L
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
benedictus2;8274754:
The Catechism states: "The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation . . . and that, “Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament (Mark 16:16).”
- The creeds contain that which is essential in regards to Christian belief. If we believe in the creeds, we believe in Christianity. Among other things,
a) The creed confesses belief in our Trinitarian God: "We believe in God the Father . . . We believe in One Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God . . .We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life.
b) The creed confesses, “We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.”- Belief and Baptism are essential in regards to being saved. If we believe, are baptized, and endure to the end, we shall be saved.
Mark 16:15-16; Acts 16:30-34; Mk 13:13
Note: One caveat in regard to Baptism is that though water baptism is normative, and not an absolute necessity. There is, in dire or extenuating circumstances, the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire.
What is “essential” to salvation for someone who for some reason cannot be water baptized, but knows of the command (explicit knowledge), or for someone who does not know of the command (implicit knowledge) must, because of the infinite mercy of God, merely have the desire for it!
The Catechism:
“Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized.”
Hence, my original response to your first query: I quote myself here:
"The essentials to the Christian faith are in the Nicene Creed, the Apostles Creed and the Athanasian Creed. But I doubt that the thief on the cross knew much about any of these! I mentioned him because he almost certainly had only implicit desire for baptism]. God judges not as men judge: he judges by the heart, our openness and willingness to love Him [believe and confess Him as He is revealed to us, i.e. in the creeds] and die with and for Him [the baptism of blood]."
My statement, therefore, in love to God and my fellow believers, was: I quote myself here:
“It is obvious 1beleevr is not interested in becoming Catholic. Why cannot we adopt the Christian precept of: In the essentials, unity, in the non essentials, liberty, in all–charity.”
I am truly sorry if you cannot follow the logic of my statements. I would be happy to continue but you have accused me.
I quote you:
“You know what you are doing. . . drawing broad conclusions from itsy bitsy facts.”
You have been suspicious of me.
I quote you:
“I find the “through our former Pope” a bit perplexing. Does it mean you have an issue with what Pope Benedict teaches?”
And insulted me. I quote you:
“It is the conclusions that you form from Church teaching that are completely out of whack.”
So, alas, this must be our goodbye. I wish you Godspeed.
You have my sympathy.
S
Sufjon
Guest
As I have stated, you have no idea what was in my head at the time. In my faith it is acceptable to follow any path to God. I tried your faith, accepting that it is a path to God. I concluded over time that it was not mine. Calling me a liar assumes that you understand my faith background, which you do not. Personal attacks only diminish the attacker.
I asked you if you understood what I was saying. It appears you did not. Of course if you missed it when Jesus said it, you sure wouldn’t get it when I said it.
Again, you have missed the point.
That is how I read what you said, or at least that is how you sound to me.
When Christians agree on what that is, let me know so I can check it out.
Anyway, you have totally obfuscated the whole original topic with your sectarian intolerance, which should make my original reply to the OP clear. Divisions over this church or that just causes ugliness, and is not a path to God. It is a path to pain with no gain. You’ve already had 2,000 years of causing chaos in the name of church. When will it be enough?
Your friend
Sufjon
S
Sufjon
Guest
Right - which is why you should just accept each other for who you are. You both worship the same God and if you let silliness like this separate you, it would be a horrible loss over nothing. You’re a Catholic who loves a Baptist. If you give that up over the type of church you attend, then that church was no path to God. God is about souls, and love and goodness and not about institutions.
Your friend
Sufjon
B
benedictus2
Guest
Look my point is simple.
You said stick to the essentials. You defined essentials as the Creed.
Then you said that the only essential is baptism which means even the Creed is no longer the entire essential.
While the Creed and baptism are form part of the essentials – they are NOT THE ONLY essentials.
The Eucharist and the sacraments are essentials otherwise you are saying Christ commands things that are not essentials.
I know what you are trying to say but your reasoning falls short of the Church’s belief.
You attach a meaning to items in the CCC and make them say more than what they actually say. You come to conclusions about texts in the CCC that are simply untenable.
And you are even unable to follow your own line of thinking when you moved from the Creed to baptism. Many people make this same mistake.
While the Creed is essential it is NOT THEONLY essential. To make an analogy, air is essential but so is water, food and shelter. There are a whole set of essentials.
Before they formulated the Creed, what is paramount to the Church was the Eucharist and it still is. Before we had the creed we had the sacraments.
And you must bear in mind that the Creed was arrived at to counteract heresy and it was written when the entire Christian world was One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.
So to re-iterate. It is not your citations that I have a problem with, it is the erroneous conclusions that you derive from this citations that are extremely problematic.
To say that the conclusions that you form about the text is out of whack is a mere statement of fact and I have given numerous support for this statement. I did not make it without showing why it is out of whack.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Lutgardis;8275723:
Aaah tonyrey, if you are able to think your position out more clearly, you will not feel the need to descend to this.You have my sympathy.
A bit of humility in accepting your error goes a long way.
S
SteveGC
Guest
I understand why you’d be frustrated with the arguing here, but if you think about it, this is simply a manifestation and reflection of the entire subject of your thread. I would’ve fully expected the thread to evolve into sidebars about essentials, unity and the primacy of Rome. Frankly, I’d be shocked if it didn’t.
Why? Because that’s a typical reflection of the notion of a Catholic and non-Catholic uniting in holy matrimony. One of the primary reasons it would be difficult to work is because if we assume that both are equally devout in their faith, then there will necessarily be doctrinal and moral issues that arise because these are, as you know, essential to the faith. The Baptist believes that so long as you believe in Christ, you’re good (assuming this Baptist has no anti-Catholic tendencies). The Catholic knows it is not as vague as that, and that Christ taught much more about what it means to believe in Him, and that it is centered around His Church.
Suffice it to say that I think such a relationship can work if the Catholic never compromises on her faith, and the Baptist agrees to allow the Catholic to FULLY live out their faith according to the guidance of The Church, which includes raising any children fully in the Catholic tradition, without compromise and with minimal (if any) “mixing” into the Baptist faith. This means that the Catholic and the children would follow all the binding mores and precepts of the Church, participate in all the applicable sacraments, and avoid scandal that revolves around a public witness of an acceptance of Baptist beliefs that are contrary to the Catholic faith.
If said Baptist concedes these things, and does his part in all aspects of married life to allow for them, then I believe the marriage has a chance. Of course, the Catholic would have to fully respect the faith of the Baptist, but I would suspect a devout and informed Catholic would rightly possess concern about the Baptist’s separation from the Church. I would be reluctant to marry a Baptist who I knew obstinately rejected the teachings of the Church, but I could see where I could commit to a relationship if they demonstrated an honest openness to learn, as well as conceded those things which I stated above.
B
benedictus2
Guest
B
benedictus2
Guest
To accept someone for who they are does not necessarily mean that one should ignore the high possibility of strife, disagreement, pain and hardship brought about by their different faiths.
If both are deeply committed to their different faiths, then one can expect rough seas. Only when you are living with someone will the difference become highlighted and magnified.
It is very far from siliness to strive to get a good grasp of just how hot the coals are before one leaps into the fire. It is called prudence.
Not quite. If the loss is due to the fact that two people know they cannot work through their difference and that one’s faith will be compromise by such a union - it is actually wise to say bye now rather than later when there may be kids involved.
On the contrary, it could mean that she is serious about her faith and her commitment to God and to the Church that God established.
Which just about illustrate how badly you understand Catholic teaching. Christ (God) established only one Church - the Catholic Church. Christ does not do things that are not necessary.
However, I am not saying that God cannot bring about something wonderful out of a relationship as fraught with strife as this one can be. God brings out the good from the most miserable of situations. So long as she remains steadfast in her faith and so long as she is willing to see the hardship through, then they should be able to see it through, with God’s grace.
SteveGC gave excellent guidelines. If they can work with that I think they will have a very good chance.
S
Sufjon
Guest
I am a Hindu married to a Catholic. We get along fine. Actually, I think your church still counts me as a member. I will try filling out an application to be removed and let you know how long it takes.
I bet it won’t be quick. I bet it won;t happen on the first try. Or the second. Organizations hate reporting declines in enrollment, especially among highly affluent and highly educated populations. Those are the folks who can pay, you know. Just pointing out why it will never happen, but I’ll give it a try.There are solutions to any situation.
B
benedictus2
Guest
But you have just proven my point that you really do not understand Catholic teaching if you think that the Protestant idea of Church is the correct one and if you think that not buying to the Catholic position is okay for a Catholic.
S
Sufjon
Guest
Of course I know that not buying into the position of an organization is not acceptable to an organization in regard to it’s members. You don’t have to understand Catholic teaching to know that. And few organizations take such great care to be as explicit as to what it expects of it’s members, using a good deal of control strategies to reinforce these expectations. You are a good example. You are lock step, and your fear of other points of view is palpable in your posts. It’s a program. This is what programs do. Yes, I understand that. Programs are fine for some people, and to some degree it’s all harmless. as long as it fits a need for some. The demarcation is when they become a danger to others, which is why I am wary of such things, and watchful.
Your friend
Sufjon
B
benedictus2
Guest
Quite wrong. On the contrary, I am lock step because I know it is the truth. And I have not been programmed. I used to disagree with a lot of things. Until I started learning and started thinking. God will let you find truth if you seek it and He has been most generous in that regard.
As for control, the Church is the last body that could be accused of that considering the huge number of cafeteria Catholics.
S
Sufjon
Guest
I spent many years learning and thinking too. It lead me to a truth quite different than yours. As far as control and constraint goes, you could deny that to someone who has not watched it from inside, but could not tell that to me. Coming from a faith that is not laced with promises and threats, it is very obvious when you see it first hand.
It’s tolerated because it is not something that can be addressed without causing itself to become a largely empty, ex-behemoth without much enrollment and subsequently much funding. It’s not out of benevolence.
Your friend
Sufjon
T
tonyrey
Guest
G
George_Stegmeir
Guest
Having been raised and educated in the Deep South, from my experience, I would say that the only way a domestic relationship between a Baptist and a Catholic would work is if both vowed never, ever to discuss religion, and both sides avoided not only their in-laws, but their own families.
The only other comment I could make about such a relationship is the old fashioned sailors comment: “Rocks a Ruck Sharley”!
The only other comment I could make about such a relationship is the old fashioned sailors comment: “Rocks a Ruck Sharley”!
B
benedictus2
Guest
But I am on the inside and I know there is no control. But the one thing we are not is relativist. You are relativist.
Ahh Sufjon, losing the trend of thought again?
You said the Church is controlling then when I prove otherwise you go down this silly tangent. Either the Church is controlling or it is not. Make up your mind.
B
benedictus2
Guest
S
SteveGC
Guest
I agree with everything here, except the part about compromise, especially if by that we mean some degree of straying from Catholic teaching. I could possibly see a mutual decision to not attend each others churches, as difficult as that would likely be for them in the long term. But a compromise of the Catholic that moves them into disobedience of precepts is unwise and spiritually dangerous.
Another good reason why it may not be prudent to have such a mixed marriage.
I
ibneahmad
Guest
A Catholic should have not dated with a non-Catholic, if one is so strict in one’s belief; one should have decided about religion before dating.
One other possible solution is that they should follow Jesus and Mary in teachings and deeds instead of the Catholic or the Baptist Churches. Jesus and Mary should be followed as a role model of life instead of others or anything else.
- Status