Posted on 03/30/2019 8:12:59 AM PDT by Salvation
Question: I had reason to hope my niece was going to convert to the Catholic faith. But there were so many obstacles the Church set up that discouraged her. She was asked to go to classes, and they told her that her marriage was not valid and she would need an annulment. Further, it was necessary to wait until Easter, etc. The nearby evangelical church set up no such obstacles, and she was able to join at once and be considered a member. I hear so much talk of evangelization today, but I share my niece’s frustration. Can we not streamline this process?
— Name withheld
Answer: There is a kind of appealing simplicity that you describe in many Protestant denominations. But there are problems with the approach that should give us pause. Ultimately evangelization is more about conversion than mere membership. We are summoned to embrace the saving teaching of the Lord and to walk according to it.
Because adults make informed decisions, the Church considers it important to teach them the fundamentals of the Faith so that they can know what it is they are agreeing to when they enter the Church. Although some of the Scriptures portray an almost instant, on-the-spot baptism, the consensus in the early Church shifted to a lengthy, three-year period of instruction (called the catechumenate) prior to baptism. This likely was because of the insight that quick conversions often led to quick departures or a falling away when the true demands of discipleship became known.
Instructions are most insisted upon for those who are unbaptized. In the case of those who are baptized and come from different Protestant denominations, the length and content of instructions will depend on their background. It is up to the discretion of the pastor who discerns with each individual what is needed. It is certainly not required for those already baptized to “wait until next Easter.”
The concerns about a person’s marital status are rooted in the very words and teachings of Jesus himself. He teaches without ambiguity that for a person to marry, then divorce and enter another marriage, puts them in an ongoing state of adultery in the “new” marriage (cf. Mt 5:32; Mt 19:1-9; Mk 10:11-12; Lk 16:18, etc). He adds rather firmly, “What God has joined together, let no one divide” (Mt 19:9).
It will be further noted that when the Lord was evangelizing the woman at the well, he brought her to a moment of conversion, and she asked for the gift of faith. But the Lord Jesus saw fit to first raise with her the fact that she had been married five times and was now living with a man outside of marriage. Her conversion would not be complete or adequate until she was willing to live chastely. Then the graces could flow.
For reasons of their own, many Protestant denominations have decided to practically overlook such passages. But the Catholic Church takes the Lord’s teaching on these matters rather seriously, as he clearly intended that we should. In some cases, after an investigation based on evidence, the Church may use its power to bind and loose, to indicate that the previous marriage was not “what God has joined,” and it recognizes the first marriage as null. A person’s current marriage then can be blessed and recognized. But we simply cannot set the Lord’s words aside as if they were of little importance.
Thus some conversions to the Catholic faith will take some time to be faithful to the teachings of the Lord and the nature of true conversion. It is worth the diligence required.
I thought I did!
For what it’s worth, you have the most excellent posting habits of someone 50 years younger.
You and I have had this discussion before and must agree to disagree. It is certainly not a salvation issue. Do I think those that do it recognize the real presence of Christ Body and Blood in the supper are not saved? Certainly not! I do believe you are missing out on the fullness of the sacrament He has given us but YMMV and does
Let me ask you this though. When Christ first introduced the idea of eating His body and drinking His blood we were told many turned away and stopped following Him. Would they have done that if He meant just in a symbolic way? Also Paul speaks of early Christians who had died from not reverently handling the Lords Supper and stated that those who ate and drank unworthily ate and drank judgement on themselves. Again if this was merely a symbolic act why would this be true?
You are both wet behind the ears! Young people these days!
It’s ok eventually you get old enough to forget what your younger self thought!
It get even simpler if we try to understand the meal as the JEWS did(do)!
Jesus was relying on the disciples understanding of just what was happening at that dinner.
Even though He had to do some explaining.
35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.
36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me.
Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
.
Whatever that means!
True and true.
In what way?
Did the Jews somehow miss out for thousands of years after Moses set down the rules of the Passover?
I see no evidence of that.
Jesus instituted nothing new at that 'Last Supper'.
The only difference was that the "Lamb of GOD that takes away the sin of the world" was shortly to be sacrificed for real.
The Unspotted Lamb
The Unblemished Lamb.
John 1:29
1 Peter 1:19
“the graces needed for our sanctification.”
Sanctification is not the same as salvation.
I requested the actual paragraph number.
Sanctification is the state of growing in divine grace as a result of Christian commitment after baptism or conversion.
Graces are a free gift of God and merit comes from being obedient to God. Merit refers to the outworking of God’s grace in our lives, both in changing us into the image of Christ and in “bearing fruit for the Kingdom” by, say, winning hearts for Christ, feeding the hungry, and caring for the needy.
Did you read the rest of the Catholicism or just what seemed to fit your incorrect opinion?
“Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.
Too bad the teachings of Rome miss the above.
Really??
Read the REST of the sentence!
… and for the *attainment of eternal life.*” (Emphasis mine)
Who's a good dog??
My intention is not to be mean spirited, but you could have read a previous response and tried to understand it instead of some off the wall meaningless response.
You could engage in a meaningful discourse instead of reciting the protestant talking points and multiple postings.
Good job; you completely ignored the emphasis that I gave you.
The RCC catechism says directly that “we can merit for ourselves graces needed... for the attainment of eternal life.” Which is the exact opposite of what Scripture says.
Or are you telling me that eternal life doesn’t equal salvation?
(The paragraph is 2010, incidentally, though I would have thought that a priest or someone who claims to know all kinds of things about Roman Catholicsm would have known that already. It must be annoying that a Lutheran knows more about the RCC catechism than you.)
“meaningful discourse” as you put it apparently means insulting the intelligence of and mind-reading the people you’re replying to.
And then you get huffy about the nature of our replies right afterwards.
Irony Placemarker
Ha ha HA!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.