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.
“If you had taken the time to look at, and explore the link that Salvation provided, you would have discovered over a thousand conversion stories documented there, and that itself is just the very tip of the iceberg.“
Eh.
Hundreds of millions in a South America alone.
Lots of them leave the Catholic Church in the Philippines 🇵🇭 too. I was at a Gideons meeting some time ago. There were about 30 people there. I asked one the Filipino men, how many of them were ex Catholics. He said he thought about half of them. It’s a beautiful thing, to see these people enjoy assurance of salvation, something I NEVER had when I was a catholic. 👍 I doubt you had any assurance either, at that time in your life.
LOL. Good one BB.
Eh. Your question conflates things that are not equal to avoid acknowledging (I’d guess) that Rome is bleeding members like crazy.
Elsie might be able to identify which specific form of disinformation that is...
I only wish that every member who leaves Rome would come to saving faith in Christ. Too many become atheists.
Heck, I wish every member of Rome would come to saving faith in Christ.
Nice article boatbums. Thanks for posting.
“One of three people who were raised Catholic no longer identifies as Catholic.”
👊👍🏼
I went to a catholic high school. At our last reunion, I figured about 50% or more, had left the Catholic Church. As far as I could tell, only 3 of us got born again. The rest of them just left. I don’t know for sure why, but many of those, were pro abortion and Hillary supporters.
Right now, there are less than 1 billion Protestants in the world, and about 1.8 billion Muslims. If numbers really mean that much to you, aMorePerfectUnion, you'd better get your butt down there, and join those Muslims, pronto!
If you say so, if you say so.
We could use more Roman Catholics with a sense of humor on these threads.
So you agree that faith is assurance of salvation and that we’re saved by grace through faith and not saved by works?
It’s what Scripture says after all.
“What counts is the Truth, and the quality of the teaching”
In regards to truth, Rome is like a huge John Deere tractor with every accessory, cruising up and down the field... but with no cutting blade - the Gospel of Grace..
The teaching is abysmal, the priests are poorly taught regarding Bible, and few listen to what Rome says. They watch what Rome does.
Rome officially sanctions gays in the ministry, gays in the Vatican, and has covered up sexual abuse against children under at least 4 popes.
Rome has little of the truth that matters, and what truth it has, is obscured with paganism.
So what is the import of the Matthew 25:31-46 quotation in your foolish note to Elsie?My question here was to narrow down the portion of your scripture selection for the purpose of getting your explicit assumptions which I implicitly took to be on effect, judging the tone of your answer to Elsie. Specifically, what I wanted was a simple answer to each of the three aspects of the passage quoted, to see if your mind regarding it was the same as the mind of the Author quoted; and the aspects to which the nature of my putative ensuing response would address.
These critical aspects were, as stated:
o To whom was this passage addressed,Now, my approach was to establish your point of view beyond the shadow of a doubt, so that my reply to you would be based on your claims, not on the questionable grounds of presuming to know what you were thinking as you wrote #610.
o about whom was it written, and
o what is the context in which the judgment takes place?
So now I have another question line that I want answered:
o On what basis was your Post #610 pulled?
o Did you ask the Moderator to pull it?
o If so, was it because in it you conferred the actions as a fool upon yourself, and wanted that blotted out?
o Or did another forum participant ask for its withdrawal, and why?
o Or, did the Moderator insist on its removal, and if so, why? There is too much mystery here, for by it I feel blocked from countering your implied (and wrong) argument that:
Songcraft: You say by your questions that you do not understand my post, but you call it foolish anyway. (In other words, you don't get it, but it must be foolish.)
Actually, I believe that I do understand quite well the topic you were talking about in Post #610 and in this Post #811, but you clearly do not. However, it will take a clear concise answer to my above queries to proceed on a reasonable basis. I think that it is very likely that your position fits that of the "natural" (ψυχικος psoo-kee-kawss) man, or at best a carnal (σαρκικοις sar-kee-kawss) man, and certainly not that of a spiritual (πνευματικοις pnoo-ma-tee-kawss) one.
So please help me out on this by clarifying your position regarding the selected passage. Eh?<>
Regeneration with its following confession of sole uncancellable ownership by the Savior through total trust in Him alone is, a matter which your lineup of characters does not seem to clearly indicate.
I guess Jesus was born again when John baptized Him; too.
Act2 19:2-4
...and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?”
“No,” they answered, “we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
“Into what, then, were you baptized?” Paul asked. “The baptism of John,” they replied.
Paul explained: “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the One coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”
Though I now wonder what Jesus had to repent from??
I hear there is a certain group of believers that have done a REALLY good job of remaking His mother!!
Good one!
You spotted the excluded middle!
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.