150,000 converts this year at Easter

[Pixie_Dust]

Good point.

We were talking about this on another thread (I don’t recall which thread, it was several months ago) and someone mentioned that a lot of parishes even go so far as to make Orthodox who are “converting” (for lack of a better word) to Catholicism take the RCIA class with everyone else.

Huh. I probably could have gotten away with doing one-on-one with my pastor but they happened to offer a summer “intensive” RCIA for baptized Christians so I just did that instead. And helped teach it.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

He also said there is nothing wrong with NOT observing ANY holy days. Does the Catholic church agree with that? As a Catholic are you obligated to observe certain holy days? Yes or no.

The point is obedience. As a Catholic I accept the truth that the Church is being led in the fullness of truth by the Holy Spirit.

If I accept this, then I should be obedient to the Church.

Romans 14
The one who observes a special day, observes it to honor the Lord. The one who eats, eats to honor the Lord, since he gives thanks to God. And the one who does not eat, refrains from eating to honor the Lord; yet he, too, gives thanks to God.

Equally important:

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

1 Cor 1
10I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,** that all of you agree with one another **so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.

2 Thes 3

14If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. 15Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.

 

[ckempston]

The point is obedience. As a Catholic I accept the truth that the Church is being led in the fullness of truth by the Holy Spirit.

If I accept this, then I should be obedient to the Church.

Only if what it tells you to do is in accord with the Word.

Romans 14
The one who observes a special day, observes it to honor the Lord. The one who eats, eats to honor the Lord, since he gives thanks to God. And the one who does not eat, refrains from eating to honor the Lord; yet he, too, gives thanks to God.

You clearly do not believe this scripture because you do not believe that you can do as you choose on the matter of holy days. You have to submit to the church, which is contrary to Paul’s teaching.

Equally important:

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Funny, Irenaeus actually explains this, and I pointed it out in another thread, but he seemed to think that the Apostles didn’t preach anything they didn’t later confirm in writing.

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.

The Catholic church seems to have prided itself over the years on improving the teaching of the Apostles, as if that were necessary.

1 Cor 1
10I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,** that all of you agree with one another **so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.

So, which is it? Can we observe different holy days, or should we be perfectly united in mind and thought? You’re leaving out some context of the Corinthian church and misapplying this passage. How could Paul tell one group that they could pick and choose their holy days and then tell another group to be perfectly united in mind and thought? Clearly, you’re missing something.

2 Thes 3
14If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. 15Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.

This would seem to support the authority of the written word over all else.

I’ve made this argument before, and no Catholic has answered it: Jesus said the Apostles would be led into all truth. Either all truth was revealed by the time the Apostles died, or Jesus lied and the Catholic church has continued to reveal truth to us.

 

[Peter_J]

Funny, Irenaeus actually explains this, and I pointed it out in another thread, but he seemed to think that the Apostles didn’t preach anything they didn’t later confirm in writing.

This is still a matter of debate among Catholics. That is to say, some Catholics believe that the whole Deposit of Faith is contained (at least implicitly) in the Bible, some Catholics say no.

I’ve made this argument before, and no Catholic has answered it: Jesus said the Apostles would be led into all truth. Either all truth was revealed by the time the Apostles died, or Jesus lied and the Catholic church has continued to reveal truth to us.

Sorry, I must not have seen this question the first time you asked it; but I’ll be happy to answer it now. The Deposit of Faith was once for all handed down to the saints. Anyone who tells you otherwise is not giving you the Catholic teaching on the matter. (I think you’ve been around the internet long enough to know that it’s a great place for people to spout whatever-the-heck ideas they want and call them “the teaching of the Catholic Church”.)

 

[wina]

I am one of those converts this year, and, to answer the original question, I did not come from any sort of Protestant Church. My fiance and I were both atheists. He is now converting, as well, and we’ve never been happier. Those of you who are inclined to do so, please pray for us. Saturday is going to be one of the happiest days of our lives!!

Praise the Lord! and Congratulation, you and your fiance are in my prayer

 

[ckempston]

This is still a matter of debate among Catholics. That is to say, some Catholics believe that the whole Deposit of Faith is contained (at least implicitly) in the Bible, some Catholics say no.

It seems that anyone who believes the Deposit of Faith is contained in the New Testament would be at odds with the Magesterium, which adds dogmas that aren’t even implicit, and are sometimes contrary (such as the holy day observances).

Sorry, I must not have seen this question the first time you asked it; but I’ll be happy to answer it now. The Deposit of Faith was once for all handed down to the saints. Anyone who tells you otherwise is not giving you the Catholic teaching on the matter. (I think you’ve been around the internet long enough to know that it’s a great place for people to spout whatever-the-heck ideas they want and call them “the teaching of the Catholic Church”.)

I’ve brought this up in many other threads. The problem with this is a “deposit” implies that something will grow and be added to. Jesus’s words that “all truth” would be given to the Apostles (and Irenaeus seems to verify that this was the belief in the early church) seems contradictory to something that will continually grow and be added to.

 

[ralphinal]

It seems that anyone who believes the Deposit of Faith is contained in the New Testament would be at odds with the Magesterium, which adds dogmas that aren’t even implicit, and are sometimes contrary (such as the holy day observances).

I’ve brought this up in many other threads. The problem with this is a “deposit” implies that something will grow and be added to. Jesus’s words that “all truth” would be given to the Apostles (and Irenaeus seems to verify that this was the belief in the early church) seems contradictory to something that will continually grow and be added to.

Not to jump into this discussion, which has been interesting, but at times, it needs to be expanded in some ways.

For example, the Trinity eventually had to be defined. The Apostles did not have the dogma in the same way we do today. It does not mean that they would not accept it.

 

[ckempston]

Not to jump into this discussion, which has been interesting, but at times, it needs to be expanded in some ways.

For example, the Trinity eventually had to be defined. The Apostles did not have the dogma in the same way we do today. It does not mean that they would not accept it.

It also means that they wouldn’t demand acceptance of it as a test of one’s Christianity. Seriously, if there was a certain set of standards during the time of the Apostles that made one a Christian, let’s just call them A, B, and C, would it be reasonable to come along in the next generation and say, OK, we know it used to be just A, B, and C, but now we’re going to add X, Y, and Z as requirements for being a Christian?

 

[ralphinal]

It also means that they wouldn’t demand acceptance of it as a test of one’s Christianity. Seriously, if there was a certain set of standards during the time of the Apostles that made one a Christian, let’s just call them A, B, and C, would it be reasonable to come along in the next generation and say, OK, we know it used to be just A, B, and C, but now we’re going to add X, Y, and Z as requirements for being a Christian?

I am not sure that I can answer that.

For example, let’s say that the A,B, and C were Christ’s divinity, his work on earth (ending with his death and Resurection), and the need to be in union with his Church (those seem to be the main ones in the NT). Now, if that is all that is needed, can a Christian hold the same views as a Mormon on the Trinity and still be Christian? What if they deny that Jesus actually had a body or was actually Man? Most of the dogmas came because people were teaching erronious things and had to be corrected.

 

[ckempston]

I am not sure that I can answer that.

For example, let’s say that the A,B, and C were Christ’s divinity, his work on earth (ending with his death and Resurection), and the need to be in union with his Church (those seem to be the main ones in the NT). Now, if that is all that is needed, can a Christian hold the same views as a Mormon on the Trinity and still be Christian? What if they deny that Jesus actually had a body or was actually Man? Most of the dogmas came because people were teaching erronious things and had to be corrected.

Was Arius a Christian prior to being labeled a heretic? I mean, the truth doesn’t change just because the CAtholic church decides to “define” something. Truth is, and always has been, the same. It hardly seems right that this sort of thing is determined by popular vote (well, it wasn’t really popular since not all churches, or even a majority, were represented).

 

[ralphinal]

Was Arius a Christian prior to being labeled a heretic? I mean, the truth doesn’t change just because the CAtholic church decides to “define” something. Truth is, and always has been, the same. It hardly seems right that this sort of thing is determined by popular vote (well, it wasn’t really popular since not all churches, or even a majority, were represented).

Yes, but we do not know when he started teaching the heresy. From what i can tell about him, his teaching changed as he went along.

So, you have no issue with someone with a henotheistic view (multiple gods, only worship one) being called a Christian?

 

[ckempston]

Yes, but we do not know when he started teaching the heresy. From what i can tell about him, his teaching changed as he went along.

So, you have no issue with someone with a henotheistic view (multiple gods, only worship one) being called a Christian?

EDIT: to add - so, it can be heresy before the church defines it as heresy? Think of the implications of this.

Well, define “gods.” David says, “we are all gods.” The LORD told Moses he would make him “elohim” to Pharaoh. The Catholic “black and white” world is hardly ever reality.

In the sense of the true God that we should worship (i.e. of the godhead itself), I’m sure this question could be answered with a single scripture.

1 Cor 8:5-6 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Do you agree with this scripture?

 

[ralphinal]

EDIT: to add - so, it can be heresy before the church defines it as heresy? Think of the implications of this.

Well, define “gods.” David says, “we are all gods.” The LORD told Moses he would make him “elohim” to Pharaoh. The Catholic “black and white” world is hardly ever reality.

In the sense of the true God that we should worship (i.e. of the godhead itself), I’m sure this question could be answered with a single scripture.

1 Cor 8:5-6 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Do you agree with this scripture?

I do. My point is that either our view of the Trinity is correct or the Mormon view is. Both cannot be.

Heresy is always heresy. However, it must be shown to be heretical most of the time. Can someone be Christian who teaches that Jesus did not have human flesh (it was an illusion) because the Bible says that the flesh is evil?

 

[ckempston]

I do. My point is that either our view of the Trinity is correct or the Mormon view is. Both cannot be.

Or neither.

Heresy is always heresy. However, it must be shown to be heretical most of the time. Can someone be Christian who teaches that Jesus did not have human flesh (it was an illusion) because the Bible says that the flesh is evil?

Once again, my friend, these answers are found in the Scriptures.

1 John 4:2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

This is not complicated.

 

[ralphinal]

Or neither.

Once again, my friend, these answers are found in the Scriptures.

1 John 4:2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

This is not complicated.

Ah, so what is the correct view of the Trinity? Is there a Trinity?

 

[ckempston]

Ah, so what is the correct view of the Trinity? Is there a Trinity?

I think the Trinity is a fairly good explanation insofar as man can “explain” the godhead. Whether the whole thing works with homoousoius and consubstantials or whatever, I don’t know or care.

 

[ralphinal]

I think the Trinity is a fairly good explanation insofar as man can “explain” the godhead. Whether the whole thing works with homoousoius and consubstantials or whatever, I don’t know or care.

Yet even that part of the Trinity is not really Biblical… Can a Modalist be properly understood as Christian?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

It also means that they wouldn’t demand acceptance of it as a test of one’s Christianity. Seriously, if there was a certain set of standards during the time of the Apostles that made one a Christian, let’s just call them A, B, and C, would it be reasonable to come along in the next generation and say, OK, we know it used to be just A, B, and C, but now we’re going to add X, Y, and Z as requirements for being a Christian?

What did the Church say about those who preached that gentile converts must be circumcised?

Acts 15
The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing.

Do you have authorization? If not, who does?

 

[Ridgerunner]

The 150,000 conversions to the Catholic Church in the U.S. this Easter Vigil 2009 are all adult conversions from various and many non-Catholic backgrounds, both baptized and unbaptized.

In addition, there are approximately 1 million infant baptisms this year in the U.S. as in previous years.

Worldwide, there could be millions of converts to the Catholic Church, especially counting those converts in Africa and in Asia. In the Diocese of Saigon (Vietnam, where the Catholic Church continues to be persecuted by the communist regime), it is reported that there are 2,000 converts this Easter.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich entered the Catholic Church last March 29th (Sunday) ahead of the Easter Vigil for reasons known only to him and his pastor.

In my parish, the conversions this year are about 5% of the parish population, which has been fairly standard for several years. Virtually every one is a convert from a fairly Fundamentalist-type group; mostly Baptists, some non-denominationals, Evangelicals of various stripes. Not too many mainline protestants, but then their numbers are not very large relative to the others.

Infant and young child baptisms are huge. I don’t know the number, because infants are not baptized in a group. I attended the “young child” baptism ceremony last year, which was mainly Hispanics, but included others. Making a fair guess, I am going to say the “young child” baptisms were around 7% of the parish population as a whole. Certainly more numerous than the adult convert baptisms. Infants, again, I have no way of knowing. I’m going to guess perhaps they are the biggest number.

Except for the large number of “young child” Hispanic baptisms, I would guess the above may not be unusual for “Bible Belt” areas like this.

 

[distracted]

Is anyone praying for our political leaders who promote abortion??

They need to be prayed over with the rosary… every day…