Converting to the RCC

Post Reply
User avatar
thomas
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:51 am
Location: Panama

Converting to the RCC

Post by thomas » Thu May 07, 2009 1:25 pm

Allyn wrote:Thomas, don't take this wrong, please. I have often wondered how a true follower of Christ can jump into a denomination that seems to be so ritualistic and almost the same as pagan in their way that the saints of their choosing are venerated and prayed to. How does one go from freedom in Christ to bondage to a religion? Sincerely this is not meant as a slam but only an amazement I have concerning this.
An exellent question that needs to be answered.
The first thing to know is the reason I left the Lutheran Church. My church is on the verge of collapse. It has lost 80% of it's members , and after having fought with the problems for the past few years I am no longer interested. It should shut it's doors.I won't go into the details at this time , only say that it was imperative that I go elsewhere to worship. So why Catholic?

In Panama there are a wide variety of choices. We have most of the worlds relegions , cults , and Christian denominations. (other than Calvinist , thats one seed that cannot grow here). But I have chosen Catholic as the closest to my own belief and practice. It is:

Liturgical : in fact the Catholic and Lutheran liturgies are nearly identical. I am simply not interested in non-liturgical worship , it's what I am used to. To you it seems ritualistic , but I see the meaning behind the ritual.

Sacramental : Even more so than Lutheran. As I belive in the actual Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist , that eliminates all but a few churches. As I believe that the Grace of God is given through the means of sacraments (though not limited to the sacraments),non-sacramentalism is a non starter.

Ecclesiastic: I've come from a church that is supposedly democratic and am sick of it. The church , both here and in the U.S. is controled by the members but by those who can best manipulate the voting process. Those in control determine who can vote and a vote of 51% determines doctrine and practice. I have come to see the Church as a monarchy with Christ as King and myself as subject , so I do not have a problem with the Pope.

I haven't found anything anti-biblical about the Catholics , although thier Mariology puts together a whole lot of practice from an extremly small amount of evidence. By the way , worship of Mary and the saints is prohibited (though they will admit it is widely practiced) and as such prayers of intercession and veneration are optional in practice.

As for bondage , all I can say is that we are all in bondage , either to sin or to Christ.

Thomas

And I am still a true follower of Christ to the best of my ability.
Dios te bendiga y te guarde

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Converting to the RCC

Post by darinhouston » Thu May 07, 2009 4:27 pm

As I believe that the Grace of God is given through the means of sacraments (though not limited to the sacraments),non-sacramentalism is a non starter.
Do you derive this from Scripture?
Ecclesiastic: I've come from a church that is supposedly democratic and am sick of it. The church , both here and in the U.S. is controled by the members but by those who can best manipulate the voting process. Those in control determine who can vote and a vote of 51% determines doctrine and practice.
Have you considered the presbyterian form? Or better yet -- a less structured form where there is no per se leadership but merely a community of believers relying on de facto elder leadership? If you're a sacramentalist, I guess that certainly does pose problems, but that begs the question above.
I have come to see the Church as a monarchy with Christ as King and myself as subject , so I do not have a problem with the Pope.
I don't see how that follows -- seeing Christ the King and myself as subject, this is precisely why (one reason) I have a problem with the Pope.

User avatar
thomas
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:51 am
Location: Panama

Re: Converting to the RCC

Post by thomas » Fri May 08, 2009 6:26 am

darrinhouston
As I believe that the Grace of God is given through the means of sacraments (though not limited to the sacraments),non-sacramentalism is a non starter.


Do you derive this from Scripture?
Yes , of course. All being God acting through his representative , to enact change in a person.

Baptism Matt. 28:19
Eucharist 1Cor. 11:23-25
Marriage Matt 19:6
Absolution John 20 :22-23
Confirmation Acts 8 : 14-17
Ordination Acts 6:5-6
Annointing the sick (Extreme Unction) James 5: 14.15


Have you considered the presbyterian form? Or better yet -- a less structured form where there is no per se leadership but merely a community of believers relying on de facto elder leadership? If you're a sacramentalist, I guess that certainly does pose problems, but that begs the question above.
I just came from a prebyterian form , as elder and general assembly rep. and have seen how easily it can be corrupted. A community without leadership would be much worse. I think at that point I'd be better off at home , in my hammock , with a Bible.
My problem is not with authority. It is with self-appointed or fraudulently chosen authority. Authority is vital to the Church. This is why Christ appointed the Apostles , who in turn appointed their succesors.
I have come to see the Church as a monarchy with Christ as King and myself as subject , so I do not have a problem with the Pope.


I don't see how that follows -- seeing Christ the King and myself as subject, this is precisely why (one reason) I have a problem with the Pope.
Why ? Every King appoints underlings to administer his kingdom. Christ , from the very beginning did this as well. The Pope exists as the head Majordomo/Steward of the Church , but he is still subject to Christ as are we all.

Thomas
Dios te bendiga y te guarde

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Converting to the RCC

Post by darinhouston » Fri May 08, 2009 8:59 am

thomas wrote:A community without leadership would be much worse.
Unless that leader is Christ, of course. Obviously, you need earthly leadership, too, but leadership doesn't necessary imply one or more "in charge."

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Converting to the RCC

Post by darinhouston » Fri May 08, 2009 9:02 am

thomas wrote: Baptism Matt. 28:19
Eucharist 1Cor. 11:23-25
Marriage Matt 19:6
Absolution John 20 :22-23
Confirmation Acts 8 : 14-17
Ordination Acts 6:5-6
Annointing the sick (Extreme Unction) James 5: 14.15
Yes, I see examples in scripture of some of the things that have become sacramentalized by the RCC (and others), but where do we find the suggestion that they are to have become set out as sacraments, and in particular the need for a clergy to adminster them? God's grace surely works through all these things just as it does other things such as hard work and sacrifice for others, but how do we get the RCC notion of sacramentalism from scripture?

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Converting to the RCC

Post by darinhouston » Fri May 08, 2009 9:04 am

thomas wrote:
darin wrote:I have come to see the Church as a monarchy with Christ as King and myself as subject , so I do not have a problem with the Pope.


I don't see how that follows -- seeing Christ the King and myself as subject, this is precisely why (one reason) I have a problem with the Pope.
Why ? Every King appoints underlings to administer his kingdom. Christ , from the very beginning did this as well. The Pope exists as the head Majordomo/Steward of the Church , but he is still subject to Christ as are we all.

Thomas
Because I see nothing in scripture to suggest that our King intended to have underlyings as head (titular or otherwise) -- in fact, scripture says that Christ is our head and we have no need of any other. We shouldn't call one Father or Holiness or the like -- this is PRECISELY what was being warned against, in my opinion, and even with Peter we don't find him having the sort of headship ascribed to the Pope today. He had apostolic authority, but that was unique in history and shared among the others who even rebuked him on ocassion (Paul).

User avatar
thomas
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:51 am
Location: Panama

Re: Converting to the RCC

Post by thomas » Fri May 08, 2009 9:54 am

darinhouston wrote:
thomas wrote:A community without leadership would be much worse.
Unless that leader is Christ, of course. Obviously, you need earthly leadership, too, but leadership doesn't necessary imply one or more "in charge."
I beg to disagree.

Matt.28:20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you...

The Church is an earthly institution and Christ works through humans to administer His church. There must be those in charge who teach and to define that which is to be obeyed.A person left to himself will define the scriptures in such a way to follow that which he chooses and ignore that which is difficult.Following self-defined rules is not obedience , it is merely following ones own inclinations. One can obey only when the rules and proper behavior are defined by someone apart from oneself. Obedience is following the rules when you don't really want to.

Or as they allways say in the Army , "You have to do it , you don`t have to like it"

The problem is to determine who is a legitimate authority , i.e. who has the right to tell you you are sinning and need to repent.
Dios te bendiga y te guarde

User avatar
thomas
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:51 am
Location: Panama

Re: Converting to the RCC

Post by thomas » Fri May 08, 2009 10:18 am

darinhouston wrote:
thomas wrote: Baptism Matt. 28:19
Eucharist 1Cor. 11:23-25
Marriage Matt 19:6
Absolution John 20 :22-23
Confirmation Acts 8 : 14-17
Ordination Acts 6:5-6
Annointing the sick (Extreme Unction) James 5: 14.15
Yes, I see examples in scripture of some of the things that have become sacramentalized by the RCC (and others), but where do we find the suggestion that they are to have become set out as sacraments, and in particular the need for a clergy to adminster them? God's grace surely works through all these things just as it does other things such as hard work and sacrifice for others, but how do we get the RCC notion of sacramentalism from scripture?
In these cases they began as sacrements in the Bible long before the RCC existed.The actions described are the sacrement. The RCC and others have added ritual but it always contains the sacrement. Example:

Acts 6:5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch, 6 whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them.


The sacrement is there. The Apostles passed athority through the laying on of hands. This is the sacrement. It is completly Gods authority that is being passed , but it passes through the instrement of the Apostles by means of thier hands.

Not all sacrements need a clergy. In Marriage the instrements are the couple being married. As such it may be done by a deacon who serves as an official witness to it's validity. Baptisms may be done by any Christian but except for emergency is reserved for the clergy by tradition.

The others however were given directly to the Apostles by Christ. And are reserved for them and thier legitimate succesors.
Dios te bendiga y te guarde

User avatar
thomas
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:51 am
Location: Panama

Re: Converting to the RCC

Post by thomas » Fri May 08, 2009 10:39 am

darinhouston wrote:
Because I see nothing in scripture to suggest that our King intended to have underlyings as head (titular or otherwise) -- in fact, scripture says that Christ is our head and we have no need of any other. We shouldn't call one Father or Holiness or the like -- this is PRECISELY what was being warned against, in my opinion, and even with Peter we don't find him having the sort of headship ascribed to the Pope today. He had apostolic authority, but that was unique in history and shared among the others who even rebuked him on ocassion (Paul).
What can I say? I think you ascribe to the Pope a lot more power than he has in fact. He is after all under the authority of Christ , under the authority of the Bible , and under the authority of the tradition of the Church. He can administer , but has little power to change anything. The pope is only infallable and may make a binding statement is when he speaks "ex cathedra" last time this was done , that I can verify was in 1950.The number of infallible pronouncements by ecumenical councils is significantly greater than the number of infallible pronouncements by popes.

On the other hand , He most certainly chose underlings to run the Church , and gave them the Holy Spirit to guide them. Why did He choose the 12? Why did Paul and Barnabas travel throughout Cypres appointing leaders? Why were Stephen etc. ordained ?
Dios te bendiga y te guarde

Jill
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:16 pm

Post by Jill » Sat May 09, 2009 7:16 pm

.
Last edited by Jill on Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply

Return to “Roman Catholicism”