First, I asked for a historical document. Not something modern, which that document happens to be.
Good, then you understand why Royals who are Catholic are not sinning by their children not being raised CatholicFirst, I asked for a historical document. Not something modern, which that document happens to be.
Secondly, it still doesn’t actually mean anything, and the document itself, especially the underlined parts, seem to agree with my traditional interpretation. And why not, since we must read all things with an eye to the past. Hermeneutic of continuity after all
Historical or not, the teachings of the Church are clear.They’re only excused if raising their children ad Catholics is practically impossible. Yes the faith is important.Good, then you understand why Royals who are Catholic are not sinning by their children not being raised Catholic
Yeah, that’s what some of us been saying all along. It’s practically impossible to raise a child Catholic if your spouse is not going to allow it.
And it’s much more practically impossible of your spouse is head of another religion - by oaw of his or her country - and your child destined to be the same!
Interesting, but it was, yet again, not the question. If I ask which college or university provides the best education, Harvard or Phoenix Online, one does not answer the question by saying it depends on the student and that some learn better online, etc. That is to answer the question “which students learn the most or get the best education.” I am not asking about hypothetical individual Anglicans vs hypothetical individual Catholics. I am asking about the respective churches and what they do. Which communion does the most for its members, as a whole, in terms of preparation for salvation? That was my question.
Um, yeah they do, yes, that was the answer to your question. Not liking an answer doesn’t make it a non-answer. It simply means one will not say what you want to hear rather than provide their answer. Some students absolutely learn better and more independently online rather than in a class enviroment, and a huge class environment at that. Yep, we absolutely can answer that it depends on the student, and even the instructor. That can be seen as plain as day from computer programming to nursing.
There is no such thing as who does more because it’s useless unless there is acceptance/understanding/obedience of and to the teachings. What a denomation can give is a moot point unless there is someone to receive it.
As I expected: that wasn’t what I said, that was only part of what I said. You know, like when you read a book? When your attention zeros in on a sentence, there’s usually a sentence before and after it.
I think you need to go back and re-read the thread. You’ll find there is no double talk in my replies. You simply don’t like my replies because you want my replies to be your replies. Not going to happen. If you ask me a question, the answers will come from me, not you.
I see nothing like what is being suggested here on this thread in that quote. It states quite clearly “If, notwithstanding the Catholic’s best efforts, the children are not baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church, the Catholic parent does not fall subject to the censure of Canon Law.” It says “best efforts” and it doesn’t specify to which time those efforts may be restricted. Such situations, when understood with historical teaching and understanding in mind, obviously describe people marrying in good faith only to find that their spouse has decided not to allow the Catholic partner to do as intended. It doesn’t describe anything about people like the royal situation in which nobody has been misled and the Catholic has agreed, before undertaking marriage, to raise their children outside of the Church. The “best effort” that person could make would be to decline the proposal for marriage and find a suitable partner. If they do marry in that situation they have not, and have agreed never to make a “best effort” or any effort at all. No effort cannot be equated with “best effort.” What has been discussed in this thread has no similarity to what I read above, and accepting that point of view would require an entire rewrite of the 2000 year historical teaching of the Church regarding the necessity of faith in salvation.
Thank you again for the further information. This above does put my doubts to rest, and for that I am appreciative. Obviously, in your view above, there is no qualitative difference between Phoenix Online and Harvard, and you see them as being totally equal institutions in relative educational value. Good, that is clear. This does clarify your answers regarding the Church and I can see that you have in fact intended to say that the Episcopal Church is qualitatively equal in every way to the Catholic Church. I appreciate the help on that. I won’t trouble you about these things again. Good day.
Saint Monica’s marriage was arranged, and she did not consent beforehand to raising her child outside of her faith. Your example is not relevant.
I never said Harvard and Phoenix Online were qualitatively equal in any way. However, there is not much point to a school being the very best in the universe if a student’s learning style is such that they wouldn’t get much out of it. In addition, not all teachers teach alike and that’s a fact whether the teacher is at Harvard or another school. You’re gettng so very upset about what is being said here that you’re reading too far into things. You won’t find in any of my posts evidence of me saying that the Catholic Church and Episcopal Church is qualitatively equal. That’s not what I wrote and what I wrote is certainly not difficult reading. I wrote:
Can you please point out which CAF member said it was " just fine if a Catholic marries outside the faith with full knowledge that their children will not be Catholic. This seems to be especially so if they get a crown out of the deal". Because I’ve been in this thread since the beginning, and I don’t recall anyone saying it was “just fine”. I know some people said love just happens in life sometimes, and I know some people talked of royal family expectations, but I didn’t see that it was “just fine”. And in fact, many used Church documents in reference and in quote. We all agreed that the best case senario was to do ‘one’s best’ to raise their children Catholic, but sometimes (as even the Church acknowledges) that just can’t happen and that with prayers and the help of God, that can be fixed later. That’s what I read.
You only have to accept what is taught by the Church and even some documentation has been cited and quoted for your reference. What you should probably do is pray for those who find themselves in the undesierable situations described in this thread.
Their reaction would probably be the same as a non-Catholic who comes home with a potential Catholic spouse who says they must raise their child Catholic or they’ll be excommunicated. Neither is a desirable relationship when the shoe is on the other foot. I think the golden rule applies: treat others as you want to be treated.
Have you looked up St. Monica yet?
They recently allowed royals to marry Catholics, but in order to wear the crown one has to be Catholic because the King/Queen of England is the Head of the Church of England. So any resulting kids from these newly allowed marriages would be brought up Anglican, or lose their birthright and would be removed from the line of succession to the throne. This means that Kate and Willam’s children would be allowed to marry a Catholic. Also, new legislation includes women in the line of succession. So if Kate and William have a daughter, that girl would be first in line before any of her younger brothers.
More vaguery.
If I’m understanding the “royal” treatment in this thread, then in this case the Catholic parent doesn’t even have to put forth his/her “best efforts”. In this case, the Catholic parent has been relieved of any effort.
When I get into the topic of outside the Church there is no salvation, my husband always asks the following question: “Why be Catholic?”IHeck, I should revert as it was much easier over there, and they had incense and communion rails. I gave up so much to become Catholic, and posts like these makes me wonder why I did it.
That paragraph of the CCC is referring to other “Churches” (as in Christian Churches). It is not referring to Judaism or other “non-Catholic religions” such as Islam or Hinduism, etc. So I still don’t see where the Church states that it “uses other religions to save”.
Whoa…whatever happened to “with God all things are possible”?