A question of combined beliefs

[CMatt25]

Another misunderstanding followed by a "false judgement ". What your comment lacks is facts. When an infant is baptised the profession and vows are taken by the parents for the faith of the baptised, and by God parents as witnesses. This is no small matter.

The child then is to be nutured in the ways of God, until the baptised Child reaches the age of reason 7 years, recieves catechesis, does a first confession, and is able to discern the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

The UU member is not a child, according to the OP, this member attended at least one Easter Sunday during his life, when he professes before God his renewed Covenant relationship and remembers and professes of his own freewill his renewed baptismal vows that he takes upon his own freewill before God.

The baptised child is never without faith professed in God.

These baptised are commanded by scripture “not to stay away from the assembly”.

What is expressed in faith from the baptismal liturgy is not arm twisting but a matter of eternal life which relates to a reality. To think otherwise misunderstands what baptism does. Baptism saves the child “now” as the child enters the kingdom of God. to be nurtured in the kingdom of God. Leaving ones baptismal birth “right” as a child of the living God for another is not a small matter in the Catholic Church.

Peace be with you

One could argue if even at the age of 7 a child has the reason to fully grasp and discern for themselves Catholic teaching on the Eucharist for example. They can know what is being told them during catechesis. But I’m not sure every 7 yr old has the capacity to study other faiths and decide what they believe until later in life. So again I question what of the baptized infant who received proper catechesis, believed and followed the faith, and then at some point in later yrs had a change in belief?

I know Steve tried to argue that “No one who truly believes would ever leave the truth”. He went on to say “IOW, if they leave, they never actually believed”.

If that’s the case, then why bother to put into CCC that the person who knew but does not remain could not be saved? Considering such a case can not even exist?

 

[Sufjon]

Another misunderstanding followed by a "false judgement ". What your comment lacks is facts. When an infant is baptised the profession and vows are taken by the parents for the faith of the baptised, and by God parents as witnesses. This is no small matter.

I wasn’t the one who brought up baptismal vows. You are saying that it’s no small matter, which has the usual overtone of a veiled threat behind it. So who are we warning about the gravity of the vow, and in plain language if you will, who is taking what vow?

The child then is to be nutured in the ways of God, until the baptised Child reaches the age of reason 7 years, recieves catechesis, does a first confession, and is able to discern the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

A 7 year old is able to comprehend what you have taught him or her. However, a seven year old is not able to assess the veracity of what you’ve taught them, especially when it’s reinforced by the family and the faith community that is downloading all that stuf into it’s little hard drive.

The UU member is not a child, according to the OP, this member attended at least one Easter Sunday during his life, when he professes before God his renewed Covenant relationship and remembers and professes of his own freewill his renewed baptismal vows that he takes upon his own freewill before God.

I go to Easter services all the time because my wife is Catholic, but I don’t say anything. I just watch because I understand that it would be pointless for me to say something that I have assessed to be a limited estimation of the truth (insofar as I believe).

The baptised child is never without faith professed in God.

I admit that I don’t understand what you’re saying on that one.

These baptised are commanded by scripture “not to stay away from the assembly”.

Or what? Again, are you saying that a person is accountable much later in life for something that was done TO them without their comprehension, rather than BY them with their understanding and consent.

What is expressed in faith from the baptismal liturgy is not arm twisting but a matter of eternal life which relates to a reality. To think otherwise misunderstands what baptism does. Baptism saves the child “now” as the child enters the kingdom of God. to be nurtured in the kingdom of God. Leaving ones baptismal birth “right” as a child of the living God for another is not a small matter in the Catholic Church.

But you seem to also be intimating that it carries some long standing obligation on child. Am I understanding you correctly?

Peace be with you

Peace be with you too!

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Luvtosew]

How true a 7 year old is not able to comprehend the Sacrafice of the Mass or what transubstantiation means, and now I seen posted here a couple days ago that they might move confirmation down to the age of communion. I grew up thinking from my basic cathechism class that the sacrifice was the bread and wine and communion was the body and blood , soul and divinity of Christ but never fully explained, pre vatican here.
PS: at that age you do what your told and what your parents do.

 

[CMatt25]

I admit that I don’t understand what you’re saying on that one.
Peace be with you too!

Your friend
Sufjon

Sufjon, in one sense I think the baptized child would not be without faith professed in God if nurtured in the faith by his parents and godparents as vowed. Peace be with you as well and with your wife during this Easter season.

 

[CMatt25]

How true a 7 year old is not able to comprehend the Sacrafice of the Mass or what transubstantiation means, and now I seen posted here a couple days ago that they might move confirmation down to the age of communion. I grew up thinking from my basic cathechism class that the sacrifice was the bread and wine and communion was the body and blood , soul and divinity of Christ but never fully explained, pre vatican here.
PS: at that age you do what your told and what your parents do.

Exactly. Fully comprehending these detailed matters of faith are not the same as what a 7 yr old might be learning in 2nd grade when it comes to subjects like reading or arithmetic. I received my First Communion at age 7. Perhaps a bit later than you. Around the time of Vat 2 for me. And the Sacrament of Confirmation at the ripe old age of 10. Which honestly I hadn’t even realized was so early until I received an updated Baptismal certificate not too many yrs ago with my Confirmation date added. No doubt “poor catechesis” will be the blame here by some. But it’s not as simple as that. Now I realize 10 of yesteryear may not be the same as 10 today. But even as 10 yr olds back in the day as I recall, choosing our new name for our “Confirmation name” was one of the foremost things on our 10 yr old minds. It was later when I was able to more fully comprehend Catholicism as well as study and compare faiths. And I was a pretty good student at age 7 and 10. But even at my older age now my lifelong faith journey is not complete.

Blessings and peace to the OP, his UU RC friend, and each of us along our life journeys.

 

[Khalid]

One could argue if even at the age of 7 a child has the reason to fully grasp and discern for themselves Catholic teaching on the Eucharist for example. They can know what is being told them during catechesis. But I’m not sure every 7 yr old has the capacity to study other faiths and decide what they believe until later in life. So again I question what of the baptized infant who received proper catechesis, believed and followed the faith, and then at some point in later yrs had a change in belief?

I know Steve tried to argue that “No one who truly believes would ever leave the truth”. He went on to say “IOW, if they leave, they never actually believed”.

If that’s the case, then why bother to put into CCC that the person who knew but does not remain could not be saved? Considering such a case can not even exist?

“Decide what they believe”? Come on.

Those who are lucky enough to be born in to Catholicism never have to seek religious truth. Those born in other religions do, but they never have to “decide what to believe” - they have to discern an absolute Truth.

Blessings and peace to the OP, his UU RC friend, and each of us along our life journeys.

“Life journeys”? Maybe in this life, but God isn’t a latitudinarian.

 

[Sufjon]

Sufjon, in one sense I think the baptized child would not be without faith professed in God if nurtured in the faith by his parents and godparents as vowed. Peace be with you as well and with your wife during this Easter season.

Hi CMatt: I think I understand what you’re saying in that the child will have a certain religious orientation given that it’s parents keep him or her involved in the program as they grow. My question was more about the implied burden of upholding a vow insofar as the child is concerned. I’m sure it’s implied that the parents have an obligation to raise their children in the church.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

“Decide what they believe”? Come on.

Those who are lucky enough to be born in to Catholicism never have to seek religious truth. Those born in other religions do, but they never have to “decide what to believe” - they have to discern an absolute Truth.

Yes, some people decide later what they actually believe and they leave the church to join another. Sometimes similar, sometimes different altogether. Others stop attending. Still more go along with the program but don’t buy every component of it. Some stick with the program. A select few find an entirely different meaning in the faith than what they are taught. These sometimes end up being your saints. People in the mainstream usually find them strange. Church hierarchy is usually suspicious of them and put hem through all kinds or tests and tribulations. The they canonize them. But they seldom understand them. Now there is an absolute truth.

“Life journeys”? Maybe in this life, but God isn’t a latitudinarian.

There is only one life, unless you are talking about the life of these bodies we wear. But life is much more than that, and it never started and it never ends. Only form changes from one permutation to the next. It is an observable cosmic and natural cycle.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[meltzerboy]

Recently, I had a discussion with another Unitarian Universalist who was a Roman Catholic.

Lent is apparently a time when he sometimes wishes for some of the ritual that he grew up with - although he is quick to point out that he doesn’t desire to return to being Catholic.

But he did say he liked the idea of observing lent, getting ashes on Ash Wednesday, and conducting a bit of self examination.

Anyway, long story short, he considers himself a Unitarian Universalist Roman Catholic, and says there are still some aspects of Catholicism that he practices, such as the ash service.

For Unitarian Universalists, the concept of being a Unitarian Universalist Roman Catholic would be acceptable, although a tad unusual. We have members who are UU Wicdans, UU Jews, UU Deists, etc.

So, the question that popped into my mind, and which I asked this gentleman, was how the Roman Catholic Church woudl view such a union of belief systems.

He didn’t think the Catholic hierachy would be amenable to such a linkage, but wasn’t sure how lay Catholics would respond.

So, lay Catholics, what do you think.

Peace,

Seeker

Although I’m not Catholic, I don’t see how one can be a Roman Catholic Unitarian Universalist since, unless I’m mistaken, Unitarians do not believe in the Trinity.

 

[zz912]

Catholicism and UU are simply incompatible and are mutually exclusive.

Catholicism is different from every other world religion. Other religions direct how one is to worship God, and how to live one’s life in accord with God. While Catholicism does this as well, the fundamental basis for Catholicism is WHO Jesus is. He is God. It all revolves around Him. The other part is The article of faith makes the claim that every other religion is incomplete or false. (Not evil, but incomplete.)

If Jesus is God, then a religion, like UU, that claims that all religions are valid is untrue.

You just can’t be both. You are one or the other.

 

[Sufjon]

If Jesus is God, then a religion, like UU, that claims that all religions are valid is untrue.

Different “religions” is an illusion. As Pope John Paul II said: “You speak of many religions. Instead I will attempt to show the common fundamental element and the common root of these religions…From the beginning, Christian Revelation has viewed the spiritual history of man as including, in some way, all religions, thereby demonstrating the unity of humankind with regard to the eternal and ultimate destiny of man. The Council document speaks of this unity and links it with the current trend to bring humanity closer together through the resources available to our civilization. The Church sees the promotion of this unity as one of its duties…” -Pope John Paul II

“…Diversity in creation and cultures is the language of God; the radical unity of the opposites. In God absolute unity is absolute multiplicity. It is you O God who is being sought in various religions in various ways and named with various names. For you remain as you are to all incomprehensible and inexpressible. When you will graciously grant it then sword, jealous hatred and evil will cease and all will come to know that there is but one religion in the variety of religious faiths…”

• Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464)

*Special thanks to my friend Vouthon for sharing these with me.
*
Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[CMatt25]

Different “religions” is an illusion. As Pope John Paul II said: “You speak of many religions. Instead I will attempt to show the common fundamental element and the common root of these religions…From the beginning, Christian Revelation has viewed the spiritual history of man as including, in some way, all religions, thereby demonstrating the unity of humankind with regard to the eternal and ultimate destiny of man. The Council document speaks of this unity and links it with the current trend to bring humanity closer together through the resources available to our civilization. The Church sees the promotion of this unity as one of its duties…” -Pope John Paul II

“…Diversity in creation and cultures is the language of God; the radical unity of the opposites. In God absolute unity is absolute multiplicity. It is you O God who is being sought in various religions in various ways and named with various names. For you remain as you are to all incomprehensible and inexpressible. When you will graciously grant it then sword, jealous hatred and evil will cease and all will come to know that there is but one religion in the variety of religious faiths…”

• Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464)

*Special thanks to my friend Vouthon for sharing these with me.
*
Your friend,
Sufjon

Sufjon, and thank you for sharing them with us.

 

[Sufjon]

Sufjon, and thank you for sharing them with us.

 

[Khalid]

Yes, some people decide later what they actually believe and they leave the church to join another. Sometimes similar, sometimes different altogether. Others stop attending. Still more go along with the program but don’t buy every component of it. Some stick with the program. A select few find an entirely different meaning in the faith than what they are taught. These sometimes end up being your saints. People in the mainstream usually find them strange. Church hierarchy is usually suspicious of them and put hem through all kinds or tests and tribulations. The they canonize them. But they seldom understand them. Now there is an absolute truth.

There is only one life, unless you are talking about the life of these bodies we wear. But life is much more than that, and it never started and it never ends. Only form changes from one permutation to the next. It is an observable cosmic and natural cycle.

Your friend,
Sufjon

The universe began and it will end. It is not cyclical. (According to the scientific consensus of physicists.) Life arose, evolved; humanity was created, and given this physical life in this body as the only life before the resurrection. We get two lives: one finite, on earth, and one eternal, in Heaven or Hell.

If one wants to count purgatory as an “intermediate state” and a different life than heaven, I suppose some of us get three.

 

[Khalid]

Sufjon, and thank you for sharing them with us.

And thank whoever comes along to straighten out the incorrect interpretations you’ve likely given them.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

CMatt25;9058147]One could argue if even at the age of 7 a child has the reason to fully grasp and discern for themselves Catholic teaching on the Eucharist for example. They can know what is being told them during catechesis. But I’m not sure every 7 yr old has the capacity to study other faiths and decide what they believe until later in life. So again I question what of the baptized infant who received proper catechesis, believed and followed the faith, and then at some point in later yrs had a change in belief?

Your argument rests with God not the Catholic Church.

Jesus teaches "Mark 10;14… "Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

MatthewChapter 18;2 He called a child over, placed it in their midst,
3 and said, "Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
4** Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.**
5 And whoever receives one child such as this in my name receives me.
6 **"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. **

What are arguments neglects to mention is that since the Old Covenant these have entered by circumcision as infants on the faith and testimony of the parents.

Jesus himself fulfilled the Old Covenant from his infancy through his parents Mary and Joseph.

Luke 2;21 When eight days were completed for his circumcision, 7 he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
22 When the days were completed for their purification according to the law of Moses,** they took him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord**,
23** just as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord,” **

Paul teaches baptism replaces circumcision in the New eternal covenant.

God is the same today, yesterday and forever more.

Yet your argument does not hold water as far as one entering into the Covenants of God as infants.

I know Steve tried to argue that “No one who truly believes would ever leave the truth”. He went on to say “IOW, if they leave, they never actually believed”.

That is very debatable. One cannot judge ones faith and belief. Only when the reason for the one who left is revealed, dictates ones understanding of the faith one believes in or misunderstands, or lacked catechesis and practice of the faith to come to the knowledge of ones faith.

To think “they never actually believed” is not a true statement but needs more clarification, and can only be assessed by case by case and made in a general statement like you presented as an opinion.

Thus, we are discussing a Life relationship with God, this is not something the Catholic Church toys with by speaking in generalities especially with out evidence of facts to judge whether or not “one believes or not”?

If that’s the case, then why bother to put into CCC that the person who knew but does not remain could not be saved? Considering such a case can not even exist?

Because your position does not exist in the Catholic Church. When baptism has occurred by God’s saving grace not what man he believes he understands, there exist a difference between “believe” and “Faith”.

You appear to conflict this sacrament of baptism with carnal understanding, making arguments from the wisdom of men that becomes foolisheness to God’s wisdom.

Lucifer rejected heaven, Adam rejected paradise, man rejects the law because man cannot keep the law. Your argument stems from these carnal understandings from what is believed.

Baptism saves us now, by the power of God, that becomes “Faith” from what is believed in.

Our UU member lacked the faith, from what he believed in. His disposition has nothing to do with the saving Grace from God from his baptism as a member in the Kingdom of God in the Catholic Church.

 

[CMatt25]

And thank whoever comes along to straighten out the incorrect interpretations you’ve likely given them.

I beg your pardon. If someone whose religion was listed as Catholic and as such they were representing themselves as a Catholic on the Apologist subforum and giving incorrect Catholic interpretation, you might have a point with such a person. But this is the non Catholic religion subforum where various faith beliefs and interpretations can be discussed charitably.

 

[CMatt25]

Your argument rests with God not the Catholic Church.

Jesus teaches "Mark 10;14… "Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

MatthewChapter 18;2 He called a child over, placed it in their midst,
3 and said, "Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
4** Whoever humbles himself like this child **is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5 And whoever receives one child such as this in my name receives me.
6 **"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. **

What are arguments neglects to mention is that since the Old Covenant these have entered by circumcision as infants on the faith and testimony of the parents.

Jesus himself fulfilled the Old Covenant from his infancy through his parents Mary and Joseph.

Luke 2;21 When eight days were completed for his circumcision, 7 he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
22 When the days were completed for their purification according to the law of Moses, they took him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord,
23** just as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord,” **

Paul teaches baptism replaces circumcision in the New eternal covenant.

God is the same today, yesterday and forever more.

Yet your argument does not hold water as far as one entering into the Covenants of God as infants.

That is very debatable. One cannot judge ones faith and belief. Only when the reason for the one who left is revealed, dictates ones understanding of the faith one believes in or misunderstands, or lacked catechesis and practice of the faith to come to the knowledge of ones faith.

To think “they never actually believed” is not a true statement but needs more clarification, and can only be assessed by case by case and made in a general statement like you presented as an opinion.

Thus, we are discussing a Life relationship with God, this is not something the Catholic Church toys with by speaking in generalities especially with out evidence of facts to judge whether or not “one believes or not”?

Because your position does not exist in the Catholic Church. When baptism has occurred by God’s saving grace not what man he believes he understands, there exist a difference between “believe” and “Faith”.

You appear to conflict this sacrament of baptism with carnal understanding, making arguments from the wisdom of men that becomes foolisheness to God’s wisdom.

Lucifer rejected heaven, Adam rejected paradise, man rejects the law because man cannot keep the law. Your argument stems from these carnal understandings from what is believed.

Baptism saves us now, by the power of God, that becomes “Faith” from what is believed in.

Our UU member lacked the faith, from what he believed in. His disposition has nothing to do with the saving Grace from God from his baptism as a member in the Kingdom of God in the Catholic Church.

I have no argument at all with God saying let the children come to Him. I’m all for everyone coming to Him and no one being turned away. Jesus Himself taught in Jn 6:37 that He would turn no one away. I’m just not certain the passages you presented translate into the children being able to comprehend fully the aspects of faith we previously had under discussion until they are older.

And I was merely discussing what Steve stated in that anyone such as our UU RC if he truly knew, would “remain”. But you’ve explained this is debatable. So thank you for that as I agree it is debatable. Our UU RC or if not him, someone else who did not “remain”, may have come to believe and know at some point. But then later perhaps had a change in what they believe. God bless and peace.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Sufjon;9058168]I wasn’t the one who brought up baptismal vows. You are saying that it’s no small matter, which has the usual overtone of a veiled threat behind it. So who are we warning about the gravity of the vow, and in plain language if you will, who is taking what vow?

I mentioned the baptismal vows is not small matter. You appear to contest the baptismal vows? Are we discussing the sacrament of baptism? or are we discussing a Catholic baptism does not and cannot combine two seperate communions to be one. Because a sacramental baptismal is a professed faith in one Holy Catholic Apostolic faith, never two distinct beliefs combined into one never exists of a baptised Catholic.

A 7 year old is able to comprehend what you have taught him or her. However, a seven year old is not able to assess the veracity of what you’ve taught them, especially when it’s reinforced by the family and the faith community that is downloading all that stuf into it’s little hard drive.

The Church is only obeying God here, because she “suffers the little Children unto God”. This has never changed that one enters into both revealed covenants of God as infants or after the age of reason.

To keep one of these little ones from the kingdom of God, is better to commit suicide. The Catholic Church even includes these little ones in her liturgies, when all are able to attend the wedding feast of the lamb wearing their white garment which is baptism. Without this garment you will be binded hands and feet and cast out. It is the angels who take charge here, not man who argues the ages of discernment for one to have faith in God.

I go to Easter services all the time because my wife is Catholic, but I don’t say anything. I just watch because I understand that it would be pointless for me to say something that I have assessed to be a limited estimation of the truth (insofar as I believe).

By an Orthodox just professing the Creed brings him into communion with Latin Rite. Unbaptised professing the Creed before God brings one into contempt before God. All are invited to attend, but only those wearing their “Wedding garments” = Baptism are able to attend the heavenly banquet of God and enter into the mysteries of the Wedding feast of the Lamb.

Without baptism or your wedding garment, it is the attendants of heaven in the angels who take charge over the liturgy and will not allow those without baptism to go before the Father in the wedding feast of the Lamb.

Or what? Again, are you saying that a person is accountable much later in life for something that was done TO them without their comprehension, rather than BY them with their understanding and consent

.

I don’t judge a persons disposition of faith here as you appear to have done. For one to leave their communion in the Catholic Church, it is up to them to inform themselves of what they are leaving before they leave. You have the person leaving the Catholic Communion without ever knowing what the Church actually teaches and practices from her Faith.

But you seem to also be intimating that it carries some long standing obligation on child. Am I understanding you correctly?

Baptism has not time limit, it is a permanent seal of God placed on the soul eternally, which no man can remove. Only the reciepient of the baptism can reject his salvation gift, but the baptismal seal can never be removed, Just as lucifer and Adam both rejected their eternal life with God.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

How true a 7 year old is not able to comprehend the Sacrafice of the Mass or what transubstantiation means, and now I seen posted here a couple days ago that they might move confirmation down to the age of communion. I grew up thinking from my basic cathechism class that the sacrifice was the bread and wine and communion was the body and blood , soul and divinity of Christ but never fully explained, pre vatican here.
PS: at that age you do what your told and what your parents do.

A sacrament is a mystery, man cannot ever fully understand the mysteries of “God”. Surely you are not saying that some man out there knows God better than a Child? How do you judge the faith of a man, and the faith of a 7 year old child? Who have both been baptised?

Catechesis is not a sacrament. If one lacks catechesis it is not the Catechetical teachings that lack substance, it is the individual who accesses the Catechetical teachings and revelations of Jesus Christ that you are speaking of here, not the 7 year old, but the 7 year old who grows up, and never continues his catechetical teachings in the Church, because these are life long living, they do not end at age 7 as you appear to be thinking from an opinion.

The Mysteries revealed in the Mass is not reached by carnal minds and understanding, this mans’ wisdom you speak of remains grounded and returns to dust. The Mass and the Sacraments of God begin in “Faith” not carnal understanding which is foolishness in the wisdom of God.

You should be made aware that the Orthodox Catholics confirm their infants and give them holy Communion during their infant baptism.

Again these are mysteries/sacraments that supersede the foolishness of mans wisdom of carnal understandings. One does not need a degree to be saved in the kingdom of God. Only Born, and baptised.