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.
Their only path back to salvation was through the Jews.
***
Was through JESUS.
Be specific.
Not through Roman Catholicism.
Actually, no, he was not. How about some CONTEXT?
He is talking about how OTHERS judge him by his manner of life - the SAME thing James speaks to. It is ludicrous that Paul would contradict himself and he never does nor could he since he is speaking as the Holy Spirit has inspired and moved him.
Nah! (Some people now claim there are something like 63 different genders. Since you're asking your question so nicely and sincerely, if I was forced to admit it, I'd have to honestly say that I was beginning to wonder if you were one of those "tweeners", Elsie, since you DID choose a girly name like that, but when you told us how old you actually are, (as old as Bernie Sanders, for heaven's sake!!!), I figured it doesn't make much difference to ANYONE what gender you really are! Who the hell cares? Who cares what gender Bernie Sanders is?) :-)
(Just kidding -- April 1 -- Elsie! I actually like quite a few doddering, feeble-facultied, moldy-oldie, elderly people, down there at the old folks home -- I mean, the "Senior Living Center"!) :-)
So, with logic like that, you would advocate for Americans to stop being Americans, because they had some bad leaders (Obama for 8 years, Schiff, Schumer, Maxine Waters, Pelosi, Biden, etc.), who didn't follow the rules and guidelines contained within our USA laws and Constitution? And, should we also just tear up that US Constitution, just because a certain number of leaders in our USA did not follow it correctly for a while?
One thing that is plain, Elsie, is that the peculiar posts oozing out from you own personal thought patterns, obviously mirror your chosen, "unusual" screen name!
Wow, that sounds like the devil's logic! God stopped "posting" to His Holy Scriptures thousands of years ago, but the devil keeps right on "posting" his porn, and his media lies, and his "demoncrap party platform of baby-killing and perversion", etc., etc., etc. (In spite of that, God is winning, and the devil is losing.)
Another way of looking at it, is to look at your fellow millenial, AOC. Many people try to explain the real world to AOC, but they eventually stop arguing with her, and just walk away. It is certainly not because she is right about anything, and they are wrong, but rather, because it eventually becomes very clear that she is too damn thick of a numbskull to be able to grasp the truths they are telling her, so they wisely move on to more useful and productive things, (yet she keeps right on spouting her false, idiotic BS, like her cerebral reflections on the expulsive horrors of cow farts).
If I see someone here who demonstrates repeatedly that they are too helplessly obtuse to see what others are saying, (similar to that famous millenial, AOC herself), it's time to move on to doing something else with my time, of more value, at least for a while. You can declare victory all you want, but of course that's simply a bold-faced falsehood.
The whole point of my post, Luircin, was that the Scriptures are NOT in contradiction to the teachings of the Church, as even the Apostle Paul himself called a man "father" of all believers in Romans 4:11-12, and he would never have done that in the God-inspired Holy Scriptures, if God really meant literally that he should never call a man "father". Jesus obviously did not mean that literally (just like He did not literally mean to "pluck your eye out"), or St. Paul would never have disobeyed his Lord, and called a man "father", in a spiritual sense like that.
You make up your own Bible as you go along, don't you metmom? When St. Paul called Abraham the father of the gentile believers in Romans 4:11, he was talking about Abraham being their spiritual father. (Abraham was NOT, in any sense, their biological father.)
Bible Text: "Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise." Proverbs 6:6
Song: "Hallelujah! I'm A Bum!
Happy April 1st! :-)
Darn, it's April 2nd now! (Slow fingers) Oh well, Happy April 2nd, and goodnight to all!
Or sleep.
But here's the basic problem: If he were totally concerned with "Bcoming (a) Christian" than "Becoming Catholic," a more sincere dialogue might take place.
Regarding the issues he addresses in this piece, we would agree. But observing the doctrinal stance in the wrong framework kills the essential purpose and result.
So what is the import of the Matthew 25:31-46 quotation in your foolish note to Elsie? To whom was this passage addressed, about whom was it written, and what is the context in which the judgment takes place?
Well, considering that you’re defending your faith, I would think that yes you ARE trying to convince me.
And you seem to be getting quite angry that you’re failing to so so.
Well, that IS what the verse says, isn't it? What you must figure out is what is MEANT by "dead". Does it mean if you don't do good works YOU are dead and going to hell? Or does it mean a faith that isn't demonstrated by good deeds is not genuine faith? Or does it mean a professed faith that isn't backed up by doing the works God has prepared for His children to walk in is not a genuine saving faith? I think many people read into that passage things that other verses simply don't back up. You shouldn't read verses in isolation. That is the key - and the basis of sound Biblical hermeneutics - Scripture interprets Scripture. So what do YOU think James meant by it?
I don't think it means we must do good works in order to be saved - which is what accursed, faith PLUS works-based religions have in common - but a true faith cannot help but to be evidenced by a heart change and progressive holiness of life because it is God working within us through the Holy Spirit to do what pleases Him. Not to be saved, but because we are saved.
BTW...keep your childish name calling off threads that discuss serious doctrines of the Christian faith - it doesn't help your Freeper reputation.
Or some other joint. ;o)
Except it takes a priest to determine whether or not that parishioner can commune with the church.
Jesus Christ never denied anyone sitting at the table.
I’d say the reverse is true.
The CC has forgiven assaulting priests but still blames the victims of the abuse for causing it.
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.