Posted on 10/03/2024 9:12:33 PM PDT by ConservativeMind
One of the proudest moments I have had as a Black Catholic parent is when my two boys received the sacrament of baptism. As a convert along with my wife, who entered the Church in 2020, transmitting the sacredness and beauty of our faith was a remarkable moment.
When I crossed the Tiber, my thought thereafter was, “What’s next for me in the Church?” When I think about the future of our children and their faith, I wonder the same. I have always been one to think of the long road. “Begin with the end in mind” is what I tell my students at my school, but using this same logic, what ends are we potentially creating for our children so that they might have a vocation in the Catholic faith?
My two sons are so young, only four-and-a-half years old and two-and-a-half. They are budding with potential and flourish with their unique strengths and personalities. I know that nurturing their lifelong passion for growth through learning will be something my wife and I support. With that, we don’t know what God has in their future. However, as a major responsibility in the domestic church, the transmission of the faith rests on us. We are their primary exposure to the depth of exploring the ancient traditions and history of the Catholic faith.
With this great commission we have from God, we are confident that we really don't want our kids to be in traditional avenues of Catholic exposure to vocations such as engaged parish groups, direct contact, extended friendship with a priest, or the ministry of altar serving. These aren't the only ways a vocation can be exposed, though they can be helpful for planting seeds in the soul.
(Excerpt) Read more at blackcatholicmessenger.org ...
Billy Graham’s Grandson Says Protestants Abuse Kids Just Like Catholics
How Protestant Churches Hid Sexual Abuse
A History of Sex Abuse in the Protestant Imagination
Abuse in the Protestant Church
Sexual abuse also a problem in European Protestant churches
Protestant abuse history has been swept under the carpet
Data Shed Light on Child Sexual Abuse by Protestant Clergy
Protestant Churches Grapple With Growing Sexual Abuse Crisis
Evangelicals ‘worse’ than Catholics on sexual abuse
Thousands of children sexually abused by German Protestant Church: study
German Protestant churches riddled with sexual abuse and cover-ups, report finds
Please stop spamming me—especially with the same post, all the time.
Quite a spate of negative Catholic stories posted by you tonight—four within 20 minutes. What triggered that?
Welcome to lukewarm catholicism. Hope Jesus can keep you down.
I’m more interested in the fake Bible, but the Catholics teach.
Anti-Catholicism article.
Then tell the Catholics to stop with the anti-non-Catholic articles FR religion forum is being spammed with.
Also, FWIW, the most prolific poster of anti-Catholic threads claims to be Catholic himself.
Why aren’t you calling either of them out?
I have my issues with the Catholic side of Christianity but this article is flawed from the start.
The whole premise of adding a physical characteristic like skin color as some kind of criterion or identity of impact to a Christian, Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, whatever is a non starter.
God DOES NOT CARE, we are all his children. The Bible is crystal clear on this.
Enough with your idiotic anti-Catholic spam.
Which is just one more Catholic teaching that is not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels)
Infants are neither culpable for any sin that needs forgiveness, nor able to fulfill the stated requirements for baptism, that of whole-hearted repentance and faith. (Acts 2:28; 8:36,37).
Only those who could hear the word, and thus respond were baptized in the NT, thereby leaving paedobaptism advocates to trying extrapolate paedobaptism out of cursory mentions of whole-household baptisms.
And Colossians 2:11, 12, which refers to circumcision of heart, (Colossians 2:13; cf. Dt. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4) vs. physically literal (which was actually commanded for infants, but only males, and with no confession of faith required), which corresponds what baptism by immersion (burial: liquid grave) signifies, that of circumcision/cutting of the carnal nature, as in death to self. (Romans 6:5, 6) Whose "circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." (Romans 2:29)
Nor is the act of baptism the means of regeneration, as explicitly seen in Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9, in which God purified the hearts of the subjects by faith, before baptism.
Consistent with this, neither is John 3:3-7 referring to baptism, but consistent with John's practice of contrasting the physical/earthly/temporal with the spiritual/eternal/heavenly, and also always says it is by believing that one is saved, then John 3 is referring to two kinds of birth, water-physical (cf. 1 John 5:6) and the Spirit.
And the belief that the act itself of baptism effects regeneration, even without repentant faith, rendering the likes of Hugo Chavez and proabortion, prohomosexual public Catholics figures and her liberal majority to be regenerated, and whom Rome manifestly considers to be members, is sacrilegious.
In Scripture regeneration always effected profound basic changes in heart and life, while most of Rome's progeny are manifestly spiritually dead and many are cultic devotees to their church as an object of faith. To eternal horror. Tragically.
As for being a Catholic priest, the Catholic priesthood itself is not that of NT presbyterous/episkopos, for the distinctive celibate sacerdotal class called Catholic priests are not NT presbyters, thus they do not date from the New Testament, but are distinctively called priests, using a word that evolved but which does not reflect its distinctive function.
The Holy Spirit never used the word for a distinctive celibate sacerdotal class (hiereus) for NT clergy (presbyterous/episkopos, both denoting the same person), for all believers are called to sacrifice e (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15, 16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood —hieráteuma— in the NT church. )
The redeemed are those who have been spiritually born of the Spirit (Jn. 3:2-7) by effectual, penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating faith in the Divine Son of God sent be the Father to be the Savior of the world, (1 Jn. 4:14) who saves sinners by His sinless shed blood, (Romans 3:25; Eph. 1:7) on His account. (1 Corinthians 6:11)
And which faith is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and which is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27, 28) whom they shall go to be with or His return (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb. 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17)
In contrast to those who were never born of the Spirit or who terminally fall away. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12; Heb. 10:25-39) Glory and thanks be to God.
Also, FWIW, the most prolific poster of anti-Catholic threads claims to be Catholic himself.
Why aren’t you calling either of them out?
On the other hand, I've yet to see Protestants call out anti-Catholics.
I know of whom you speak, and I have spoken to some of them privately. I've learned that such things are counterproductive and unnecessary and that--believe it or not-- it's possible to live ones Faith without attacking the faith of others. Tit for tat is pretty childish creed to live by.
Well, I suppose it is tit for tat but since I don’t see Catholics calling out anti Prot posters, why should we bother?
I see, however, that there is a difference between discussing what one sees as doctrinal error in a religion or denomination, and simply posting threads about some arbitrary individual’s (who nobody ever heard of) shortcomings as if that is representative of the religion as a whole.
Now mind you, that does not include the pope as the pope is pretty much synonymous with Catholicism, and is their defacto leader, like it or not. Their claims of him being able to speak ex cathedra kind of puts him in a category himself instead of being some church janitor or something accused of misdeeds.
Catholics could say this same thing. It's like the little kid that always has to get the last poke in.
I see, however, that there is a difference between discussing what one sees as doctrinal error in a religion or denomination, and simply posting threads about some arbitrary individual’s (who nobody ever heard of) shortcomings as if that is representative of the religion as a whole.
Politely discussing differences is one thing, but starting a thread for the express purpose of attacking is just hateful, no matter which side does it.
Now mind you, that does not include the pope as the pope is pretty much synonymous with Catholicism, and is their defacto leader, like it or not. Their claims of him being able to speak ex cathedra kind of puts him in a category himself instead of being some church janitor or something accused of misdeeds.
So if I'm hearing you right, it's OK to start a thread attacking the Pope because he is the head of the Catholic Church and the Church teaches that Popes are granted a limited charism to not teach doctrinal error in an official capacity? Quite frankly, what business is that of non-Catholics? If one doesn't accept it, then one shouldn't be a Catholic and should go about ones merry way looking to ones own salvation. It's as easy as that.
While true, the Book does not recommend it.
Has it really been 32+ years now since Rodney King asked “Can’t we all get along?”
Nice try. I see nothing about Christians attacking other other Christians here; only instructions to pastors of churches to instruct and rebuke those under their authority.
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.