Should the Catholic church allow for easier rite transfer?

[7,052,770]

     The position of the Catholic Church is that those words written 2000 years ago are the revealed and inspired Word of God and represents fundamental Truth. By rejecting it as irrelevant, you are rejecting the most fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church. What does it mean to call yourself a Catholic if you believe that the Church is wrong about basically everything?

Well first of all, I don't particularly identify as Catholic. I was confirmed back in high school, but I have no real interest in being part of an organization with official members and rules I'm expected to live by, even if the silliest rules are routinely ignored by basically everyone and the only real local alternative (Southern Baptists and other similar evangelical churches) are several orders of magnitude worse. And I've never said or implied that I think the Church is "wrong about basically everything," so I'm not sure where you got that from.

But if you're speaking generally, I'll say you've oversold the importance the Catholic Church places on things like the actual truth within the Bible, especially when pulling out a couple of lines out of context like you did with the verses from Corinthians - that's a VERY Protestant thing to do. The Catholic Church explicitly does not believe in Bible inerrancy anyway. And even if a hardcore Catholic did take exception to my blasé attitude about the Bible, even he/she would still disagree with your statement about how "fundamental" believing every last word of it is to Catholics.

Harry if a person doesn't join a church on theological grounds, what SHOULD they join based on?

People have all kinds of reasons to join churches, but things like familiarity and comfort are going to be far more important than theology to the vast majority of people. I'd be surprised if 10% of American Christians have more than a very rudimentary understanding of theology or could give any kind of intelligent and accurate answer on the specific differences between each denominations' beliefs, much less the reasons and justifications behind them.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

     The position of the Catholic Church is that those words written 2000 years ago are the revealed and inspired Word of God and represents fundamental Truth. By rejecting it as irrelevant, you are rejecting the most fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church. What does it mean to call yourself a Catholic if you believe that the Church is wrong about basically everything?

Well first of all, I don't particularly identify as Catholic. I was confirmed back in high school, but I have no real interest in being part of an organization with official members and rules I'm expected to live by, even if the silliest rules are routinely ignored by basically everyone and the only real local alternative (Southern Baptists and other similar evangelical churches) are several orders of magnitude worse.

Aren't you Episcopalian?

Harry if a person doesn't join a church on theological grounds, what SHOULD they join based on?

People have all kinds of reasons to join churches, but things like familiarity and comfort are going to be far more important than theology to the vast majority of people. I'd be surprised if 10% of American Christians have more than a very rudimentary understanding of theology or could give any kind of intelligent and accurate answer on the specific differences between each denominations' beliefs, much less the reasons and justifications behind them.

Approximately 40% of American Christians have changed denominations at some point. It's probably not due to theological issues that seminary students discuss or whatever, but it certainly plays a role, even if they're more likely to be thought of as political issues today.

[7,052,770]

     The position of the Catholic Church is that those words written 2000 years ago are the revealed and inspired Word of God and represents fundamental Truth. By rejecting it as irrelevant, you are rejecting the most fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church. What does it mean to call yourself a Catholic if you believe that the Church is wrong about basically everything?

Well first of all, I don't particularly identify as Catholic. I was confirmed back in high school, but I have no real interest in being part of an organization with official members and rules I'm expected to live by, even if the silliest rules are routinely ignored by basically everyone and the only real local alternative (Southern Baptists and other similar evangelical churches) are several orders of magnitude worse.

Aren't you Episcopalian?

I go to Episcopal mass sometimes, but no, I don't consider myself to be Episcopalian or anything else in particular.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Well first of all, I don't particularly identify as Catholic. I was confirmed back in high school, but I have no real interest in being part of an organization with official members and rules I'm expected to live by, even if the silliest rules are routinely ignored by basically everyone and the only real local alternative (Southern Baptists and other similar evangelical churches) are several orders of magnitude worse. And I've never said or implied that I think the Church is "wrong about basically everything," so I'm not sure where you got that from.

     You rejected the spiritual authority of the Bible by characterizing it as "appealing to something written down nearly 2,000 years ago". Given that the Catholic Church claims Apostolic authority based on Matthew 16:17-19, if the Bible is not a valid authoritative source then the Church's tradition cannot be either. Protestants often characterize scriptura et traditio as an attempt to replace the Gospels with random and arbitrary traditions, and you seem to have completely bought into that.

But if you're speaking generally, I'll say you've oversold the importance the Catholic Church places on things like the actual truth within the Bible, especially when pulling out a couple of lines out of context like you did with the verses from Corinthians - that's a VERY Protestant thing to do. The Catholic Church explicitly does not believe in Bible inerrancy anyway. And even if a hardcore Catholic did take exception to my blasé attitude about the Bible, even he/she would still disagree with your statement about how "fundamental" believing every last word of it is to Catholics.

     "Pulling out a couple of lines out of context", like referencing the section that the Eastern Orthodox Church cites as the cornerstone of its justification for restricting access to communion? I fail to see how that charge is with any merit, unless non-Protestants are supposed to reply to scriptural challenges with "lol Bible".

     Also the claim that the Catholic Church does not believe in Biblical inerrancy is outright false. Reference the Second Vatican Council, under Chapter III:

11. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation.

     Notice also the frequent scriptural citations in that document. Do you mean to tell me that Pope Paul VI was really a Protestant?

[J. J.]

Just a few points:

1.  Many Protestant Churches have an open (or semi-open) communion.  Anyone who is a baptized Christian may receive communion; someone who Eastern or Roman Catholic is welcome.  In some Baptist Churches, it much baptism by immersion. 

2.  In many Protestant Churches, both partners need not be members, though either one (or both) must be baptized.

3.  The process of actually being a full member usually is more involved.  For example, prior to confirmation as an Episcopalian, I had to attend catechism classes.  It took several months of weekly classes.  I then had to be confirmed, in a formal rite, by the diocesan bishop.   

The third one is similar to the Catholic changing of rites. 
 

[DavidB.]

Harry if a person doesn't join a church on theological grounds, what SHOULD they join based on?

Ancestral reasons.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Harry if a person doesn't join a church on theological grounds, what SHOULD they join based on?

Ancestral reasons.

1-Taken to the extreme that would mean most people of European ancestry should become pagans.
2-There are people (I'm one) whose ancestry is so mixed that'd be kind of impossible.