interfaith Wedding - Hindu - Catholic - Questions about future Faith

[Sufjon]

Look at it this way:

Say a non-catholic comes into a Catholic Church and takes communion. They are taking the Body and Blood of our Saviour, our God! If you are not prepared in your soul to do that, you are blaspheming and spitting on the faith.

When you take Communion, you are acknowledging you are in FULL COMMUNION with God, with the Church and what she teaches.

So when you take Communion you are saying “I accept that Jesus Christ is Lord, that he is the way the truth and the light, that he is the only path to God. I beleive that God is three persons in one, represented in the Holy Trinity. I beleive in confession for the forgiveness fo sins. I believe in the sinlessness of Our Blessed Lady Mary, the mother of God. I beleive that Jesus died for our sins and gave us redemption before God. I accept the Church’s teaching on contraception, fornication, abortion, homosexuality.”

If you decide to beleive something else, about whatever, that is not in line with Catholic teaching, then when you take Communion, you are lying. Blatantly so. You are saying “I’m going to take part in showing union with all of you, your faith, your traditions, your teachings and your God, but end of the day, I think its all a load of smelly fish guts and I beleive something else”.

To take Communion without being Catholic, without beleiving what we beleive, it is not only disrespectful and blasphmeous, its blatantly dishonest.

Hi Vera Dicere: So my question back to you is to ask you when it was that I said that Jesus was not God and that Mary was not his Virgin Mother? When have I said that Jesus isn’t present in the Eucharist? It is my belief that I have affirmed all of these things, and in fact, see a larger truth in it, or to be more specific, am taking the larger picture into context. So, while you might say that an elephant has a trunk, I would acknowledge that an elephant indeed has a trunk. But if I go on to say that an elephant also has large ears and feet and also has a tail, I am then labelled a heretic because I have seen more than the trunk. Tell me then, how that logic works in your mind? How is it blasphemous and dishonest to see something and then report what I have seen? Because you have looked at the same elephant through a paper towel tube and seen only a trunk, and I have stood back and seen it in it’s whole, I am dishonest for inviting you to put down the paper towel tube and use the eyes that God gave you to see what is plainly available to see? In other words, my conviction is that many (like yourself) have been trained to see God through the lens of a particular faith orientation, which is fine. But If I am to look at God with another lens, am I seeing something other than God, or am I just getting a different view of that which is infinite in it’s expression? Do you think that God has compartmentalized His endless and multifarious nature into the confines of what one church or another has constructed as the parameters of His being? Such definitions are only an aid for the human mind in an attempt to grasp something that is in fact beyond comprehension. In the end, the only thing that will matter for you and I is whether or not we are able to fully love that which is formless and to see the same in all faces and all beings. Our ability to love is the only vehicle by which we are able to understand God to any purposeful effect. To get hung up on this dogma or that theology is to get tangled in the thickets that line the path to God.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[InJesusItrust]

Hi Vera Dicere: So my question back to you is to ask you when it was that I said that Jesus was not God and that Mary was not his Virgin Mother? When have I said that Jesus isn’t present in the Eucharist? It is my belief that I have affirmed all of these things, and in fact, see a larger truth in it, or to be more specific, am taking the larger picture into context. So, while you might say that an elephant has a trunk, I would acknowledge that an elephant indeed has a trunk. But if I go on to say that an elephant also has large ears and feet and also has a tail, I am then labelled a heretic because I have seen more than the trunk. Tell me then, how that logic works in your mind? How is it blasphemous and dishonest to see something and then report what I have seen? Because you have looked at the same elephant through a paper towel tube and seen only a trunk, and I have stood back and seen it in it’s whole, I am dishonest for inviting you to put down the paper towel tube and use the eyes that God gave you to see what is plainly available to see? In other words, my conviction is that many (like yourself) have been trained to see God through the lens of a particular faith orientation, which is fine. But If I am to look at God with another lens, am I seeing something other than God, or am I just getting a different view of that which is infinite in it’s expression? Do you think that God has compartmentalized His endless and multifarious nature into the confines of what one church or another has constructed as the parameters of His being? Such definitions are only an aid for the human mind in an attempt to grasp something that is in fact beyond comprehension. In the end, the only thing that will matter for you and I is whether or not we are able to fully love that which is formless and to see the same in all faces and all beings. Our ability to love is the only vehicle by which we are able to understand God to any purposeful effect. To get hung up on this dogma or that theology is to get tangled in the thickets that line the path to God.

Your friend,
Sufjon

Some of the theology is mutually exclusive, for instance one life and then judgement versus reincarnation. Not everybody can be right because some of the characteristics are CONTRADICTORY. That is the main problem with religious pluralism. Jesus said His gospel would offend people, He said it would be a word that divides people like a sword and takes away peace, and He claimed many times that only He could show people the Father and no one else knew the Father except the ones He revealed the Father to. No one comes to the Father except through Him. Unlike other religious figures, we can trace Him back to history and He rose from the dead. Other god and resurrection claimants cannot be traced to history.

Finally we have the problem with what the apostles taught other people. They did not hold to your interpretation of Peter’s keys. They taught the coming of a kingdom and the idea that the world would end. They did not teach some pantheistic interpretation of the gospel, and they learned from Jesus directly.

 

[Sufjon]

Some of the theology is mutually exclusive, for instance one life and then judgement versus reincarnation.

Reincarnation has been debated without conclusion over the centuries. There are indeed as many clear indications of reincarnations in Arbrahamic scripture as there are indications against it. I can recount many verses from scripture that can easily be said to support it, while someone else can take another meaning from it altogether. That is the subject of another thread. It happens to be a formal tenet of Christianity that there is one life in human form, but that is not a universally accepted tenet, as surveys show that a solid 40% of Christians interviewed believe in reincarnation in some form or another. Probably because in spite of Dogma, the idea makes sense when considering what one believes from a spiritual perspective in light of what we see in the world around us.

Not everybody can be right because some of the characteristics are CONTRADICTORY.

Actually, no one can be right insofar as knowing God on the level of the intellect is concerned. To fret as to the details of this thing or that is futile. God can only be known intuitively, and this comes from focusing on the expansion of love within oneself. THis is how He is known. There is no other way.

That is the main problem with religious pluralism. Jesus said His gospel would offend people, He said it would be a word that divides people like a sword and takes away peace, and He claimed many times that only He could show people the Father and no one else knew the Father except the ones He revealed the Father to. No one comes to the Father except through Him. Unlike other religious figures, we can trace Him back to history and He rose from the dead. Other god and resurrection claimants cannot be traced to history.

There is no way to the Father except through the Christ, and the Christ is in you as much as it was in Jesus. The difference is that being a direct incarnation of God in human form, Jesus was fully awake and immersed. The way to the Father is through the Christ within you, not a set of lips, hair and fingernails named Jesus. This is why He said that we can be one with the Father as He was, because the realization of this brings that unification about. I have already covered how this was demonstrated in the Eucharist. It is our false sense of self (the ego) that keeps us from seeing this, and this is why Jesus said we must die to ourselves before we can see God. As long as we perceive an individual and separate self, we are blind to to the True Self that is the core essence of all beings. If John the Baptist had lived, I believe this idea would have been more clearly known and understood, because my sense is that he was the only one who fully understood Jesus and the things He said.

Finally we have the problem with what the apostles taught other people. They did not hold to your interpretation of Peter’s keys. They taught the coming of a kingdom and the idea that the world would end. They did not teach some pantheistic interpretation of the gospel, and they learned from Jesus directly.

I would like to see the verses that detail that if I may so we can discuss it. Otherwise, I am unaware of the evidence of this, although I will concede that it is possible that some of them may have had a more bestial understanding of things given their limited background. To be filled with the Spirit, does not necessarily equal being filled with intellect, and of course we don;t have a lot available to us that was actually written by anyone who actually met Jesus. Most of these interpretations that I have seen came from a troubled man who believed that the person whose followers he was persecuting came after him and knocked him off his horse. If you met this man on Main Street USA you would give him a dollar and send him on his way. Just my opinion, but I can support it fully in another thread.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Vouthon]

I’m sad to say that I agree with you there

I certainly would never insult a holy figure so central to a world religion on a forum dedicated to that religion on its greatest holy day (Easter). I am woefully surprised and also although I am more

I pray that our brother Sufjon, in light of his previous brilliant and usually fantastic posts, reconsiders his words and with an open mind tries to understand the true Saint Paul and how crucial his influence has been on world history for good.

What an offence to our glorious Apostle Paul who sacrificed his life for the Lord Jesus in Rome under Caesar and who seflessly spread his message around the entire Roman world ensuring that it changed from being a tiny Eastern sect into a true world faith!

None of us would be sitting here right now as Christians had it not been for Saint Paul’s missionary activity.

This is offensive to Catholics and indeed all Christians.

To resort to such offensive speech shows a real lack of courtesy and tolerance for the religious beliefs of others - particularly so since this is a Catholic Forum and thus one would expect posters to show our beliefs at least moderate respect, which insulting a person so central to our faith (writing many of the Books of our Sacred Scripture) certainly does not.

Would I insult the sages of the Upanishads on a Hindu forum and call them “troubled men”? Would I infer that they were somehow psychotic or delusional? I should think not!

 

[HappDeeNess]

I’m sad to say that I agree with you there

I certainly would never insult a holy figure so central to a world religion on a forum dedicated to that religion on its greatest holy day (Easter). I am woefully surprised and also although I am more

I pray that our brother Sufjon, in light of his previous brilliant and usually fantastic posts, reconsiders his words and with an open mind tries to understand the true Saint Paul and how crucial his influence has been on world history for good.

What an offence to our glorious Apostle Paul who sacrificed his life for the Lord Jesus in Rome under Caesar and who seflessly spread his message around the entire Roman world ensuring that it changed from being a tiny Eastern sect into a true world faith!

None of us would be sitting here right now as Christians had it not been for Saint Paul’s missionary activity.

This is offensive to Catholics and indeed all Christians.

To resort to such offensive speech shows a real lack of courtesy and tolerance for the religious beliefs of others - particularly so since this is a Catholic Forum and thus one would expect posters to show our beliefs at least moderate respect, which insulting a person so central to our faith (writing many of the Books of our Sacred Scripture) certainly does not.

Would I insult the sages of the Upanishads on a Hindu forum and call them “troubled men”? Would I infer that they were somehow psychotic or delusional? I should think not!

I am pretty shocked by this whole thread, but none so much more than Sufjon admitting to accepting the HOLY Eucharist, while speaking offensively about the church and our Holy saints. How can you justify accepting the Eucharist from a church you so sorely disrespect by generalizing our beliefs, disrespecting the people we consider Holy, and not even truly believing in the church herself?

The fact that Catholics believe (whether you agree or not) that our church is the TRUE church… for you to accept the Holy Communion knowing you do not believe that Catholicism is the TRUE religion, is a slap in the face to Catholics, and is like spitting on our religion. Many non-Catholics come with family or friends during holidays and respectfully ask to receive a blessing knowing that taking the Holy Communion (in which they do not fully believe in the same way Catholics believe) would be disrespectful to our religion. It is one thing to ask for a special blessing, and another to take in the Holy Communion in which you do not believe the same way we believe. (If you do not believe the Catholic church is the one true church… then you are already on the wrong path to accepting the Holy Communion right there.)

I can not imagine me going into a Hindu place of worship and saying, "I don’t believe in your faith, and I think (name of important Hindu religious figure) is foolish or “A troubled man”… and then participating in a very religious, sacred Hindu ritual. It would be disingenuous of me, as well as a slap in the face to those of the Hindu religion that I just insulted.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

**Thread pruned and started completely over.
I expect posters to:

1. RESPECT if not agree with the faith you are conversing about.
   2.RESPECT if not agree with the poster you are speaking to.

On Easter Sunday too.**

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Thank you all for your responses, they have been very interesting and have brought me some insight on what what my partner believes.

Going forward, my biggest concern is that our kids will not be baptized, and I wonder how my partner will cope with that in the future (she has agreed to this). Are there any catholics on this forum that have had an interfaith marriage and NOT baptized their children. If so, what are your thoughts on this? Do you feel that it was a mistake or has it worked out for you?

Again, my major concern is not for the present, or the near future. It is what happens when we have kids and my wife is the only person practising the catholic faith within my family.

Thank you all,

BrownCanuck

Isn’t part of the requirement for a Catholic wedding that the parents will both agree to raise the children in the Catholic faith?

BrownCanuck,

If I may ask: what will you do as you’re raising your children. Should your fiancée, upon becoming your wife, become even more a practicing Catholic, what will you do? Certainly, I assume there are Hindu ceremonies for children. Will you take the children (if and when they come) to both Mass and a Hindu temple?

What happens, if, upon being married, she becomes more of a devout Catholic and expresses a desire to baptize the children in the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[BrownCanuck]

Isn’t part of the requirement for a Catholic wedding that the parents will both agree to raise the children in the Catholic faith?

BrownCanuck,

If I may ask: what will you do as you’re raising your children. Should your fiancée, upon becoming your wife, become even more a practicing Catholic, what will you do? Certainly, I assume there are Hindu ceremonies for children. Will you take the children (if and when they come) to both Mass and a Hindu temple?

What happens, if, upon being married, she becomes more of a devout Catholic and expresses a desire to baptize the children in the Roman Catholic Church?

Yes, of course you may ask, I’m posting here for information to better my understanding of what it means to be Catholic.

We have discussed how we plan to raise our future children (should we be blessed). They will be raised Hindu, as my fiance has agreed. I do believe going to church during christmas, easter, lent and other holy days is important, as is going to mandir during diwali, holi and other hindu celebrations. Understanding the meaning of why we celebrate these festivals is more important. This includes the social, financial and spiritual aspects behind each celebration. We both had agreed to spend the majority of Sundays learning art, music and sports as a family then to goto church or mandir. However, if mass or mandir are to be attended… it must be done equally. I have even gone so far to buy our first home equal distance between the church and mandir.

As for future baptism, we had agreed that if our children decided to fully follow either faith when they are young adults (> 16), then we would both support their desire. This includes baptism. We also agreed to never speak negatively regarding the others faith, and to defend each others faith when confronted by people in our respective congregations.

I hope I have answered your question, now can you please answer mine… it is simple…yet very complex.

What does it mean to be a practising Catholic?

Thank you,

Brown Canuck

 

[TypesAndShadows]

Brown Canuck, I think you’d find it helpful to read about the five precepts of the Church, as an introduction to what it means to be a practicing Catholic. Here are a couple of places that explain them:

What Are the Five Precepts of the Catholic Church?

The precepts of the Church, also called the commandments of the Church, are duties that the Catholic Church requires of all the faithful.

www.learnreligions.com

www.beginningcatholic.com/precepts-of-the-catholic-church.html

 

[Fr_Bart_SVD]

Thanks to moderator for cleaning the thread )

What does it mean to be a practising Catholic?

Dear BrownCanuck,

To answer this question in a few words. To be a practising Catholic - does not mean only attending the mass on weekly/monthly/annual basis - it means to follow the Church teaching fully in all aspects of life: spiritual, moral, social etc.

What Church teaches and believes you will find that in the Catechism of the Catholic Church - it is a synthesis of our faith - even though it is a large and long text.

Unfortunately so many Catholic practise their faith on a selective way - picking only what they think is correct and good for them - they are not pracising Catholic in a sense you are asking for.

Just to take as example your situation - your fiance doesn’t follow the faith fully as she doesn’t want to baptise her children - so she cannot describe herself a practising Catholic in a sense your are asking for.

Best regards,

Fr Bart, svd