interfaith Wedding - Hindu - Catholic - Questions about future Faith

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrownCanuck
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Suifjon,

regardless of your belief in multiple (dharmic?) religions being “equally valid paths to god”, are you aware that only baptised members of the Catholic Church can actually receive Holy Communion? Any priest who tells you otherwise is lying, and any that gives the Eucharist (knowingly) to a non- Catholic is engaging in sacrilege.

Also in regards to one of you previous comments on the Eucharist :

" Who then is mocking the Eucharist? The one who sees God in all things, or the one who thinks he is ingesting God for himself or his own salvation?"

Are you aware that Catholic doctrine on the matter is exactly this; the belief that the substance of the bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ? That we in turn receive so as to Commune with our God- and yes for our salvation?

To quote Our Lord:

“Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.”

John 6:54-55
Hi Crusading Canuk: Unfortunately, I think you haven’t really understood me, or haven’t read anything I have said very carefully, otherwise you wouldn’t have felt compelled to make the announcement that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. If I sound a bit short with you, it’s because I am growing weary of explaining the same things repeatedly to folks who are not reading very carefully. Or maybe I am really bad at explaining things. It’s one or the other. If you would, please read my posts again and if I have not been clear, I will be glad to re-cover the ground with you.

Your friend,
Sufjon
 
Where does the Bible say Jesus is God
Not what I asked. I certainly believe that Jesus is God, though I find the prooftexts you cite a bit less obvious than you do and am happy to rely on the help of the Church’s Tradition in my understanding of Scripture.

You said that Jesus was “purely God” and had no human DNA. That’s what I’m asking you to show from Scripture (obviously I don’t expect Scripture to speak of DNA, but I’m asking you to explain the Biblical exegesis on which you base this claim).
 
Galatians 4:4 God sent forth His Son, made of a woman.

Mary’s DNA gave Him his human attributes. I am wrong.

Denying a physical connection between Mary and Jesus would imply Jesus was not truly human. Jesus was fully human.fully God, with a physical body like ours. This He received from Mary. So yes Jesus must of had some of Mary’s DNA to make him human.
 
If the Egg of Mary was not used (supplying her DNA)how could the genealogy of Jesus be traced back to Abraham or David? Was,not Abraham promised that the Redeemer would come through his seed? If Mary’s egg was not used then Jesus Christ is not the seed of Abraham and Scripture and prophecy falls apart.
 
It goes back to David through the male line, which would be his foster father, Joseph. All geneologies go through the males lines.

Of course Mary’s egg was used! God split it and life was created. Jesus has all of Mary’s DNA. He was human. :rolleyes:
 
Hi Crusading Canuk: Unfortunately, I think you haven’t really understood me, or haven’t read anything I have said very carefully, otherwise you wouldn’t have felt compelled to make the announcement that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. If I sound a bit short with you, it’s because I am growing weary of explaining the same things repeatedly to folks who are not reading very carefully. Or maybe I am really bad at explaining things. It’s one or the other. If you would, please read my posts again and if I have not been clear, I will be glad to re-cover the ground with you.

Your friend,
Sufjon
No I understand exactly what you believe (essentially pantheism). My question to you is are you aware of Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist? It is really the only one which matters when it comes to receiving the Eucharist in a Catholic Church.

The reason I don’t think you understand this, is because of your earlier post which said:

" Who then is mocking the Eucharist? The one who sees God in all things, or the one who thinks he is ingesting God for himself or his own salvation?"

This is essentially claiming that Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist is a mockery of Our Lord’s Body and Blood.
 
No I understand exactly what you believe (essentially pantheism). My question to you is are you aware of Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist? It is really the only one which matters when it comes to receiving the Eucharist in a Catholic Church.

The reason I don’t think you understand this, is because of your earlier post which said:

" Who then is mocking the Eucharist? The one who sees God in all things, or the one who thinks he is ingesting God for himself or his own salvation?"

This is essentially claiming that Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist is a mockery of Our Lord’s Body and Blood.
See it as you will, but I would rather see an answer to the question if you would please (since you re-posted it).

Your friend,
Sufjon
 
Now I am not against this mans relationship but I must ask. Why do people marry outside of the faith? These issues would never come up if this if both spouses were Catholic. I know for me I would never dream of marrying anyone outside the faith. It would not be right for the children to have to choose which parents religion to follow.
 
See it as you will, but I would rather see an answer to the question if you would please (since you re-posted it).

Your friend,
Sufjon
Frankly it’s the other way around; the Catholic who receives the Eucharist in a state of grace, with the intention of communing with his God, to gain the graces needed for salvation, is treating the Blessed sacrament with respect.

The heathen, heretic, or schismatic who receives the Eucharist -without regard for it’s meaning defined by Holy Mother Church, and/or their lack of communication with Christ’s Church, who not only mocks the Eucharist but commits object sacrilege upon it!

So back to the category of questions not answered:

Do you, or do you not understand Catholic doctrine regarding the Eucharist?
 
Frankly it’s the other way around; the Catholic who receives the Eucharist in a state of grace, with the intention of communing with his God, to gain the graces needed for salvation, is treating the Blessed sacrament with respect.

The heathen, heretic, or schismatic who receives the Eucharist -without regard for it’s meaning defined by Holy Mother Church, and/or their lack of communication with Christ’s Church, who not only mocks the Eucharist but commits object sacrilege upon it!

So back to the category of questions not answered:

Do you, or do you not understand Catholic doctrine regarding the Eucharist?
Insofar as I know, I have not said anything that contradicts what Christ said on the matter, nor have I denied that the Eucharist is is the Body and Blood of Christ. What part of Catholic doctrine would you like to school me on? What point(s) in particular do you see as problematic? Also, can you tell me how I have mocked anything? You use a lot of names for me but you fall short on particulars. Don’t just use words like heretic and schismatic without explaining what you mean. Take something I have said and explain in detail how it mocks anything or contradicts the words of Christ. Please stick to facts if you would. do me that kindness, I will be happy to address ever point in detail.

Your friend,
Sufjon
 
Insofar as I know, I have not said anything that contradicts what Christ said on the matter, nor have I denied that the Eucharist is is the Body and Blood of Christ. What part of Catholic doctrine would you like to school me on? What point(s) in particular do you see as problematic? Also, can you tell me how I have mocked anything? You use a lot of names for me but you fall short on particulars. Don’t just use words like heretic and schismatic without explaining what you mean. Take something I have said and explain in detail how it mocks anything or contradicts the words of Christ. Please stick to facts if you would. do me that kindness, I will be happy to address ever point in detail.

Your friend,
Sufjon
I wasn’t name calling, I was merely listing the various groups who are not in Communion with the Church, and so ought not to receive the Eucharist.

A heathen is one who does not believe in the Triune God; they’re not Christian.

A heretic is a Christian who (knowingly) denies Catholic teaching.

A schismatic is one who is in open dispute with the hierarchy, or disputes the authority of the Church; they must be Christian.

As for facts, the 1983 Code of Canon Law states the following:

Canon 844 (c.671 in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)
  1. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments to Catholic members of the Christian faithful only and, likewise, the latter may licitly receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers with due regard for parts 2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, part 2.
This is what I’m driving at, I’m deeply sorry if any priest has misled you, but the fact is no non- Catholic can receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church; it is illicit (a term in Church law meaning illegal). Individual clergymen are not permitted to bend, ignore, or create their own rule in their parishes.
 
In any case, Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist itself is transubstantiation. This means that before consecration, the bread and wine are simply bread and wine. The Eucharistic species only take on the substance of Our Lord’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity after consecration. Please correct me if I’m wrong on this, but as pantheism involves seeing divinity in everything, do you not believe that the Sacrament is just as divine before consecration as after? To quote you on the matter Sufjon:

“The problem is that if you are unable to fully experience the broader meaning, (not conceptualize, but experience it) then you are unable to extend it to it’s fullest fruition. Who then is mocking the Eucharist? The one who sees God in all things, or the one who thinks he is ingesting God for himself or his own salvation? Of course you can see that in my opinion that it is the latter who mocks the Eucharist and not the former, which means that it is you who mocks the Eucharist and then points to me saying that I mock the Eucharist. Very clever, that Satan that lives in the hearts of men. Until you can realize that God is in all things then you cannot love others or yourself properly, because it is in others and yourself that He is manifest.”

For Christ’s Church- the Catholic Church, this is a heretical statement completely contrary to our doctrine on the Eucharist.
 
Please correct me if I’m wrong on this, but as pantheism involves seeing divinity in everything, do you not believe that the Sacrament is just as divine before consecration as after?
Of course. By the way, I subscribe to Monistic Idealism. It means that everything emanates from a singularity, and is therefore an expression of it. Rather scientific actually, and of course, being well-thought, rather Vedic too. To know one thing made of clay is to know something about all things made of clay. Different forms, same thing. It is a rather problematic idea for those who are looking to get “rescued.” Ain’t gonna happen. The Second Coming is when you resurrect the Christ within you. That is the last day, and that is the day you will be raised up. Consistent with what Christ said, not consistent with what people made of it later. I can’t account for that, and it’s really not my problem. Until one understands that, one is a victim of someone else’s error or perhaps by someone else’s design. I think the former rather than the latter is the case.
For Christ’s Church- the Catholic Church, this is a heretical statement completely contrary to our doctrine on the Eucharist.
Being a heretic does not necessarily make one wrong. What should I care about labels that were once used to burn people at the stake or torture people? I would rather stand in the presence of God with the people that were tormented by the people who have used that term over the years, rather than to have to stand with the ones who use it. Who more resembles Christ and who more resembles Pilate?

Your friend,
Sufjon
 
It is a rather problematic idea for those who are looking to get “rescued.” Ain’t gonna happen. The Second Coming is when you resurrect the Christ within you. That is the last day, and that is the day you will be raised up. Consistent with what Christ said, not consistent with what people made of it later. I can’t account for that, and it’s really not my problem. Until one understands that, one is a victim of someone else’s error or perhaps by someone else’s design. I think the former rather than the latter is the case.
It says in the Gospels, and evident from history if you’re familiar with the early days of the Church, that Christ founded His Church upon the Rock of St. Peter (St. Matthew 16:18); and that the Gates of Hell would never prevail over His Church. He gave teaching authority to His Apostles and their successors (St. Matthew 28:19); if one is familiar with the early days of Christianity, this refers to the Catholic Church and the clergy. The only doctrine truly consistent with Christ’s teaching, is that set down by the successors of the Apostles.

In regards to whether or not being a heretic makes you wrong; it does. In the Gospel of St, Luke, Our Lord said; “He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.” (10:16) By rejecting the teaching of Holy Mother Church, you reject the authority of the Church to make decisions on faith and morals. In turn you thus reject Christ who gave His Church said authority, and the entire Trinity!

In any case, why do you commune at a Catholic Church? You don’t believe as Catholics do, and you’re not in Communion with the Church. Especially considering that it is illegal to do so (as it is sacrilege) in the Catholic Church.

Canon 844 (c.671 in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)
  1. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments to Catholic members of the Christian faithful only and, likewise, the latter may licitly receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers with due regard for parts 2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, part 2.
 
Crusading Canuk: It says in the Gospels, and evident from history if you’re familiar with the early days of the Church, that Christ founded His Church upon the Rock of St. Peter (St. Matthew 16:18); and that the Gates of Hell would never prevail over His Church.
You can read those words and say as you have said. But that is a classic and tragic misunderstanding of a larger truth embedded in the dialog. You can also read those words and see them in the actual context of the conversation, and when you do that, it takes on another meaning altogether. Jesus had just asked Simon who he thought Jesus was. Simon answered that Jesus was the Christ. Jesus answered that Peter had spoken the truth, and this truth is the rock upon which Jesus would build His church. And since Simon had been the one who had spoken that truth, he would be called Peter (Rock). So, He was not building a church upon a man whose transient form develops and dissipates in the fabric of space and time, but upon an intrinsic truth that transcends the world of form. Then He gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, which is of course not a set of keys to carry so that Peter could act as a cosmic gate attendant to a place that doesn’t exist. This is because heaven is a state of being, not a club. Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heaven is not here or there, but inside you and all around you. So, the keys that Jesus gave Peter were the secrets to awakening the Kingdom of Heaven within oneself. So, further along in the dialog, Jesus gives Peter the key to unfolding the Kingdom of Heaven that is within you. That truth is that whatever you find yourself unable to let go of in this world will bind you to the realm of birth and death, because anyone who covets this thing or that or remains attached to the things of this world and cannot be free from the suffering that attends it. Why? Because attachment is the root of all suffering and the main prerequisite for loss. Therefore, whatever you “looseth” on earth (free yourself from), you will be free from in the Kingdom of Heaven, and at this point we are able to experience it. Then Jesus tells the disciples not to tell anyone that He is the Messiah. Why? Because you have to save yourself by doing what He said. Jesus is the object and the finger that points at the object. To truly see where He points will lead you to Him, but YOU must do the work, and to do that, first you must see where the finger points.

So, now that we have a grasp of the meaning, let’s look at the passage again, but this time in it’s entirety and in it’s full conext:

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.”

Simple, right? No curly Gates, no fat little cherubs from the ceiling at Versailles, no old man with a set of keys. It is only us, and the realization of the infinite love and freedom that can be unlocked within ourselves. This is why Jesus said His Father’s House has many mansions. The mansions are hearts of those who make a place for Him to dwell in.
He gave teaching authority to His Apostles and their successors (St. Matthew 28:19); if one is familiar with the early days of Christianity, this refers to the Catholic Church and the clergy. The only doctrine truly consistent with Christ’s teaching, is that set down by the successors of the Apostles.
I would say that it is consistent with a duller understanding of something profound.
n regards to whether or not being a heretic makes you wrong; it does. In the Gospel of St, Luke, Our Lord said; “He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.” (10:16) By rejecting the teaching of Holy Mother Church, you reject the authority of the Church to make decisions on faith and morals. In turn you thus reject Christ who gave His Church said authority, and the entire Trinity!
I have explained how what you call the Mother Church is just an organization. The church is you. That is why you should be about your Father’s business and not prancing around with your crusader gear proclaiming who is a heretic and who is not. You father’s business is about seeing Him within you and in those around you, because that is the only place you will ever find Him.
In any case, why do you commune at a Catholic Church? You don’t believe as Catholics do, and you’re not in Communion with the Church. Especially considering that it is illegal to do so (as it is sacrilege) in the Catholic Church.
Every place where two or more gather in the name of God is sacred, and He is present among them. Why should I shun any place where that happens, whether it be a Catholic church, a synagogue, and Hindu temple or a mosque? The one who sees divisions among these will see only divisions, and will not see God.

Your friend
Sufjon
 
** Sufjon**. While I may see some things a bit differently than you do, I applaud your insights, your free and creative spirit and your respect for diversity within the wider faith arena. This entire notion that there is but one true religion, and we have it, and everyone else is mistaken, has been the source of so much arrogant and destructive bigotry, bitterness and even brutal inquisitions and wars throughout history. As I suggest so often, religion should serve as a bridge instead of as a barrier.
Happy Easter and/or whatever spiritual celebrations you observe.
 
** Sufjon**. While I may see some things a bit differently than you do, I applaud your insights, your free and creative spirit and your respect for diversity within the wider faith arena. This entire notion that there is but one true religion, and we have it, and everyone else is mistaken, has been the source of so much arrogant and destructive bigotry, bitterness and even brutal inquisitions and wars throughout history. As I suggest so often, religion should serve as a bridge instead of as a barrier.
Code:
 Happy Easter and/or whatever spiritual celebrations you observe.
Thank you for the kind words Roy5 and Happy Easter to you too!

Your friend,
Sufjon
 
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
 
I have said that I believe that all paths to God are acceptable to God and that the divisions people find are simply diversions. Therefore to receive a sacrament in a church that I have stated to be a valid path to God is not dishonest.
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top