Converting to the RCC

[thomas]

I happen to be LDS. Your conversion from Lutheran to Roman Catholicism is a very unique and specific difference (vs, no religion into RCC or from Hindu into Roman Catholicism).

Not that unusual , but it is usualy done quietly as it draws out a good deal of flack , especialy from family and freinds. Fortunatly I don't have that problem

However, I do not find many of it basic teachings even in the NT, and feel that the early RCC sort of moved in on the traditional old world Hebrew Priesthood ways and means, rather than the teachings from Jesus Christ Himself.

It grew out of Judaism. Christianity is fullfilled Judaisim , with the realized Messiah , and under the New Covenent. It is a continuation of Judaism under Christ. Most of what one sees are the rituals and traditions which is not found in the Bible anymore than are Protestant traditions. It's not anti-Biblical , it's a way of doing things that has little or no theological significance. The Theology itself is Biblical but a matter of how the Bible is translated , the big sticking points being Mariology , pergatory , the Pope , and the definition of salvation. Iv'e had some problems with this myself. However the central theology is the same (creeds) and there is less difference between Lutheran and RCC than Lutheran and Baptist , if you can ignore the basic anti-catholicism youv'e been brought up in.

Had I converted to Orthodox , no one would have a problem , and the difference between them and the RCC is very , very small.

Can you expound a bit on how you found Litergy to be a prefered worship environment rather than just you in a hammock with a Bible.

Liturgy itself means order of service , and every Church has one. Litugical refers to that order which has come down from ancient times.

The Liturgy is a joining together of the coperate Kingdom of God on Earth/Body of Christ/Bride of Christ with the Kingdom of God/Head of the Church/Bridegroom. It takes the form of a conversation between Christ and the congregation with the Pastor acting both as the voice of the congegation to Christ and of Christ to His people. It is done in the presence of Christ and is Holy and reverent. There is no place for individual expression , no fellowship allowed. You've got the rest of the week for a personal relation with Christ , This is done as a united body.

There are many differnt forms but they will go like this:

Public confession of sins
Plea for mercy
prayer
praise
more prayer
Bible readings:
1.OT
2.psalm
3.Epistle
4.Gospel
This is done in a cycle and usually will go through the Bible once every three years.
Sermon
In theory it is to teach the meaning of the previos Bible readings and apply them to life.
Public confession of Faith (one of the creeds)
Offering
prayer , offering of petitions
Communion
words of institution
Lords Prayer
distribution
Blessing of the congregation

Much of this is done with the anciant chants , Agne dei , kyrie etc. and you throw in a few hymns. Takes between an hour and an hour and a half.

To anyone not used to it it is boring and repititous , quite true , and I don´t blame anyone for thinking so. But it performs many different very important functions , and thats the point. The sermon , by the way , is not the important part. And it's not something that can be done by wathing it on TV , it's a corporate participation.

I rarely attend non-litergical services. It leaves me with a feeling of so much being left undone. The worst I've been to was the INC. , some songs , a prayer , and a sermon. Nothing I can't do at home since I can download sermons from Sermonaudio and elsewhere , and the hammock is a lot more comfortable than a pew.

Thomas

[Jill]

.

[tom]

Thomas,

I don't know if I can help you with your conversion to the RCC. I might be able to help with some questions you have although your question on "sedevacantism" is one I've heard of but haven't looked into. I came back to the RCC because they were right, in my mind, on all the misconceptions I had about them. They are Biblical, although not Bible based.

You sound like you have most of your questions answered already. I have lots of sources that I can share with you. Seems the more questions I get rebutting the RCC the closer I get to the Church. When I search in the Bible for answers to questions if all makes sense!

Yours in Christ,

Tom

[thomas]

Hola Tom:

Thank you for your most gracious offer. I'm pretty well connected as far as questions go , Dave Armstrong. Most problems I have now is with the culture , but I'll just bull my way through. Once you accept that the RCC has the athority to say what they do , the rest is fairly painless.

Seems the more questions I get rebutting the RCC the closer I get to the Church. When I search in the Bible for answers to questions if all makes sense!

And that is about the only thing forums are good for.

I was going in that direction long before I even considered the RCC. This is actually the third time I have seen , up close , denominations "jump the shark". The first time was when I was young. In the 60's my mother's family were all Calvinist , Presbyterian , Congregationalist and Dutch Reformed. They came under attack , at the same time as the RCC , from what would be called Liberation Theology. The Calvinist caved in to this secular phylosophy , the RCC , after a long battle , did not.

My Father's church , the one I grew up in , and now my own , for different reasons and in different ways , but there is a common denominator.

Sola Fides-Faith Only which became cheap Grace and disarmed them morally , and
Sola Scriptura , which disarmed them doctrinely

[thomas]

An added note : cheap Grace defined by Detrich Bonhoffer , 1937 , a Lutheran primarily critiquing the Lutheran Church of Germany.

In Bonhoeffer's words: "cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline. Communion without confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ." Or, to put it even more clearly, it is to hear the gospel preached as follows: "Of course you have sinned, but now everything is forgiven, so you can stay as you are and enjoy the consolations of forgiveness." The main defect of such a proclamation is that it contains no demand for discipleship.

But it's very "seeker sensitive" , and pretty common everywhere.

[tom]

thomas,

God bless you and keep you also. Welcome home!!!

tom

[tom]

After I came back to the RCC I found the Catechism's very beginning starts with;

"FATHER,... this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."1

"God our Saviour desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."2

"There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved"3 - than the name of JESUS.

Wow, I'm so glad to be home!

Christ's peace,

tom

[darinhouston]

Why did you need the Catechism to tell you that? Did you not believe the same thing before going to RCC ?

[Homer]

Darin wrote:

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.

And Thomas replied:

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.

In my discussions with Steve in the past, he has expressed a view as stated by Darin. While I totally disagree with the institutional organization of the RCC and most denominations, Thomas has a good point. After all, appointed elders are certainly biblical. I spent most of my career managing and working with people and have seen at work (and church) how leadership arises the "de facto" way and often the results are not good. The person(s) who become de facto leaders are likely to be those who are the more assertive, aggressive, or even "bully" types.

The church we attend, I believe, has a very good way of appointing elders. The process begins with the existing elders. If someone appears to them to be a person who would make a good elder, they only proceed if they all agree. Then the congegation must also unanimously agree, i.e., there is an opportunity for anyone to object. This objection, however, must be based on something of significance, not just "I don't like the way he dresses".

[Paidion]

Homer, how did the first elders ever to exist come into being in the expression of the Church with which your local assembly is in fellowship? Did those first elders not arise in the "de facto way"?