Can a catholic / baptist relationship work?

[benedictus2]

So sad that you’re wrong! Obedience brings you closer to Christ! Communion is an opportunity to commune with Christ, and experience His awesome presence!

Only partly true. According to Christ Himself we eat His Body and drink His Blood. That’s not just according to me or SteveGC but according to the very Person you say you follow.

 

[benedictus2]

I have a personal experience in this area. It’s all going to depend on the two of you and how far along you are in your spiritual journeys. If you are at a certain stage in your journeys, you’ll get hung up on what he calls himself as opposed to what you call yourself and perhaps some of the finer points on which your religions may disagree her and there.

Based on what you posted on another thread you actually lied and had yourself baptized as a Catholic when you did not believe what the Church teaches so I don’t know that that qualifies you.

You may be the sort of people who can learn to alternate - attending one another’s churches from time to time. When it’s all said and done, your real church is the life you have together and the world you live in.

Quite wrong. The real Church is the Catholic Church but the family is supposed to be the domestic Church. And that becomes problematic if the other person is adamantly against the Catholic Church. When Scott converted but Kimberly remained obstinately Presbyterian it was excruciating for both of them.

However, if the Catholic is faithful and well versed in the faith and can explain the faith lucidly and intelligently to the husband/wife then it can work. But they both realized that they were being asked to live the brokenness of God’s family.

My sister married a Protestant but he was non-practicing so it was easier because he always went to mass with her and sometimes they would go together to his service. Then one day whilst at his protestant church, he just said “I don’t belong here anymore. I want to receive Communion”. And that was that. She prepared him for confirmation and he was welcomed home.

If you feel the institution part is important enough to get tangled up on, then you’re probably going to be missing church.

It is not just an institution. It is is God’s Church where one partakes in the heavenly banquet and where one is sustained and strengthened by the sacraments.

 

[Lutgardis]

If the essentials are in the Creed, then there is no need for the Eucharist or any of the sacraments. You lose the fullness of faith.

There no non-essentials in Catholic theology.

The creeds were developed in order to safeguard orthodox teachings of the Christian faith. If one embraces what is taught in the creeds, he/she embraces the doctrines that essentially distinguish us as Christian believers.

I quoted Catholic sources in reference to the fact that others are indeed led to truth through other ecclesial communities and that those ecclesial communities are, through the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church, a means of salvation to others. If you disagree that there can be life of grace, faith, hope and charity outside the boundaries of the Catholic Church, then you take issue with what the Church teaches, and not with me.

 

[benedictus2]

The creeds were developed in order to safeguard orthodox teachings of the Christian faith. If one embraces what is taught in the creeds, he/she embraces the doctrines that essentially distinguish us as Christian believers.

Exactly! The Creeds were developed in the context that all were Catholic at the time.

One cannot apply this rule now because there are thousands of denominations that are not Catholic. This is no longer the essential. There many things that form the essential. As a matter fact if one wants to condense the faith, then what is essential is the Eucharist because as Vatican II states: it is the source and summit of the Christian life. One cannot find that in the Creed.

I quoted Catholic sources in reference to the fact that others are indeed led to truth through other ecclesial communities and that those ecclesial communities are, through the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church, a means of salvation to others. If you disagree that there can be life of grace, faith, hope and charity outside the boundaries of the Catholic Church, then you take issue with what the Church teaches, and not with me.

Yes, all the Christian faiths are led to the truth THROUGH the Church so one can’t advocate for a least common denominator approach toward Christianity. If we did that, then there would not be a need for the Church to evangelize those imperfectly united to the Church, there would not be a need to work towards full communion. We should just leave fractured Christianity just as it is and just shrug and say live and let live.

 

[Lutgardis]

And that is wonderful that you are witnessing about Christ. God knows we need many people like you to help those who do not know Christ to come to know Christ.

But in His great mercy and love, He has also converted many people like you and shown them the fullness of the Truth so that those who know only half of the truth will come to know the whole. So like you I witness, but I witness to the fullness of Truth.

I am in full agreement with what the Church teaches through the Catechism and through our former pope, and therefore that I am a faithful witness to the fullness of truth as taught by her.

 

[Lutgardis]

Exactly! The Creeds were developed in the context that all were Catholic at the time.

One cannot apply this rule now because there are thousands of denominations that are not Catholic. This is no longer the essential. There many things that form the essential. As a matter fact if one wants to condense the faith, then what is essential is the Eucharist because as Vatican II states: it is the source and summit of the Christian life. One cannot find that in the Creed.

Yes, all the Christian faiths are led to the truth THROUGH the Church so one can’t advocate for a least common denominator approach toward Christianity. If we did that, then there would not be a need for the Church to evangelize those imperfectly united to the Church, there would not be a need to work towards full communion. We should just leave fractured Christianity just as it is and just shrug and say live and let live.

You are arguing points that I am not making. I did not say that the Eucharist was not the source and summit of Christian life. I experience Eucharist this way–as the source and summit of MY life. I did not say I never dialogue or try to persuade others. I made the original point that 1beleevr was obviously not interested in becoming Catholic. He made it perfectly clear. To badger others, to annoy them with the petty, untruthful conveyance, “you must join the Catholic Church” is a lack of wisdom and charity, and not a witness to truth, regardless of the greatness of the benefit of the blessing of Eucharist if one were to embrace it.

 

[benedictus2]

You are arguing points that I am not making. I did not say that the Eucharist was not the source and summit of Christian life. I experience Eucharist this way–as the source and summit of MY life. I did not say I never dialogue or try to persuade others. I made the original point that 1beleevr was obviously not interested in becoming Catholic. He made it perfectly clear. To badger others, to annoy them with the petty, untruthful conveyance, “you must join the Catholic Church” is a lack of wisdom and charity, and not a witness to truth, regardless of the greatness of the benefit of the blessing of Eucharist if one were to embrace it.

Okay, here is how our conversation developed.

You said: Why cannot we adopt the Christian precept of: “In the essentials, unity, in the non essentials, liberty, in all–charity.” ? We’re all Christians; let’s leave it at that and stop bickering; it’s so unattractive

I replied:* So you are saying that there are non-essential Catholic beliefs? Who decides which and which is not essential?*

You then replied: The essentials to the Christian faith are in the Nicene Creed, the Apostles Creed and the Athanasian Creed*.***

So I replied back: *If the essentials are in the Creed, then there is no need for the Eucharist or any of the sacraments. You lose the fullness of faith. *There no non-essentials in Catholic theology.

To which you responded with: *The creeds were developed in order to safeguard orthodox teachings of the Christian faith. If one embraces what is taught in the creeds, he/she embraces the doctrines that essentially distinguish us as Christian believers. *

And I said: *Exactly! The Creeds were developed in the context that all were Catholic at the time. *One cannot apply this rule now because there are thousands of denominations that are not Catholic. This is no longer the essential. There many things that form the essential. As a matter fact if one wants to condense the faith, then what is essential is the Eucharist because as Vatican II states: it is the source and summit of the Christian life. One cannot find that in the Creed.

The whole problem arose because of your proposed dictum: in non-essentials liberty.You are basically saying that the essentials are limited to the Creed so if that is the case you regard the Eucharist as non-essential because it is not in the Creed. So how can you hold to the fact that the Eucharist is the source and summit of Christian life if according to you what is essential can be found in the Creed alone. The Church states that the Eucharist is not just the source and summit of YOUR life but of the CHRISTIAN life.

Your original statement is basically peace (stop bickering) at the expense of Truth.

 

[benedictus2]

I am in full agreement with what the Church teaches through the Catechism and through our former pope, and therefore that I am a faithful witness to the fullness of truth as taught by her.

Not sure how take your response because the post you reponsded to was addressed 1believer.

I find the “through our former Pope” bit perplexing. Does it mean you have an issue with what Pope Benedict teaches?

 

[ibneahmad]

Can a catholic / baptist relationship work?

It cannot work unless they both agree that they would do and believe what Jesus and Mary did and believed. It is an irony that they both are far off from what Jesus and Mary did and believed.

 

[Sufjon]

Based on what you posted on another thread you actually lied and had yourself baptized as a Catholic when you did not believe what the Church teaches so I don’t know that that qualifies you.

Trying Catholicism is not a matter of lying. Sticking with it after finding wrong for me would have indeed been a lie. I tried it, found it deficient in many profound ways, and left it. That is being honest. Sticking with something because of the threat of going to hell unless you follow their exclusive patented program, is disingenuous, motivated by fear, and has nothing really to so with God. It’s really just threats and promises.

Now, if you would like to use your faith to get yet another person like the OP tangled up in more of your sectarian diversions from what really matters,. go for it. That is none of my business. My advice is not to let any of that garbage get in the way of your relationship. The people you come in contact with are the closest thing to God you’re going to encounter in this life, not some institution.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[benedictus2]

Trying Catholicism is not a matter of lying. Sticking with it after finding wrong for me would have indeed been a lie. I tried it, found it deficient in many profound ways, and left it. That is being honest. Sticking with something because of the threat of going to hell unless you follow their exclusive patented program, is disingenuous, motivated by fear, and has nothing really to so with God. It’s really just threats and promises.

Now, if you would like to use your faith to get yet another person like the OP tangled up in more of your sectarian diversions from what really matters,. go for it. That is none of my business. My advice is not to let any of that garbage get in the way of your relationship. The people you come in contact with are the closest thing to God you’re going to encounter in this life, not some institution.

Your friend
Sufjon

Before an adult person gets baptized they undergo catechesis. When someon is baptized they say I do to their baptismal promises. When you said “I do” not believing what you said “I do” to, meant you lied then.

When you ceased playing the game is when you at last became honest.

Sectarian difference is not garbage. The faith is more important than any relationship.

The person you encounter are gifts of God but the way God draws you to Him is through His Church. And that drawing is more important than any relationship.

 

[Lutgardis]

Okay, here is how our conversation developed.

You said: Why cannot we adopt the Christian precept of: “In the essentials, unity, in the non essentials, liberty, in all–charity.” ? We’re all Christians; let’s leave it at that and stop bickering; it’s so unattractive

I replied:* So you are saying that there are non-essential Catholic beliefs? Who decides which and which is not essential?*

You then replied: The essentials to the Christian faith are in the Nicene Creed, the Apostles Creed and the Athanasian Creed*.***

So I replied back: *If the essentials are in the Creed, then there is no need for the Eucharist or any of the sacraments. You lose the fullness of faith. *There no non-essentials in Catholic theology.

To which you responded with: *The creeds were developed in order to safeguard orthodox teachings of the Christian faith. If one embraces what is taught in the creeds, he/she embraces the doctrines that essentially distinguish us as Christian believers. *

And I said: *Exactly! The Creeds were developed in the context that all were Catholic at the time. *One cannot apply this rule now because there are thousands of denominations that are not Catholic. This is no longer the essential. There many things that form the essential. As a matter fact if one wants to condense the faith, then what is essential is the Eucharist because as Vatican II states: it is the source and summit of the Christian life. One cannot find that in the Creed.

The whole problem arose because of your proposed dictum: in non-essentials liberty.You are basically saying that the essentials are limited to the Creed so if that is the case you regard the Eucharist as non-essential because it is not in the Creed. So how can you hold to the fact that the Eucharist is the source and summit of Christian life if according to you what is essential can be found in the Creed alone. The Church states that the Eucharist is not just the source and summit of YOUR life but of the CHRISTIAN life.

Your original statement is basically peace (stop bickering) at the expense of Truth.

Your method of arguing is wearisome. I do not have to defend “stop bickering at the expense of truth.” That is your personal view of what I said. I said that the creeds were developed to distinguish us as those who adhere to the Christian faith. That stands today as it always has. Proof of this is that those from other denominations who convert to Catholicism do not have to be rebaptized into the faith. This is an acknowledgment that they are already Christians. My point, originally, was that we do not have to hound and badger others who are in Christ and have no present interest in becoming a part of the Catholic Church. If you believe Eucharist and the other sacraments (as well as every other teaching-- which you intimated by saying “there are no non-essential Catholic teachings”) are “essential” to salvation, you are free to do so; but this is not the Church’s teaching. Again, the Catechism:

" . . . one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

 

[Lutgardis]

Not sure how take your response because the post you reponsded to was addressed 1believer.

I find the “through our former Pope” bit perplexing. Does it mean you have an issue with what Pope Benedict teaches?

Not at all. I love Pope Benedict, and have read his writings as well. It is just that Pope John Paul’s writings were relevant to the subject at hand.

 

[Sufjon]

Before an adult person gets baptized they undergo catechesis. When someon is baptized they say I do to their baptismal promises. When you said “I do” not believing what you said “I do” to, meant you lied then.

As for your judgement of what I was thinking or feeling at the time, you are free to think what you will. Fact remains that I looked deeply and long into your faith, and came to my own conclusions. Simply put, Catholicism reinforced my longing for and my commitment to SD (Hinduism). For that I owe your church a good deal of gratitude. Until I tried something else, I didn’t have a full appreciation for what I already had.

When you ceased playing the game is when you at last became honest.

I remained faithful and honest in regard to what I saw, and acted on accordance with my better judgement. I wasn’t playing a game. I was busy learning some important lessons through honest and dedicated effort. The fact that the outcome isn’t what you would like to hear is rather superfluous.

Sectarian difference is not garbage. The faith is more important than any relationship.

Yes, apparently more important that any relationship, including the relationship with the One you seek.

The person you encounter are gifts of God but the way God draws you to Him is through His Church. And that drawing is more important than any relationship.

Your idea of what His church is and mine are poles apart, but we won’t be settling that here. The people you encounter are not gifts for our selfish little selves from God as you suggest. They are infinitely more than that and should be treated as such, but as He said, many will see Him but few will know Him. Do you understand what I am saying?

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[MarisaJean]

HEY EVERYONE!!! I think this thread has gotten out of hand. In no way did I post this question to watch / read people fighting over their faith! I have enough of the arguing in my own relationship! My initial question is do you think it can work? Not who is right and who is wrong! But can it work? Even when both people think they are right! How do you get married? How do you raise children? If I believe in the catholic church and the teachings that go along with it, how could I ever raise my children with someone who does not believe the same? I have shown him verses in the bible to back up communion, confession, priests, and baptism, but he still isn’t seeing it! I don’t want people arguing… I really don’t. All I needed was some advice. I’m sorry I started this crazy thread…

 

[Miriam1947]

Send a post to a moderator or click the abuse button and request that this thread be closed.

 

[benedictus2]

Your method of arguing is wearisome.

My method of arguing is to bring clarity into your thinking.

You made a statement and I have shown that your statement is wrong but every now and again you respond at completely off tangent angles which is why I had to actually show you how the conversation started.

I do not have to defend “stop bickering at the expense of truth.” That is your personal view of what I said. I said that the creeds were developed to distinguish us as those who adhere to the Christian faith. That stands today as it always has. Proof of this is that those from other denominations who convert to Catholicism do not have to be rebaptized into the faith.

Here you’ve got your reasoning completely wrong again. To say that those who have been baptized correctly does not need to be rebaptized is not proof that the Creed contains the essentials.

If someone was baptized by anyone (even by an atheist) in the proper Trinitarian formula, that baptism is considered valid regardless of whether that person believed in the Creed. That is all that it means and nothing more. It does not mean the only essential is to be baptized. Baptism is an initiation into the life of faith. The three sacraments of initiation are Baptism, Confirmation and the Eucharist.

You know what you are doing, you drawing broad conclusions from itsy bitsy facts.

If you reason in the above manner, you are therefore now saying that even the Creeds are not essential, only proper baptism is.

This is an acknowledgment that they are already Christians.

And who ever said they aren’t. But they are imperfectly so. Why should we settle for imperfect? Why should imperfect be the essential?

My point, originally, was that we do not have to hound and badger others who are in Christ and have no present interest in becoming a part of the Catholic Church. If you believe Eucharist and the other sacraments (as well as every other teaching-- which you intimated by saying “there are no non-essential Catholic teachings”) are “essential” to salvation, you are free to do so; but this is not the Church’s teaching.

The Church does recognized that even those imperfectly united to the Church are still given God’s grace.

It is the conclusions that you form from Church teaching that are completely out of whack.

As for the Eucharist, it is essential to salvation and THAT is Church teaching. Vatican II says that the source and summit of the CHRISTIAN life is the Eucharist. Every grace - received by everyone on this earth - is given THROUGH the Eucharist whether they are united to the Church or not.

You really misunderstand what essential means.

Again, the Catechism:

" . . . one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

Here again, you are drawing the wrong conclusions from what you quote.

They have indeed been incorporated into the Body of Christ. But to say that Baptism alone is essential is just not Church teaching. If the Eucharist is not essentail there would not be a need for it. If the sacraments are not essential, the Church will not declare them to be so.

As I have pointed above, if all that is necessary is baptism, then you are therefore now saying that even the Creed is not all that essential.

 

[benedictus2]

As for your judgement of what I was thinking or feeling at the time, you are free to think what you will. Fact remains that I looked deeply and long into your faith, and came to my own conclusions. Simply put, Catholicism reinforced my longing for and my commitment to SD (Hinduism). For that I owe your church a good deal of gratitude. Until I tried something else, I didn’t have a full appreciation for what I already had.

But the fact remains that you know what you are being asked to say yes to and you said yes knowing that you really meant no.

Now that you have finally dropped the pretense, now you are being honest. But not then.

Yes, apparently more important that any relationship, including the relationship with the One you seek.

It is precisely because the relationship with Christ is so important that one must not compromise that for the sake of earthly relationships that will likely take you away from Christ and His Church.

Your idea of what His church is and mine are poles apart, but we won’t be settling that here.

Very true. And your idea of His Church is wrong becuase it is only your own construct.

The people you encounter are not gifts for our selfish little selves from God as you suggest.

Huh! Where did I say they are gifts for our selfish little selves. Are you putting words into my mouth again?

They are infinitely more than that and should be treated as such,

And where did I say otherwise?

Bt as He said, many will see Him but few will know Him. Do you understand what I am saying?

Yes, and you do not know Him (vaguely perhaps). Or you would be Christian in the true sense of the word.

 

[benedictus2]

HEY EVERYONE!!! I think this thread has gotten out of hand. In no way did I post this question to watch / read people fighting over their faith! I have enough of the arguing in my own relationship! My initial question is do you think it can work? Not who is right and who is wrong! But can it work? Even when both people think they are right! How do you get married? How do you raise children? If I believe in the catholic church and the teachings that go along with it, how could I ever raise my children with someone who does not believe the same? I have shown him verses in the bible to back up communion, confession, priests, and baptism, but he still isn’t seeing it! I don’t want people arguing… I really don’t. All I needed was some advice. I’m sorry I started this crazy thread…

As I mentioned earlier, my sister was able to make it work because my brother in law was not all that commited a protestant and in the end he converted. My sister was even the one who prepared him for confirmation.

But, if your boyfriend is a committed Protestant there will be much heart ache. The Church requires that you raise whatever children you may have in the Catholic faith. How ill he feel about that. Will you be strong enough to stand your ground on that? Will you be strong enough not to compromise the Mass on Sundays in favour of going to his service to keep the peace? To be able to hold your ground you will need to truly know your faith so that you can give him a well reasoned presentation of the beauty and truth that one can find in the Church.

Read Rome Sweet Home. In an interview, Kimberly Hahn cautioned against it and she knows of what she speaks.

 

[benedictus2]

Trying Catholicism is not a matter of lying.

Apropos my earlier reply about you lying at your baptism.

I must say though that I admire your love and devotion to your girl friend to go to the extent of being baptized just so you can be with her.