECFs write nothing of this kind either. Point of fact the ECFs always appealed to scripture when supporting any doctrines of faith.

I was surprised when I saw that, too - up until I looked at those, I had thought that the Eastern Church had never recognized the Papacy.

Again this means nothing. Chrysostom existed in the 4th-early 5th century. Picking an ECF out that supports a claim you have proves only that he had the same opinion. But several other just as prominent fathers did not.

St. Irenaeus disagrees with you. Writing in 180 AD, he points to the Bishop of Rome as “that most eminent Church”

You terribly misunderstand why Irenaeus wrote this. Irenaeus pointed to the church at Rome as being the example that should be followed by all churches. Why did he say this? Because Irenaeus believed that you could not get a more classic example of what a Christian church should be than the one where Peter and Paul died. Irenaeus did not point to Rome as being the supreme authority. He called them eminent meaning to stand out in quality because of their position as having the 2 greatest preachers die there.

According to St. Irenaeus, Matthew 16:18 shows us that Peter is the head of the Church. St. Irenaeus uses history to show that St. Peter passed his authority down to St. Linus in Rome, and that the authority of Peter had remained in Rome from that time until the time that St. Irenaeus was writing (in 180 AD).

So Irenaeus thought the authority of the church resided in Rome. Again so what. Show me a work from Irenaeus that states he received this directive from the Apostles. You just can’t.

Unless you can show that it moved from there, and then did not return again back to Rome, (that is, that the true successor of Peter moved away from Rome and

You’re making the assumption that because some ECFs viewed Peter as the leader of the Apostles, that somehow all his successors have to come from wherever he died. That’s such a ridiculous argument. Christ never commanded HIS church to be centralized anywhere. Ignatius says where ever Jesus is there is the universal church. You’re too stuck on this authority notion when Christ HIMSELF refutes any notion of authority. Christ never appoints a head of HIS church. Again this is butchering Matthew 16 and abusing its real meaning.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You may not be aware, but this line of questioning is really condescending. Let me reword the same questions back at you.

I’m just really curious as to the actual reason(s) people have forf not becoming .

What specifically is keeping you away from <a denomination that is clearly superior to yours, which of course is my denomination>.

In light of the wealth of Biblical and Historical proofs which clearly show that , why do people stay out of .

I’d like to hear from you . Thanks!

You said it extremely well. I would think the reason quite obvious:

We don’t believe that Catholism is the first, best and only acceptable Church, period. The premises are flawed.

 

[jmcrae]

You’re too stuck on this authority notion when Christ HIMSELF refutes any notion of authority.

Where does Jesus ever “refute any notion of authority”? Quite the opposite.

Jesus Himself spoke with authority, and He gave authority to His Apostles on several occasions. St. Paul reminds us to be obedient to the authorities that God has put in place for us, especially the authorities of the Church, who are in charge of our souls. He instructs St. Timothy how to use his authority wisely.

 

[nebula]

Well Monica, I’m in an inbetween state myself and probably remain in that state for a while because it’s not at all obvious. It’s as simple as that. Whatever evidence it is you think is overwhelming doesn’t seem so obvious to me.

 

[With_Questions]

My questions are not condescending. You’re reading into the questions what is not there.

I know you didn’t mean them as such. You seem like a relatively nice person.

What denomination? You must be a Protestant because only that part of Christianity has denominations.

I must have quoted the dictionary it seems like a gazillion times here.

4: a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices

So unless you want to claim that Catholicism is (a) not a religious organization or (b) not united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices, yes Virginia you are a denomination as much as the rest of us.

The only Biblical and Historical proofs I’ve personally come across in the last 15 years all point to the Catholic Church. There are only 2 Churches which go back to Christ and his Apostles - the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and even Eastern Orthodox Saints - St. John Chrysostom and others viewed the Pope of Rome as having authority and jurisdiction over the “world entire” and “entire universe”.

And if we were all persuaded that the Biblical and Historical “proofs” cited here actually “proved” anything, I would think we would all be Catholics.

The fact is that you have reasons for being what you are and I have reasons for being what I am. Neither of our reasons prove anything.

I’d love to answer the rest of your questions, but am unable to do so, because I have no idea which Protestant Denomination you are. I am a convert to the Catholic Church, there is a possibility that I used to be a member of your denomination.

Peace and blessing to you!

Well what denomination I am is quite irrelevant to the point I was trying to make (although you can look at my signature).

The only point I was trying to make was to impress upon you how condescending it would sound to you if I were to wander on these parts and start bragging to the effect that “my denomination is superior to your denomination”.

Because that is what in effect you are saying.

For the record I go to an Assembly of God church. But I make no pretense that this particular denomination is superior to any other one (see my signature concerning how I feel about denominationalism). I could care less that you go to your denomination instead of mine. I really would never think of posting a serious thread “Why aren’t you all my denomination”.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Well Monica, I’m in an inbetween state myself and probably remain in that state for a while because it’s not at all obvious. It’s as simple as that. Whatever evidence it is you think is overwhelming doesn’t seem so obvious to me.

You’ve read the early Church’s Councils and the writings of the Christians of the first centuries and the Bible and it’s not obvious to you? Or have you not yet completed studying and that is why it is not yet obvious?

It’s perfectly fine to remain in limbo for a while, so long as you are doing your part by studying and praying.

God will lead you to the Truth, if you are truly looking for it.