Converting to Catholicism

[White Trash]

I've recently become very dissatisfied with my current faith and church. I'm an evangelical Presbyterian, and would like to convert to Roman Catholicism. What are the steps I need to take to do this?

[RI]

I converted to Catholicism about six years ago. Basically you just go to weekly RCIA classes at the parish you'd like to join starting in September-ish which continue until Easter Vigil where you get baptized/confirmed if you so desire.

[Illiniwek]

Yay! Yayayayyaaya!

I converted to Catholicism about six years ago. Basically you just go to weekly RCIA classes at the parish you'd like to join starting in September-ish which continue until Easter Vigil where you get baptized/confirmed if you so desire.

All correct. I would suggest that you reach out to your prospective parish now so they can tell you when RCIA begins and perhaps the priest can suggest some reading material in the meantime. All the best to you during this process! You will receive an actual RCIA sponsor, but we will be here to be your RCIAtlas sponsors!

[Simfan34]

Erm... ditto! Welcome to the club.

[White Trash]

I appreciate all the warm thoughts! I've talk to the local priest, and he's help me make arrangements for everything!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I've decided to go through this process as well, although my life is currently too unsettled for me to do RCIA regularly. Good luck on your journey.

[TJ in Oregon]

Welcome

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think I'm going to go this route too.

After thinking about this for awhile I've realized now that if I'm serious about faith I should try joining a church with more substance. The difference between Catholicism and the emergent church is kind of like a classic old painting versus someone photoshopping a new version of it, it might still look nice but it's not the same thing. There's also a lot of superficial elements and plays to emotions instead of deep theological constructs.

Obviously there's a lot I don't agree with in Catholicism, but focusing on that alone completely misses the point. Is the Church an institution people can't disagree in? And it seems like I'm valuing my liberal politics and whole subculture over things that should matter more.

I'll still go to my normal church Sunday, but only because one of the pastors is leaving and it's her last week and I want to see her and send her off. After that I'll check out Catholic churches here and talk about converting with a priest once I find one I like.

[Small L]

I think I'm going to go this route too.

After thinking about this for awhile I've realized now that if I'm serious about faith I should try joining a church with more substance. The difference between Catholicism and the emergent church is kind of like a classic old painting versus someone photoshopping a new version of it, it might still look nice but it's not the same thing. There's also a lot of superficial elements and plays to emotions instead of deep theological constructs.

Obviously there's a lot I don't agree with in Catholicism, but focusing on that alone completely misses the point. Is the Church an institution people can't disagree in? And it seems like I'm valuing my liberal politics and whole subculture over things that should matter more.

I'll still go to my normal church Sunday, but only because one of the pastors is leaving and it's her last week and I want to see her and send her off. After that I'll check out Catholic churches here and talk about converting with a priest once I find one I like.

I got it from the very first sentence

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

I am glad to hear that so many people decides to become Christians.

[Frodo]

http://www.catholic.com/documents/how-to-become-a-catholic

[Why]

Don't join the Catholic Church it is a false religion.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Don't join the Catholic Church it is a false religion.

Protip: if you have absolutely nothing of worth to contribute to these threads, how about you don't post in them?

[Why]

Don't join the Catholic Church it is a false religion.

Protip: if you have absolutely nothing of worth to contribute to these threads, how about you don't post in them?

Okay I will not post anything that is not worthwhile.

Catholicism is a false religion.

[Illiniwek]

Don't join the Catholic Church it is a false religion.

Protip: if you have absolutely nothing of worth to contribute to these threads, how about you don't post in them?

Okay I will not post anything that is not worthwhile.

Catholicism is a false religion.

Move along troll, your hate isn't going to influence anyone here.

[Why]

Don't join the Catholic Church it is a false religion.

Protip: if you have absolutely nothing of worth to contribute to these threads, how about you don't post in them?

Okay I will not post anything that is not worthwhile.

Catholicism is a false religion.

Move along troll, your hate isn't going to influence anyone here.

I am not a troll. Catholicism is marred with un-Biblical doctrines which separates believers from God and his salvation. No one should be deceived and join this wicked institution.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Can we lock up "Unbiased" and NYMillennial in a room together and have them fight to death pls?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Don't join the Catholic Church it is a false religion.

Protip: if you have absolutely nothing of worth to contribute to these threads, how about you don't post in them?

Okay I will not post anything that is not worthwhile.

Catholicism is a false religion.

Move along troll, your hate isn't going to influence anyone here.

I am not a troll. Catholicism is marred with un-Biblical doctrines which separates believers from God and his salvation. No one should be deceived and join this wicked institution.

It's an interesting doctrine, sola scriptura. It appears nowhere in the Bible itself--how could it? 'The Bible' obviously did not exist as a coherent body at the time that Scripture was written. When the New Testament says 'Scripture' it's generally referring to the Hebrew Bible. Scripture as we know it was compiled by the Church, as part of the series of developments that created the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. Scripture and Tradition are not separate sources of authority.

[Why]

Don't join the Catholic Church it is a false religion.

Protip: if you have absolutely nothing of worth to contribute to these threads, how about you don't post in them?

Okay I will not post anything that is not worthwhile.

Catholicism is a false religion.

Move along troll, your hate isn't going to influence anyone here.

I am not a troll. Catholicism is marred with un-Biblical doctrines which separates believers from God and his salvation. No one should be deceived and join this wicked institution.

It's an interesting doctrine, sola scriptura. It appears nowhere in the Bible itself--how could it? 'The Bible' obviously did not exist as a coherent body at the time that Scripture was written. When the New Testament says 'Scripture' it's generally referring to the Hebrew Bible. Scripture as we know it was compiled by the Church, as part of the series of developments that created the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. Scripture and Tradition are not separate sources of authority.

There are many cases in the Bible of God using wicked people to do his will, not the least of which being the Romans involvement in the crucifixion of Jesus. So being involved in the compilation of the Bible proves nothing.
When tradition and doctrines contradict the Bible they can safely be dismissed.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Don't join the Catholic Church it is a false religion.

Protip: if you have absolutely nothing of worth to contribute to these threads, how about you don't post in them?

Okay I will not post anything that is not worthwhile.

Catholicism is a false religion.

Move along troll, your hate isn't going to influence anyone here.

I am not a troll. Catholicism is marred with un-Biblical doctrines which separates believers from God and his salvation. No one should be deceived and join this wicked institution.

It's an interesting doctrine, sola scriptura. It appears nowhere in the Bible itself--how could it? 'The Bible' obviously did not exist as a coherent body at the time that Scripture was written. When the New Testament says 'Scripture' it's generally referring to the Hebrew Bible. Scripture as we know it was compiled by the Church, as part of the series of developments that created the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. Scripture and Tradition are not separate sources of authority.

There are many cases in the Bible of God using wicked people to do his will, not the least of which being the Romans involvement in the crucifixion of Jesus. So being involved in the compilation of the Bible proves nothing.
When tradition and doctrines contradict the Bible they can safely be dismissed.

But on what basis?

My point is that accepting the basis on which the Bible is confessed as Scripture necessitates, at the very least, accepting the authority of the early ecumenical councils. Sure, one might just decide to accept the Bible while rejecting and calling 'wicked' the reasoning behind the process by which it took shape, but, again, on what basis?

[Why]

Don't join the Catholic Church it is a false religion.

Protip: if you have absolutely nothing of worth to contribute to these threads, how about you don't post in them?

Okay I will not post anything that is not worthwhile.

Catholicism is a false religion.

Move along troll, your hate isn't going to influence anyone here.

I am not a troll. Catholicism is marred with un-Biblical doctrines which separates believers from God and his salvation. No one should be deceived and join this wicked institution.

It's an interesting doctrine, sola scriptura. It appears nowhere in the Bible itself--how could it? 'The Bible' obviously did not exist as a coherent body at the time that Scripture was written. When the New Testament says 'Scripture' it's generally referring to the Hebrew Bible. Scripture as we know it was compiled by the Church, as part of the series of developments that created the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. Scripture and Tradition are not separate sources of authority.

There are many cases in the Bible of God using wicked people to do his will, not the least of which being the Romans involvement in the crucifixion of Jesus. So being involved in the compilation of the Bible proves nothing.
When tradition and doctrines contradict the Bible they can safely be dismissed.

But on what basis?

My point is that accepting the basis on which the Bible is confessed as Scripture necessitates, at the very least, accepting the authority of the early ecumenical councils. Sure, one might just decide to accept the Bible while rejecting and calling 'wicked' the reasoning behind the process by which it took shape, but, again, on what basis?

You don't need to know anything about how the Bible was compiled to believe it was written by inspiration of God. You just need to look at its characteristics and decide that there is something different and special about the Bible that makes the claims made in it about itself to be true. The Bible stands on its own and does not need the recommendation from anything else.

The thinking behind the compiling of the Bible might well have been right in many ways but that does not prove that the thinking of those same people was correct on everything or that they really were faithful servants of God.

[RFayette]

Don't join the Catholic Church it is a false religion.

Protip: if you have absolutely nothing of worth to contribute to these threads, how about you don't post in them?

Okay I will not post anything that is not worthwhile.

Catholicism is a false religion.

Move along troll, your hate isn't going to influence anyone here.

I am not a troll. Catholicism is marred with un-Biblical doctrines which separates believers from God and his salvation. No one should be deceived and join this wicked institution.

It's an interesting doctrine, sola scriptura. It appears nowhere in the Bible itself--how could it? 'The Bible' obviously did not exist as a coherent body at the time that Scripture was written. When the New Testament says 'Scripture' it's generally referring to the Hebrew Bible. Scripture as we know it was compiled by the Church, as part of the series of developments that created the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. Scripture and Tradition are not separate sources of authority.

There are many cases in the Bible of God using wicked people to do his will, not the least of which being the Romans involvement in the crucifixion of Jesus. So being involved in the compilation of the Bible proves nothing.
When tradition and doctrines contradict the Bible they can safely be dismissed.

But on what basis?

My point is that accepting the basis on which the Bible is confessed as Scripture necessitates, at the very least, accepting the authority of the early ecumenical councils. Sure, one might just decide to accept the Bible while rejecting and calling 'wicked' the reasoning behind the process by which it took shape, but, again, on what basis?

I don't know how good a claim this is, but I remember my fundamentalist pastor said that the canon was more or less fully developed before the ecumenical councils and that all churches were more or less operating on the same scripture, give or take a few books.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't know how good a claim this is, but I remember my fundamentalist pastor said that the canon was more or less fully developed before the ecumenical councils and that all churches were more or less operating on the same scripture, give or take a few books.

This is a reasonable response/counterclaim.

You don't need to know anything about how the Bible was compiled to believe it was written by inspiration of God. You just need to look at its characteristics and decide that there is something different and special about the Bible that makes the claims made in it about itself to be true. The Bible stands on its own and does not need the recommendation from anything else.

The thinking behind the compiling of the Bible might well have been right in many ways but that does not prove that the thinking of those same people was correct on everything or that they really were faithful servants of God.

This isn't.

[Why]

I don't know how good a claim this is, but I remember my fundamentalist pastor said that the canon was more or less fully developed before the ecumenical councils and that all churches were more or less operating on the same scripture, give or take a few books.

This is a reasonable response/counterclaim.

You don't need to know anything about how the Bible was compiled to believe it was written by inspiration of God. You just need to look at its characteristics and decide that there is something different and special about the Bible that makes the claims made in it about itself to be true. The Bible stands on its own and does not need the recommendation from anything else.

The thinking behind the compiling of the Bible might well have been right in many ways but that does not prove that the thinking of those same people was correct on everything or that they really were faithful servants of God.

This isn't.

Why?

[RFayette]

The problem with Unbiased's reasoning is that it treads awfully close to the line of thinking advocated by King James Only-ism, in which case you get stuff like this.

You can't completely divorce the Bible form the history surrounding it, including its compilation.  One can still be a fundamentalist, Bible-believing, literal Christian and believe that scripture is 100% inerrant, and still study the historical context of the books of the Bible when establishing why they're valid and what they mean.

Arguing that the Bible is internally consistent is certainly good if we're talking about defending the Christian faith generally, but it's not really valid to defending an exact canon, at least in my mind.