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

[nebula]

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.

I doubt i’d be here and say taht i’m inbetween if I weren’t interested and learning. Yes I’ve read the councils and a series of writings of the early fathers and no it isn’t an obvious choice at all.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

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 Church was not referred to by Christ as Catholic, this is true and it is also true that Christ did not call His Church Christian either. The fact that Christ did not use either of those words does not negate the fact that they are both true descriptions and names of His Church. We are Catholic Christians.

It’s very funny to me to see Greek words written in English letters! LOL I am part Greek. The word you are writing in English letters as **Ekklesia means Church **and can as a much less common way can be used to also mean public gathering. The word you are writing in English letters as Katholikos means world-wide.

St. Ignatius was Patriarch of Antioch which is 3rd after Rome. He was martyred around 110 ad. This quote you mention about where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church must be understood in light of the understanding of his time (and ours) that Jesus is truly present, Body and Blood, in the Most Holy Eucharist…where Jesus in the Most Holy Eucharist is, there is the Catholic Church. Ignatius was the child who sat on Christ’s lap, when He said, “Let the little children come unto Me.” St. Ignatius was familiar with Christ when He was still on earth and St. Ignatius was very familiar with the Traditions of the Church, both oral and written - including the Gospel of John Chapter 6 (of course in his days, the books of the Bible had not yet been separated into Chapters and Verses).

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.

Keep reading the writings of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches past and present and you will see that the Orthodox of today have clearly split from where they had be theologically centuries ago. The Orthodox Church has maintained the Apostolic Succession and valid priesthood and valid Eucharist and other Sacraments aka Mysteries. They are the closest to the Catholic Church in practice and theology than any of the multiple Protestant denominations.

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?

I’m at work, so I can’t give you the others, but St. John Chrysostom was the Patriarch of Constantinople! (and above, you yourself mentioned the Patriarch of Antioch, St. Ignatius) The current Eastern Orthodox Churches, that have not reunited with Rome, all turn primarily to St. John Chrysostom aka the Golden Mouth and other Eastern Saints while at the same time claiming that the Pope only has primacy, but not authority and supremacy over the other Patriarchs…the fact that they honor St. John Chrysostom so highly, but completely dismiss the multiple writings of his which directly contradict their current beliefs, is amazing! There are many Eastern Rite Catholic Churches which have at various times through out history since 1054 ad reunited with the Roman Catholic Church because their Bishops or Patriarchs have come to the Truth that Jesus’ Church is the Catholic Church through prayer and knowledge of the Bible and the Early Church. It’s only a matter of time before the rest of Orthodoxy rejoins us in full communion, in the 1960’s the mutual excommunications were lifted between the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

 

[William_M]

In answer to the question of the original post:

Because your creeds are all abominations.

There are only two churchs. The Church of the Lamb and the Church of the Devil.

Any questions?

 

[Thorwald]

Because I would have to start arguing with my other non-Catholic friends. I am having enough problems in this forum as it is.

 

[anjoh66]

In answer to the question of the original post:

Because your creeds are all abominations.

There are only two churchs. The Church of the Lamb and the Church of the Devil.

Any questions?

Yes with all respect sir.
Which one is the church of the lamb?

 

[jmcrae]

In answer to the question of the original post:

Because your creeds are all abominations.

Which creeds? “I believe in God,” or “I believe in Jesus Christ,” or “I believe in the Holy Spirit”?

There are only two churchs. The Church of the Lamb and the Church of the Devil.

Any questions?

You are right.

But if the Church of the Lamb is not the Catholic Church, then which one is it?

Remember that it has to have existed since 33 AD, as the light from a city on a hill and not hidden under a bushel basket (ie: no “hidden, secret Christians”), from the time of Christ until now.

 

[Thorwald]

Yes with all respect sir.
Which one is the church of the lamb?

The one that follows the Word of God, without it being defiled through ‘add-ons’ or ‘deletions’. The Word was given unto us in all purity and holiness. Mankind has misinterpreted it, destroyed some of it and taught it through vanity, never seeking proper understanding from God. Where are the ‘Solomons’ of today? All changes to the Word, are false prophecy, and result in the formation of ‘cults’.

We see the creation of ‘man-made’ saints, based on our own judgments as to their ‘holiness’, and then dumping them before God, telling God, that He should recognize them as being holy and worthy of anointment by Him, for we have deemed them so. In the NT, we are told that we do not even know if our spouses are saved. We cannot know of the hidden sins that are within others. We have seen some of these sins come to life, with the publication of the sexual acts of some in the church against children that were trusting their safety to others, and were betrayed by these others. An anointment by God, is one of the greatest rewards that we could receive.

Even in the posted thread (above), we see vanity. The scripture states, that communicating in a language not understood by those that receive this communication, glorifies only the person that uses this language. What was your purpose of writing in Latin in your footnote (not shown above)? Do you wish me to bow down to you? Sorry, I won’t.

We saw the effect of changing God’s Word, and how God feels about this, when God killed Aaron’s two sons after they ‘added’ to the sacrifice.

I need no string of beads in order to follow the Word of God, nor will I call any other man in this world ‘[spiritual] Father’, or ‘Holy Father’. The Word of God forbids me to do so. The Word of God uses the term ‘priest’ to identify people that God has anointed to carry out a specific task for His glorification. Man-made anointments, are an insult to Him.

When you have achieved an anointment by God (ie. Numbers 12:6) or have experienced John 14: 21-23, let me know.

I have responded fairly harshly (above), but this response is not for your benefit alone. This forum is full of much of the same type of ‘jangling’ that does not glorify God. It appears that every person on this site, is trying to glorify themselves.

 

[NDfan]

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.

Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you.

Also found in Mark 10.

Paul tells us to be obedient to authorities meaning government authorities. Where does Paul say especially the church?? Paul tells us no one comes to power unless it is the will of GOD and reminds us to pay our taxes. You are confusing religious authority with governmental authority. The authority Paul is speaking of to Timothy is that of preaching the Gospel and shepherding the flock.

If we carefully study Jesus’ remarks from Matthew and Mark it’s a clear strike against any Papal office. Interestingly enough when Leo appealed to the Roman Emperor in the 5th century to centralize the authority of the church to Rome, the emperor extended the title of Pontificus Maximus to him and ultimately to the Bishop of Rome. It’s amazing that a lordship title that Caesar would used was taken by a Christian leader when Christ spoke against it.

 

[jmcrae]

Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you.

He did not mean that they would not have authority (otherwise the Church would have died right there and then) - rather, that they were to be servant leaders.

Interestingly enough when Leo appealed to the Roman Emperor in the 5th century to centralize the authority of the church to Rome, the emperor extended the title of Pontificus Maximus to him and ultimately to the Bishop of Rome. It’s amazing that a lordship title that Caesar would used was taken by a Christian leader when Christ spoke against it.

And at the same time that he is Pontifus Maximus, he is also Servant of the Servants of God. Because he does not use the power of his role as Pontifus Maximus for personal gain, but rather, for the gain of the whole People of God.

 

[NDfan]

SingleMomMonica]The Church was not referred to by Christ as Catholic, this is true and it is also true that Christ did not call His Church Christian either. The fact that Christ did not use either of those words does not negate the fact that they are both true descriptions and names of His Church. We are Catholic Christians.

I never said because Christ didn’t use the word Catholic we couldn’t. Please re-read my post. I stated that the word katholicos is an adjective meaning universal. Scripture records the use of the word Christian but not Catholic. The people of Christ’s church were called Christians, the church itself was described as being universal or catholic, and the beliefs were considered Orthodox. We are not called Catholic Christians. We are called Christians period. The church is considered to be catholic in nature because it has no boundaries. If you read many of the ancient writings of Rome you will see we are always referred to as just Christians.

It’s very funny to me to see Greek words written in English letters! LOL I am part Greek. The word you are writing in English letters as Ekklesia means Church and can as a much less common way can be used to also mean public gathering. The word you are writing in English letters as Katholikos means world-wide.

Do you like this better: ejkklhsiva Actually ekklesia first refers to an assembly and only gets translated to church when used in a religious sense. The noun Church in English refers to a building. Christ didn’t communicate HE was building a physical structure. HE was building a body of believers, an ekklesia. Katholicos means universal which is probably the same as world-wide so we’re probably splitting hairs here.

St. Ignatius was Patriarch of Antioch which is 3rd after Rome. He was martyred around 110 ad. This quote you mention about where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church must be understood in light of the understanding of his time (and ours) that Jesus is truly present, Body and Blood, in the Most Holy Eucharist…where Jesus in the Most Holy Eucharist is, there is the Catholic Church.

Absolutely not Monica. This just shows your lack of knowledge of church history. Ignatius never mentions communion as the reference point for Christ’s presence universally. This is your own spin.

Ignatius was the child who sat on Christ’s lap, when He said, “Let the little children come unto Me.” St. Ignatius was familiar with Christ when He was still on earth and St. Ignatius was very familiar with the Traditions of the Church, both oral and written - including the Gospel of John Chapter 6 (of course in his days, the books of the Bible had not yet been separated into Chapters and Verses).

Monica no offense but where do you get this stuff Christ was dead by the time Ignatius was born. And what does John 6 have to do with Ignatius?

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.

And I’ve always suggested this as well. But saying you can trace your roots to the Apostles does not mean you are the church Christ founded. Any church that follows Christ can say they are the church HE founded. You’re adding the notion of Apostolic succession which is found nowhere in the writings of the Apostles.

Keep reading the writings of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches past and present and you will see that the Orthodox of today have clearly split from where they had be theologically centuries ago.

Well I don’t need to keep reading. I assure you I’m well educated on this. Please tell me what theological differences you are referring to. I could make the same claim about the RCC as well.

The Orthodox Church has maintained the Apostolic Succession and valid priesthood and valid Eucharist and other Sacraments aka Mysteries. They are the closest to the Catholic Church in practice and theology than any of the multiple Protestant denominations.

The fact you can try to demonstrate a connection with an Apostle is only a good history lesson. Perhaps you should really study church history to understand more about how the church developed. Your notion of a “valid eucharist” only demonstrates that this post is a meaningless attempt on your part to once again follow in the footsteps of many others here in trying to slam non-RCs. There’s no such thing as a valid Eucharist. The notion of transubstantiation is completely ridiculous and many don’t realize that this doctrine fits perfectly with gnostic theology.

I’m at work, so I can’t give you the others, but St. John Chrysostom was the Patriarch of Constantinople! (and above, you yourself mentioned the Patriarch of Antioch, St. Ignatius) The current Eastern Orthodox Churches, that have not reunited with Rome, all turn primarily to St. John Chrysostom aka the Golden Mouth and other Eastern Saints while at the same time claiming that the Pope only has primacy, but not authority and supremacy over the other Patriarchs…

I doubt the eastern churches will ever enter full communion with Rome. That would take retracting infallibility which will never happen. As far as the rest of your post I’m familiar with church history so you’re not giving me something I don’t already know.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Do you like this better: ejkklhsiva Actually ekklesia first refers to an assembly and only gets translated to church when used in a religious sense. The noun Church in English refers to a building. Christ didn’t communicate HE was building a physical structure. HE was building a body of believers, an ekklesia. Katholicos means universal which is probably the same as world-wide so we’re probably splitting hairs here.

Peace be with you. I’m sorry that you’ve learned Greek from a clearly non-Greek source which explains why you don’t understand the meaning of the Greek. As a positive suggestion, you and anyone for that matter can go to a local Greek Orthodox Church for Greek School for Adults as most of the Greek Orthodox Churches regardless of how large or small offer Greek classes.
I’ve come across may well-meaning people such as yourself, who think that they know Greek and yet make these kinds of mistakes as well as have terrible pronouncation - the Catholic Apologist Tim Staples, who I like very much, for instance has wonderful knowledge on many things, but on one of his CD sets kept pronoucing the title of the Mother of God wrong - to the typical Greek, it made him sound uneducated and was iritating like listening to someone scratch their nails across a chalk board. Everything else Tim said was 100% accurate, but his mis-pronouciation of title of Mary made it difficult to listen to.

The Church is not a building, the Church is the Body of Christ. Perhaps you were looking up in an English dictionary the meaning of the word Church; however, there are a couple of problems for that. First of all, it should be obvious that we are not to understand Christian Theology through any translated language’s dictionary, but through the consistant teachings of the Church and that of the original language the Bible was written in.

The word Church has always meant the Body of Christ which are the people of God which make up the Church, not a building. Notice that in the New Testament it reads in 1 Tim. 3:15, “but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” the Church is the “household” or family of God - sorry, but a building is not a household or family, but the people who live in it are.

Absolutely not Monica. This just shows your lack of knowledge of church history. Ignatius never mentions communion as the reference point for Christ’s presence universally. This is your own spin.

It is clear that you have either not read any of St. Ignatius’ writings or that you have only read a selective part of his writings. I encourage you to go back and read all of his works.

Monica no offense but where do you get this stuff Christ was dead by the time Ignatius was born. And what does John 6 have to do with Ignatius?

How is it possible that any Christian does NOT know that St. Ignatius was indeed the child that sat on Christ’s lap? The tradition of the Church has been constant on this! How would it be possible that anyone there would have forgotten the names of the unnamed people mentioned in the Bible? The people who witnessed this event recorded in the Bible knew St. Ignatius and they watched him grow up and eventually become Bishop and Patriarch, so you can see how he’d be somewhat famous in his own time and people knew where he came from and important events of his life.

Many Protestants, not saying you personally, have forgotten the names of the unnamed people of the Bible, since they have completely rejected oral tradition which according to the Bible we are to hold on to just look at 2 Thess. 2:15, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” if you don’t believe me. In case you were unaware, it was St. Photini was the Samaritan Woman at the Well who became a missionary and traveled to Carthage and then to Rome with her son where she baptized Nero’s daughter, Domnina, and then was torchured in many ways and eventually martyred.

RE: St. Ignatius, it just occured to me that since you think he was born a long time after Christ’s Resurrection, perhaps you must be confusing him with St. Ignatius of Loyola? It would be correct to say that St. Ignatius of Loyola was born after Christ’s Resurrection and he did not sit on the lap of Jesus as a child. He was the founder of the Jesuits, I do believe, which came substantially later in time.

And I’ve always suggested this as well. But saying you can trace your roots to the Apostles does not mean you are the church Christ founded. Any church that follows Christ can say they are the church HE founded. You’re adding the notion of Apostolic succession which is found nowhere in the writings of the Apostles.

You are mistaken here, the tradition which the Bible, as well as history, says we are to hold on to makes it very clear that the Apostles had the authority the select successors and ordain Bishops. Have you not read Isaiah and Matthew regarding the Keys of Authority and Christ’s promise that the gates of hell would not prevail over His Church?

Have you not read the Gospel of John where Jesus breathed on the Apostles giving them the power to forgive or retain one’s sins? The only other place in the Bible that God breathed on anyone was in Genesis in creating Adam. Just as Adam has passed on to the rest of the human race God’s breath, our spirit/soul, likewise, the Apostles have passed on to Bishops and Priests Jesus’ breath of the power of the priesthood.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Well I don’t need to keep reading. I assure you I’m well educated on this. Please tell me what theological differences you are referring to. I could make the same claim about the RCC as well.

I you had studied history, you’d not ask me this question, but I will answer anyway.
Theological differences between the Orthodox Church before and the Orthodox Church now are primarily 2:

1. The Orthodox Churches prior to their split from Rome confirmed that the Pope of Rome had supreme universal juristiction rather than just a local jurisdiction as the other Patriarchs and Bishops had. Today the Orthodox Churches claim that the Pope of Rome has/had Primacy over all the other Patriarchs & Bishops, but not supremacy.
2. The Orthodox Churches prior to their split from Rome confirmed that the Holy Spirit proceeded from both the Father and the Son. Today the Orthodox Churches say that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father and some add “through” the Son, but they do not currently believe and teach as they did before that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

Your notion of a “valid eucharist” only demonstrates that this post is a meaningless attempt on your part to once again follow in the footsteps of many others here in trying to slam non-RCs. There’s no such thing as a valid Eucharist. The notion of transubstantiation is completely ridiculous and many don’t realize that this doctrine fits perfectly with gnostic theology.

I’ve not in any way “slammed” non-Catholics on this or any post. If you’ve read any of the lives or writings of any of the early Christians who were martyred because of their Christian (not Gnostic) Faith, you would see that it has always been believed, without question, that the Eucharist is in fact the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. For any Protestant who rejects History and the Martyrs can simply turn to John 6 and in the Corinthians to see that this teaching of Jesus in the Eucharist has always been believed, taught and practiced. Non-Christian Early Church Historians even account to the fact that the Roman Pagans believed Christians to be Canabals because they ate the Eucharist! Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, past and present have the same teaching. Even Luther who created the Lutheran Church believed in the actual presence of the Jesus in the Eucharist.

From the late 1500’s is the first time any person claiming to be Christian didn’t believe it. Today that non-belief of the Eucharist prevails in Protestant Christian tradition; however, the Bible, Oral Tradition, the lives of the Martyrs and History (both Christian and Non-Christian) proves that it is a recent innovation of not believing in that the Eucharist is the True Body and Blood of Jesus.

 

[kristan2000]

R.C.I.A. (The Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) is actually a revival of an older practice whereby people joined the Church. It is designed to educate converts in the Catholic faith and prepare them to receive the sacraments of the Church.

The process attracts non-Catholics who are about to marry Catholics, people who were baptized in the Church at birth but never confirmed and others who have just decided that the Church best fits their beliefs. Pure Acai Berry Weight Loss Diet Prograf Sugar Nick Jonas and His Warning Signs Diabetes Impotence Diet soft contact lenses

Different parishes handle R.C.I.A. different ways and the classes can run anywhere from a few months to two years. Ordinarily though, the process lasts anywhere from late spring, summer or early fall until the Easter vigil (the evening before Easter). A lot depends on the convert’s marital and baptismal status, as well as his pre-existing knowledge of the faith and experience in other Christian denominations.

Anyone who has divorced and remarried will have to obtain an annulment of their first marriage before they can join the Church, and indeed the subjects of marriage, divorce and annulment can take up a good deal of the discussion time in the classes.

If a person has already been baptized according to the Trinitarian formula, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, she will not need to be baptized again. But baptisms “in the name of Jesus” or “in the name of the Holy Spirit” are not considered valid. A person entering the Church who has already been baptized is called a “candidate,” while an unbaptized or invalidly-baptized person is referred to as a “catechumen.” Candidates can sometimes take the “fast track” towards joining the Church.