"If any one comes to me without hating his father and and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters..."???

[benedictus2]

I have always thought of Mary Magdalen as the first “lay evangelist” as she was the first to be told by Jesus “go and tell…” that the Christ has risen from the dead. I wonder how many of us ever thought if she had said NO that there would probably not the church as we know it.The rest of the men were hiding in disbelief and in fear.

Yes, I suppose after picking 12 men to be His apostles, having the 12 at His Last Supper (telling them to do likewise), saying that He will build His Church upon Peter (and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it) ;and praying that Peter be made strong so he can strengthen the others; and promising to send them the Holy Spirit; I suppose after all that, without Mary Magdalen telling them about the Risen Lord that there would probably not be the church as we know it.

 

[Padrej]

Yes, I suppose after picking 12 men to be His apostles, having the 12 at His Last Supper (telling them to do likewise), saying that He will build His Church upon Peter (and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it) ;and praying that Peter be made strong so he can strengthen the others; and promising to send them the Holy Spirit; I suppose after all that, without Mary Magdalen telling them about the Risen Lord that there would probably not be the church as we know it.

Why was Magdalen specifically told to tell the apostles AND Peter? If you remember at the point she was told this Peter had yet to be restored from his thrice denying Jesus.
You are correct that the disciples were told to do likewise also, HOWEVER if you look in the book of Acts they selected deacons to do the work but they NEVER LEFT despite Jesus’ command “you are my witnesses,” And “go into all the world” What kept them in Jerusalem?

 

[Jimmy_B]

Yes, I suppose after picking 12 men to be His apostles, having the 12 at His Last Supper (telling them to do likewise), saying that He will build His Church upon Peter (and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it) ;and praying that Peter be made strong so he can strengthen the others; and promising to send them the Holy Spirit; I suppose after all that, without Mary Magdalen telling them about the Risen Lord that there would probably not be the church as we know it.

I believe that for the most part, we can assume that those people who were actually mentioned by name, in the Gospels, had their own role to play in Christian history and that would include Mary Magdalen.
However, I would have to agree with you that from the beginning of Christ’s ministry that the Twelve Apostles that were hand pick by Christ, where the ones specially chosen by Him to, “spread the good news”, with St. Peter as the first leader (Pope) of the early Apostles.
St. Peter was certainly the first Catholic Pope.
As for Mary Magdalen as one of the first “lay evangelist”, I believe it’s possible but her role as such, isn’t really comment on, in the Bible. So, I guess it comes down to the meaning of the term "lay evangelist’ in the early Church. I don’t know what the role of lay people were in the early Church… it’s interesting though.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I believe that for the most part, we can assume that those people who were actually mentioned by name, in the Gospels, had their own role to play in Christian history and that would include Mary Magdalen.
However, I would have to agree with you that from the beginning of Christ’s ministry that the Twelve Apostles that were hand pick by Christ, where the ones specially chosen by Him to, “spread the good news”, with St. Peter as the first leader (Pope) of the early Apostles.
St. Peter was certainly the first Catholic Pope.
As for Mary Magdalen as one of the first “lay evangelist”, I believe it’s possible but her role as such, isn’t really comment on, in the Bible. So, I guess it comes down to the meaning of the term "lay evangelist’ in the early Church. I don’t know what the role of lay people were in the early Church… it’s interesting though.

I don’t know much about the role of lay people in the early Church…It’s interesting though and obviously, we are discussing Mary, the mother of God and her important role here. As for Mary Magdelan, as an early “disciple”, I can see that but I don’t know if I would call her an “Evangelist”, or the “first lay Evangelist”…

Evangelist -

The word evangelist comes from the Koine Greek word εὐαγγέλιον (transliterated as “euangelion”) via Latin “Evangelium”, as used in the canonical titles of the four Gospels, authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (also known as the Four Evangelists). The Greek word εὐαγγέλιον originally meant a reward for good news given to the messenger (εὔ = “good”, ἀγγέλλω = “I bring a message”; the word angel is of the same root) and later “good news”.

Evangelist -

The term is often used in reference to Christianity, where the scriptures often describe “evangelism” as "spreading the Gospel"…Christians who specialise in evangelism are known as evangelists whether they are in their home communities or acting as missionaries in the field. Some Christian traditions consider evangelists to be in a leadership position;

Your thoughts?

 

[Padrej]

I don’t know much about the role of lay people in the early Church…It’s interesting though and obviously, we are discussing Mary, the mother of God and her important role here. As for Mary Magdelan, as an early “disciple”, I can see that but I don’t know if I would call her an “Evangelist”, or the “first lay Evangelist”…

Evangelist -
Evangelist -
The word evangelist comes from the Koine Greek word εὐαγγέλιον (transliterated as “euangelion”) via Latin “Evangelium”, as used in the canonical titles of the four Gospels, authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (also known as the Four Evangelists). The Greek word εὐαγγέλιον originally meant a reward for good news given to the messenger (εὔ = “good”, ἀγγέλλω = “I bring a message”; the word angel is of the same root) and later “good news”.

Your thoughts?

In the literal sense of the the word euangelion could mean anyone who brings the message of Good news of the Gospel. As St. Francis of Assisi said, “Preach the Gospel where ever you go and if you have to use words.” I do not see this as an exclusion of women at all. Take Mother Theresa, I dare you to say she was not a messenger of the Gospel.

 

[Padrej]

I believe that for the most part, we can assume that those people who were actually mentioned by name, in the Gospels, had their own role to play in Christian history and that would include Mary Magdalen.
However, I would have to agree with you that from the beginning of Christ’s ministry that the Twelve Apostles that were hand pick by Christ, where the ones specially chosen by Him to, “spread the good news”, with St. Peter as the first leader (Pope) of the early Apostles.
St. Peter was certainly the first Catholic Pope.
As for Mary Magdalen as one of the first “lay evangelist”, I believe it’s possible but her role as such, isn’t really comment on, in the Bible. So, I guess it comes down to the meaning of the term "lay evangelist’ in the early Church. I don’t know what the role of lay people were in the early Church… it’s interesting though.

I wonder if you could agree with the Orthodox Catholics who call her and other women “isapostle” meaning equal to the apostles or same as the apostles.
deiprofundis.org/2010/apr/20/sunday-myrrhbearing-women

oca.org/FSLivesAllSaints.asp?SID=4&M=7&D=22

 

[Jimmy_B]

In the literal sense of the the word euangelion could mean anyone who brings the message of Good news of the Gospel. As St. Francis of Assisi said, “Preach the Gospel where ever you go and if you have to use words.” I do not see this as an exclusion of women at all. Take Mother Theresa, I dare you to say she was not a messenger of the Gospel.

Good point and one of my favorite quotes.

 

[benedictus2]

Why was Magdalen specifically told to tell the apostles AND Peter? If you remember at the point she was told this Peter had yet to be restored from his thrice denying Jesus.

Has no bearing on the point I was making:

You said: I wonder how many of us ever thought if she had said NO that there would probably not the church as we know it.The rest of the men were hiding in disbelief and in fear.

**I pointed out: ** Jesus before He died had set about in motion everything for the flourishing of His Church:

• Choosing the 12
• Promising to build His Church upon Peter
• Promising that the Gates of Hell will not prevail
• Instituting the Eucharist
• Promising to send the Holy Spirit
• Praying for Peter
• also saying that the kingdom of God will be like a mustard seed that will become a tree and the birds of the air nested in its branches
  

        Do you really think that after all that  (and many more), had Mary Magdalen said No, the Church would not have been the same? Christ would have somehow not found a way to communicate the Resurrection?

Was it not written that even after they knew of the resurrection they still remained fearful?

You are correct that the disciples were told to do likewise also, HOWEVER if you look in the book of Acts they selected deacons to do the work but they NEVER LEFT despite Jesus’ command “you are my witnesses,” And “go into all the world” What kept them in Jerusalem?

How about because the promised Spirit had not yet come? What happened after Pentecost?

 

[Jimmy_B]

I wonder if you could agree with the Orthodox Catholics who call her and other women “isapostle” meaning equal to the apostles or same as the apostles.
deiprofundis.org/2010/apr/20/sunday-myrrhbearing-women

oca.org/FSLivesAllSaints.asp?SID=4&M=7&D=22

I’m not a linguist that is why my earlier posts regarding the definition of "“Evangelist” were in quotations… someone else’s words… Interesting links… now I understand where you were coming from with your earlier posts…Thank you…

Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about Mary Magdalene (which I also miss-spelled in an earlier post here…sorry)
Catechism of the Catholic Church

641 Mary Magdalene and the holy women who came to finish anointing the body of Jesus, which had been buried in haste because the Sabbath began on the evening of Good Friday, were the first to encounter the Risen One. Thus the women were the first messengers of Christ’s Resurrection for the apostles themselves. They were the next to whom Jesus appears: first Peter, then the Twelve. Peter had been called to strengthen the faith of his brothers, and so sees the Risen One before them; it is on the basis of his testimony that the community exclaims: “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”

660 The veiled character of the glory of the Risen One during this time is intimated in his mysterious words to Mary Magdalene: “I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” This indicates a difference in manifestation between the glory of the risen Christ and that of the Christ exalted to the Father’s right hand, a transition marked by the historical and transcendent event of the Ascension.

1391 Holy Communion augments our union with Christ. The principal fruit of receiving the Eucharist in Holy Communion is an intimate union with Christ Jesus. Indeed, the Lord said: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” Life in Christ has its foundation in the Eucharistic banquet: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.”

On the feasts of the Lord, when the faithful receive the Body of the Son, they proclaim to one another the Good News that the first fruits of life have been given, as when the angel said to Mary Magdalene, “Christ is risen!” Now too are life and resurrection conferred on whoever receives Christ.

 

[benedictus2]

In the literal sense of the the word euangelion could mean anyone who brings the message of Good news of the Gospel.

And Mary bore in her womb and nurtured the Gospel Himself.

So you could say she was the first “lay evangelist”

 

[Padrej]

Has no bearing on the point I was making:

Pentecost is Acts Chapter 2 what I am speaking of is Acts chapters 1 and 6 and 8
Chapter one they were told “you are my witnesses in Jerusalem, Samaria to the end of the earth.” THEN Pentecost happens. Chapter 6 the apostles are still in Jerusalem and send Stephen and Phillip out when they were commanded to do such. Then chapter 8 comes that persecution was going on in Jerusalem and all were scattered “EXCEPT THE APOSTLES” The apostles must not have been a threat because it does not mention much that happened to them except for Peter and John who were placed in Jail back in chapter 5. Now consider this if you will; **does Satan bother those who are doing ministry or does he leave them alone? **Those who are of no threat to Satan are not persecuted. Why then would Acts 8 verse 1 say that all were being persecuted “except the apostles?”
Can you answer this for me? Yes they eventually went out but up till chapter 8 (LONG after Pentecost) they were not following Jesus’ command to the letter of leaving Jerusalem, they allowed others to do this while they stayed comfortable.

 

[Padrej]

And Mary bore in her womb and nurtured the Gospel Himself.

So you could say she was the first “lay evangelist”

I can agree with that. What I have been saying Is that I have held Mary in a higher esteem than Magdalen. BUT with that said an evangelist spreads the good news, where in the formative years mentioned in scripture does the Bible mention that she talked about this? It does say, “she kept all these things and pondered them in her heart.” If you keep all things and ponder them you certainly are not spreading them. You could say that the encounter with Elizabeth was a form of evangelism. Really the only other recoded words of Mary are in John’s gospel where she is at the first miracle and says, “do as He says.”

 

[benedictus2]

OK there seems to be a mis-communication here. I am merely pointing out that the first to see the risen Christ were women and they were the first to be commanded to tell others.

If that was all you said then I would have had no problem with that. But you said more than that. You derived a conclusion ( that that there would probably not be the church as we know it had Mary Magdalene said no, because rest of the men were hiding in disbelief and in fear) from this fact and that is what I found contentious.

Furthermore the disbelief of these men were no greater than those of the women prior to their encounter with the risen Christ. The women did not believe any more than them or else they would not have gone to the tomb to anoint the body of our Lord. Mary Magdalene even asked the “gardener” where they had taken Jesus.

Pentecost is Acts Chapter 2 what I am speaking of is Acts chapters 1 and 6 and 8. Chapter one they were told “you are my witnesses in Jerusalem, Samaria to the end of the earth.” THEN Pentecost happens. Chapter 6 the apostles are still in Jerusalem

So what? Don’t you think that since they were being guided by the Holy Spirit they would know exactly when and where to go? You are complaining because they are not working according to your timetable?

and send Stephen and Phillip out when they were commanded to do such.

Here is Acts 6: 1-5 At that time, as the number of disciples continued to grow, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. So the Twelve called together the community of the disciples and said, ***"It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to serve at table.  Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task, whereas we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word."*** The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism.

It seems however that after being chosen to “serve at table”, Stephen instead attended to the ministry of the word but this is not the original intent of their appointment.

Then chapter 8 comes that persecution was going on in Jerusalem and all were scattered “EXCEPT THE APOSTLES” The apostles must not have been a threat because it does not mention much that happened to them except for Peter and John who were placed in Jail back in chapter 5. Whatever the facts, it appears that the Twelve took no public stand regarding Stephen’s position, choosing, instead, to await the development of events.

Here’s the notes from the NAB on that particular verse

“All were scattered . . . except the apostles: this observation leads some modern scholars to conclude that the persecution was limited to the Hellenist Christians and that the Hebrew Christians were not molested, perhaps because their attitude toward the law and temple was still more in line with that of their fellow Jews (see the charge leveled against the Hellenist Stephen in Acts 6, 13-14). “

Now consider this if you will; does Satan bother those who are doing ministry or does he leave them alone? Those who are of no threat to Satan are not persecuted.

I refer you back to the footnote from the NAB regarding this.

I think your conclusions are becoming stranger and stranger as we go. Are you now saying that the apostles that Christ chose, within cooee of Pentecost, were already not working as they should and were somehow being beneficial to the work of the devil? Are you serious?

Why then would Acts 8 verse 1 say that all were being persecuted “except the apostles?” Can you answer this for me?

Refer to the footnote from the NAB above.

Yes they eventually went out but up till chapter 8 (LONG after Pentecost) they were not following Jesus’ command to the letter of leaving Jerusalem, they allowed others to do this while they stayed comfortable.

Aaah so it is to your timetable that these men should follow is that it? Forget about the guidance of the Holy Spirit. According to Padrej they should have gone out of Jerusalem straight away. Don’t mind that there were doctrinal issues that had to be settled such circumcision, following the Torah, Jewishness, etc, etc, that had to be settled.

As history will testify, they did set out to proclaim the Gospel to the gentiles but they have to preach in Jerusalem first because the Messiah was first sent to the Jews. Jesus was a Jew. Our faith is Judeo Christian.The revelation to accept the gentiles came to Peter. These men were being guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[benedictus2]

I can agree with that. What I have been saying Is that I have held Mary in a higher esteem than Magdalen. BUT with that said an evangelist spreads the good news, where in the formative years mentioned in scripture does the Bible mention that she talked about this?

I think someone else in this thread mentioned St Francis of Assisi’s dictum: Preach the Gospel and and if you must use words."

Mary lived the gospel and that spoke volumes.

When a woman said to Jesus, “blessed the womb that bore you and the breast that nursed you”, He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

This obedience to the Word of God is a witness in itself.

A priest friend of mine said the witness that Charles de Foucauld gave helped many to find Jesus. And yet, his is a silent witness.

Mind you I am not saying that evangelizatoin must be limited to this. The Gospel must be preached by word of mouth.

It does say, “she kept all these things and pondered them in her heart.” If you keep all things and ponder them you certainly are not spreading them. You could say that the encounter with Elizabeth was a form of evangelism. Really the only other recoded words of Mary are in John’s gospel where she is at the first miracle and says,** “do as He says.”**

And this is the epitome of evangelization - the exhortation to do as Jesus says, to follow the Word of God.

 

[Jimmy_B]

.

This is a little off topic but I really like your signature here (below).

Let nothing disturb you, let nothing frighten you
All things are passing, God alone never changes
Patient endurance attains all things,
Whoever has God wants for nothing,
God Alone Suffices -St Teresa of Avila

 

[KathleenGee]

A Marist said we can learn the most about Mary not by what was written, but what was not written…She wants the glory for Jesus…

Mary is very subtle…it is learning to know her presence without all the sensationalism and extraordinary events…but her quiet presence that is there for us to learn to seek…to pray for us, be our bridge to Jesus in a way she knew and shares with us in spite of our sinful humanity…and our greatest advocate at death.

 

[Deacon_JAR]

What does this mean?

Luke 14:26,27

""If any one comes to me without hating his father 7 and* and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple."*

What does this mean? Does this mean that we can ignore or violate the Forth Commandment, to - "Honor your father and your mother…?

****I don’t think so. I believe that this verse is interpreted differently in Protestant circle than it is in Catholicism. Am I wrong? ****

What does this verse mean to you?

The below footnote (#7), was taken from the on-line, Catholic, NAB Bible. This is what I believe it means…What do you think? Does this create a problem for some non-Catholic Christians, when it comes to loving Mary the Mother of God?

7 [26] Hating his father . . . : cf the similar saying in Matthew 10:37. The disciple’s family must take second place to the absolute dedication involved in following Jesus
(see also Luke 9:59-62).

Matthew 10:37-38
37 "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and whoever does not take up his cross 15 and follow after me is not worthy of me.

Luke 9:58-6258 Jesus answered him, “Foxes have dens and birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to rest his head.” 59 And to another he said, “Follow me.” But he replied, “(Lord,) let me go first and bury my father.” 60 But he answeed him, “Let the dead bury their dead. 28 But you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” 61 And another said, “I will follow you, Lord, but first let me say farewell to my family at home.” 62 (To him) Jesus said, “No one who sets a hand to the plow and looks to what was left behind is fit for the kingdom of God.”

I would like to see the Catholic and non-Catholic response to this question.

Thank you!

My dear friend, may the Peace of our Lord be with you. Let me offer you my humble (name removed by moderator)ut by sharing with you a personal experience. In the late 1970 I met her for the first time in our youth group. She had an internal beauty that permeated through her skin and my heart was never the same. We began to date while we were attending the university. In 1975 I married a gift from God, a humble but bold God fearing woman. By the year 1980 we already had three sons. She was always a very spiritual woman; my teacher, my mentor and my heroe. In 1996 we both agreed that it was God’s call for me to begin my diaconate formation. We joined the process with a heart overwhelmed with great joy and expectations. Two years later a heavy storm arrived into our life, my beloved wife was diagnosed with “cancer.” My heart was broken and I began to battle with my Lord.

We called our best spiritual friend, a member of our Charismatic prayer group, and we met at the church where we spent around 5 hours of intensive prayer in front of the Tabernacle. My spirit was in turmoil and my pain was destroying my whole being. It felt like I have been betrayed by my Lord. At the end of the night, when our prayer session was coming to an end, my friend received a message for me from the Lord. The Scripture says that the Light exposes the darkness. Well, in a blink of an eye the genuiness of my faith and trust in my Lord was being tested. This message, like a double edge sword, pierced my whole being. The Lord said to me***"My son, do you realize that Elaine and your children are a gift that I gave to you. From the begining, since the day I created you, you became my son and I became your Father. If I decide to take her away from you, are you still willing to serve me?***

I was ordained in 1999 and she went with her Lord, my Lord, in 2001. Sincerely, I believe this personal experience may help you to understand that scripture.

 

[Padrej]

My dear friend, may the Peace of our Lord be with you. Let me offer you my humble (name removed by moderator)ut by sharing with you a personal experience. In the late 1970 I met her for the first time in our youth group. She had an internal beauty that permeated through her skin and my heart was never the same. We began to date while we were attending the university. In 1975 I married a gift from God, a humble but bold God fearing woman. By the year 1980 we already had three sons. She was always a very spiritual woman; my teacher, my mentor and my heroe. In 1996 we both agreed that it was God’s call for me to begin my diaconate formation. We joined the process with a heart overwhelmed with great joy and expectations. Two years later a heavy storm arrived into our life, my beloved wife was diagnosed with “cancer.” My heart was broken and I began to battle with my Lord.

We called our best spiritual friend, a member of our Charismatic prayer group, and we met at the church where we spent around 5 hours of intensive prayer in front of the Tabernacle. My spirit was in turmoil and my pain was destroying my whole being. It felt like I have been betrayed by my Lord. At the end of the night, when our prayer session was coming to an end, my friend received a message for me from the Lord. The Scripture says that the Light exposes the darkness. Well, in a blink of an eye the genuiness of my faith and trust in my Lord was being tested. This message, like a double edge sword, pierced my whole being. The Lord said to me***"My son, do you realize that Elaine and your children are a gift that I gave to you. From the begining, since the day I created you, you became my son and I became your Father. If I decide to take her away from you, are you still willing to serve me?***

I was ordained in 1999 and she went with her Lord, my Lord, in 2001. Sincerely, I believe this personal experience may help you to understand that scripture.

WOW
You are truly fulfilling that scripture.
My “battle” was different in that my father was opposed to my ordination because it was not in the faith that he was. He did not understand the process so he chose to argue with me that I was doing something wrong. My brother in law being a word I cannot say on this forum saw me leaving in my clerical collar for the hospital and said, “Happy Halloween.” He later claimed he said this because my father did not approve. I still loved the Lord more than what their opinion of me was. I knew who God called me to be.
I always have liked the old saying God does not call the qualified He qualifies the called.
The day my father passed away at 3AM I had to do a funeral in my own church and the family could not understand WHY I would still do the service when my father had just died. My commitment was to them at that moment, the rest of my family had to wait till after the service at my church before I would return a call to them.

 

[Padrej]

If that was all you said then I would have had no problem with that. But you said more than that. You derived a conclusion ( that that there would probably not be the church as we know it had Mary Magdalene said no, because rest of the men were hiding in disbelief and in fear) from this fact and that is what I found contentious.

 

[excubitor]

Its a little hard for us in this tolerant society to imagine what it must have been like to be a Christian in the first century. Both in Jewish society and in pagan society, to convert to Christianity would be regarded as a total rejection of the families values and religion. It would have been perceived as an act of hatred performed upon the family. This pervading sense would come even upon yourself whereby in your conscience you would perceive that you were hating, betraying and rejecting your family. However this sense would be offset by your Love for Jesus and desire to follow him. Now love and hate are two sides of the one coin. To love God and his kingdom means to hate the world and the sinful influences that it exerts upon us. In the first century and even today our non-catholic family and friends are a part of these negative influences.

Its not really possible to love good intensely without hating evil intensely. Therefore it is the evil influences of pagan family that needs to be hated so that we may love Jesus and the church all the more.

This principle is still the case in many parts of the world especially Islam and in parts of China, whereby becoming a Catholic brings shame and sometimes even political reprisals upon the entire family. To become Catholic often brings great destruction upon a family, dividing the family in heated debates even provoking violence, murders and hatred. How could the convert do such a thing to his family. Only by loving Jesus and hating a disorderd system of “family” which is so gravely in opposition against holy Christianity. Sometimes loving Jesus is not enough and only by fostering a hatred for the disordered family and society can we propel ourself into the church. The point is that there must be a distinct and painfully felt break. A snapping occurs whereby the family is cut off and the individual enters fully into the church. (this assumes that the family is non-catholic of course).

Its easy for cradle catholics who have grown up in the bosom of the church with the rosary being said every evening to grasp what I am saying. But if you are a convert to the faith this post will strike some cords. When I converted I was unsure how my wife would react. I was prepared for the possibility that she would reject and desert me. And I hardened myself (a kind of hatred) against her, preparing myself for this possibility. I then made the move into the church. Fortunately my wife did not leave me and we have adjusted and so love can be restored. But many new converts struggle for years because they try to juggle church and non-catholic family and so are effectively serving two masters. This creates great injury to the spiritual man and can result in a loss of faith over time.

I know that there are many people who say that “hate” does not mean “hate” at all but that it means “love less” etc. This is a watering down of truth.

To hate means to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest:

But Jesus said not to hate even your enemy but to love your enemy. But here he seems to be saying to hate even your family. Its not a contradiction. Remember when Christ lashed out at Peter “Get behind me Satan”. I get the impression that this was a stinging rebuke said with intense emotion. I believe in that instant Jesus hated Peter but not so much Peter but Satan working through Peter. He hated, disliked intensely and passionatly, was extremely hostile and detesting of this horrendous influence from Peter which was striving to seperate him from the will of the Father.

So we can have an enemy attacking our person or our effects or our pride. To this enemy we should respond in love. But then we can have a friend or family member who seeks to undermine our bond with Christ. When they do this, for a short time we must react with hatred for that person (but not for the person directly but Satan working in that person). We make them utterly clear that we will not be moved from obedience to God. Usually a firm word will do, but sometimes a stinging rebuke, or seperation from the family member is required. When the family member backs off and stops their efforts to undermine your Catholic convictions then love may be restored.

Many converts to Catholicism have had to cut ties from their non-Catholic families. Sorry, but that is an act of hatred but which is often the only solution. Then there are plenty of converts I see on this forum who are constantly having their faith attacked by family members who influence them into lives of sin. These new converts often don’t go to church because they are trying to appease family members. Sorry but attending mass is an act of love toward Jesus, and neglecting to go to mass is by corollary an act of hatred.