Is it a sin to pray with Protestants?

[Morgan_Hiver]

Since the baptism is valid then why do they have to convert to the true church? I never understood this. The Catholic church is really the only valid Christianity but somehow outsiders have valid baptisms that in no way qualify them as Catholics. Can someone explain this?

 

[joe_bell]

Morgan,

While baptism will make a child of God, was away original sin and make them an heir to Heaven, when one is of age to understand what the faith entails, one must do God’s will for them. Our Lord started one church, the Catholic Church. These Protestant sects, while having retained some teachings that are true, do not have the charge from God himself to teach what is to be believed by all.
The Protestant religion does not promote the faith that shows that one is a true Christian, a true disciple of Jesus Christ. What truths they may have, such as baptism, marriage as a sacrament, and teachings concerning Christ’s redemptive sacrifice does not take away from the fact what is lacking in their belief is vital. It is not piece-meal.
We must pray that Protestants convert to the faith Christ left us and join the Catholic Church. A house divided is not from Christ. They have countless communities with their own doctrines, different from each other. Christ is not the author of confusion.

Joe

 

[Melchior_1]

Since the baptism is valid then why do they have to convert to the true church? I never understood this. The Catholic church is really the only valid Christianity but somehow outsiders have valid baptisms that in no way qualify them as Catholics. Can someone explain this?

My wife was baptized with valid matter, form, and intent in a Protestant church as an infant. She decided 20+ years later to join the Catholic faith. She went to RCIA and received Confirmation, and became a full member of the Church.

So why couldn’t she come on over and start right away? For two reasons:

1. You need to know what you’re getting into, for one.
2. “Catholic Baptisms” do the Sacramental business, but also welcoming the child/adult into the community and welcoming them into the Catholic faith. A public statement that either the children will be raised Catholic, or in the case of an adult they will publicly state they believe in what the Catholic Church teaches. This isn’t Sacramental, but it’s still important. IMHO, it’s this element is why there’s still a process that is followed for those with valid Baptisms from other churches.

 

[JReducation]

Since the baptism is valid then why do they have to convert to the true church? I never understood this. The Catholic church is really the only valid Christianity but somehow outsiders have valid baptisms that in no way qualify them as Catholics. Can someone explain this?

Start with the Creed. “I believe in one baptism”. Since we profess that there is only one baptism, we also believe that all of the baptized are members of the catholic church. Observe, that it’s in lower case, just as it is in the Creed. “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church”.

We believe that the universal church extends beyond the boundaries of the physical Catholic Church. However, it subsists in its fullness only in the Catholic Church. Put another way, there is part of the truth outside of the Catholic Church, but the fullness of truth subsists only in the Catholic Church. Baptism is one of those truths that exists outside of the Catholic Church.

Every human being has a moral duty to search for truth and to follow it as he comes to know it. This does not mean that because a person is baptized they have arrived at the fullness of truth anymore than an infant who is baptized by a Catholic.

Also, remember that anyone can baptize, even a pagan. If he has the intent, the formula and uses water, the baptism is a valid sacrament. During WWII, under Lenin, and in China, many non Christians baptized the orphan children of Christian friends who had been killed, because they knew that the parents would have wanted this. They were non-believers, but they dearly loved their friends. Therefore, they took care of their orphans, including baptizing. In some hospitals, nurses and doctors baptized Christian children, even when the doctors and nurses were none believers.

The person doing the baptizing didn’t quite understand or believe. But his intent was to confer baptism according to the faith of the parent.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[JReducation]

My wife was baptized with valid matter, form, and intent in a Protestant church as an infant. She decided 20+ years later to join the Catholic faith. She went to RCIA and received Confirmation, and became a full member of the Church.

So why couldn’t she come on over and start right away? For two reasons:

1. You need to know what you’re getting into, for one.
2. “Catholic Baptisms” do the Sacramental business, but also welcoming the child/adult into the community and welcoming them into the Catholic faith. A public statement that either the children will be raised Catholic, or in the case of an adult they will publicly state they believe in what the Catholic Church teaches. This isn’t Sacramental, but it’s still important. IMHO, it’s this element is why there’s still a process that is followed for those with valid Baptisms from other churches.

You’re wife was not a catechumen. She was already a Christian. She needed to profess the faith of the Church to enter into full communion with the Church.

As you correctly say, you can’t do that unless you know what the Church believes, at least the core.

The law does not actually require Christians to go through RCIA. They need catechesis, admission and sacraments. It’s a very American thing to put Christians through RCIA.

Though we do not have to require any catechesis for the Orthodox coming over to Catholicism. They go from discernment and proceed directly to the rite of admission. They already have the sacraments and they already belong to a true Church. All they need is to enter into communion with the Catholic Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[Melchior_1]

You’re wife was not a catechumen. She was already a Christian. She needed to profess the faith of the Church to enter into full communion with the Church.

As you correctly say, you can’t do that unless you know what the Church believes, at least the core.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

Perhaps I should clarify; generally speaking, in my neck of the woods they encourage anyone older than grade school (grades 1 - 8) who seek Confirmation to go through RCIA so they know what they’re getting themselves into. Although my wife (at the time my fiance) wasn’t a catechumen, she was considered a “candidate” and we went through the process together (with myself as her sponsor).

Some places may have different programs in place. My parish has a specific program that’s RCIA for youth and young adults, and conventional RCIA. I know this year we have a couple of Anglicans who want to join my parish, and one of them has already read 2/3’s of the Catechism and often talks to our parish priest. Our parish priest wants me to possibly meet up with the guy, but somehow I don’t think I’ll need to spend months instructing that fellow. My wife joined RCIA (at another parish other than ours) late, but the Deacon said it was fine because she was already a Christian and the first bit of their program covered generally Christianity.

So it does vary depending on the region. But the gist of it is;

• Assent to the Catholic Faith needs to happen.
• Some instruction needs to happen so people know what they are assenting to.
• Chances are this will be done publicly, or at least with witnesses.
• And of course, the Baptism needs to be valid (form, matter, intent).

As a final note to Morgan; you can look at the Anglicans who are coming back as a good example. They don’t need to be baptized in a Sacramental sense, that was covered already. But they still need acknowledge a few things and assent to the Faith (and their ministers need proper Orders, of course).

Mind you, this all assumes they HAD a valid baptism at one point. Those who weren’t baptized head over to the for reals RCIA.

EDIT: Ah, I see you edited your post. Yeah, it’s a N.A. thing. My wife actually decided to convert after most programs started. We went to a couple of parishes but were turned away due to their programs already starting. My wife was devastated. Seriously, I can’t describe how shattered she was.

We did find a RCIA program in a Church who let her join up late, and I run into the Deacon every year on Pentecost Sunday (we have a a thing where those getting “just” Confirmed go to the Cathedral that day to get it done, people hitting for the cycle do it all on Easter Vigil). A good man, runs a tight program (we trade notes and talk about our respective pupils in our programs).

But make no mistake; at the end of the day my wife was joining the Church. What made her feel better before we met the good Deacon was my reassurance and promise that for her, RCIA wasn’t mandatory, and that if worse came to worse we could contact a couple of Priests and do things privately. But instruction and assent still needs to happen, and attending RCIA is a convenient way to do those things.

 

[JReducation]

Perhaps I should clarify; generally speaking, in my neck of the woods they encourage anyone older than grade school (grades 1 - 8) who seek Confirmation to go through RCIA so they know what they’re getting themselves into. Although my wife (at the time my fiance) wasn’t a catechumen, she was considered a “candidate” and we went through the process together (with myself as her sponsor).

Some places may have different programs in place. My parish has a specific program that’s RCIA for youth and young adults, and conventional RCIA. I know this year we have a couple of Anglicans who want to join my parish, and one of them has already read 2/3’s of the Catechism and often talks to our parish priest. Our parish priest wants me to possibly meet up with the guy, but somehow I don’t think I’ll need to spend months instructing that fellow. My wife joined RCIA (at another parish other than ours) late, but the Deacon said it was fine because she was already a Christian and the first bit of their program covered generally Christianity.

So it does vary depending on the region. But the gist of it is;

• Assent to the Catholic Faith needs to happen.
• Some instruction needs to happen so people know what they are assenting to.
• Chances are this will be done publicly, or at least with witnesses.
• And of course, the Baptism needs to be valid (form, matter, intent).

As a final note to Morgan; you can look at the Anglicans who are coming back as a good example. They don’t need to be baptized in a Sacramental sense, that was covered already. But they still need acknowledge a few things and assent to the Faith (and their ministers need proper Orders, of course).

Mind you, this all assumes they HAD a valid baptism at one point. Those who weren’t baptized head over to the for reals RCIA.

I would just edit here by taking out “baptized in a sacramental sense”. Baptism is always a sacrament. It either is or is not a Baptism. There is no “sacramental sense”.

What you’re referring to is called “The Profession of Faith”, which is what a baptized Christian has to make. For this reason, the person is a candidate, not a catechumen or a neophyte.

If he or she is coming from a non-church, as are the Protestants, then he must go through catechesis of some kind. As you say, different dioceses have different programs. Most simply put people through the RCIA or RCIT. Sometimes it’s hard to find someone who has the time to meet with the person individually on a regular basis. It’s easier to put them into a group.

Canon Law only requires RCIA for non Christian adults. It’s also important to know that Canon Law considers you an adult at age 14.

The Orthodox do not have to go through catechesis of any kind, because they had it in the Orthodox Church and they’re not receiving Eucharist, Confirmation and Penance for the first time. They Orthodox receive the Sacraments of Initiation at one time in infancy. If they are adults, they have already been to confession too. The only thing left for them is to make the Profession of Faith. Usually, they transition from Orthodoxy into the Eastern Catholic counterpart, such as Greek Orthodox to Greek Catholic. This makes it even easier.

To answer Morgan’s question – as we can see, there is a lot of Catholicism outside of the Catholic Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[Melchior_1]

I would just edit here by taking out “baptized in a sacramental sense”. Baptism is always a sacrament. It either is or is not a Baptism. There is no “sacramental sense”.

What you’re referring to is called “The Profession of Faith”, which is what a baptized Christian has to make. For this reason, the person is a candidate, not a catechumen or a neophyte.

If he or she is coming from a non-church, as are the Protestants, then he must go through catechesis of some kind. As you say, different dioceses have different programs. Most simply put people through the RCIA or RCIT. Sometimes it’s hard to find someone who has the time to meet with the person individually on a regular basis. It’s easier to put them into a group.

Canon Law only requires RCIA for non Christian adults. It’s also important to know that Canon Law considers you an adult at age 14.

The Orthodox do not have to go through catechesis of any kind, because they had it in the Orthodox Church and they’re not receiving Eucharist, Confirmation and Penance for the first time. They Orthodox receive the Sacraments of Initiation at one time in infancy. If they are adults, they have already been to confession too. The only thing left for them is to make the Profession of Faith. Usually, they transition from Orthodoxy into the Eastern Catholic counterpart, such as Greek Orthodox to Greek Catholic. This makes it even easier.

To answer Morgan’s question – as we can see, there is a lot of Catholicism outside of the Catholic Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

Touche…sort of. Most of my in-laws are Protestant, and they do the whole “Believer’s Baptism” thing. To differentiate between their baptisms and ours, and also to explain why baptizing infants is a good idea, I use the term “Sacramental Baptism” to explain the washing away of original sin, absolution of actual sin, and Sacramental Grace. They understand us Catholics like our Sacraments, so to use the term “Sacramental Baptism” with them (and other Protestants I find) they tend to understand what the deal is.

The implication throughout is that if you receive a non-Sacramental Baptism aka Believer’s baptism, you will need the real Baptism to receive the Graces, which of course means that if you convert to Catholicism and all you have had is a “Believer’s baptism” you’ll need to get baptized again. Must of them are smart enough to pick up on this.

So you’re right, of course. You’re either Baptized or you’re not, so that’s the touche. The sorta comes from that I know I’m not exactly using the proper terms, but it does help to break things down for those who don’t believe the same things we do.

 

[JReducation]

Touche…sort of. Most of my in-laws are Protestant, and they do the whole “Believer’s Baptism” thing. To differentiate between their baptisms and ours, and also to explain why baptizing infants is a good idea, I use the term “Sacramental Baptism” to explain the washing away of original sin, absolution of actual sin, and Sacramental Grace. They understand us Catholics like our Sacraments, so to use the term “Sacramental Baptism” with them (and other Protestants I find) they tend to understand what the deal is.

The implication throughout is that if you receive a non-Sacramental Baptism aka Believer’s baptism, you will need the real Baptism to receive the Graces, which of course means that if you convert to Catholicism and all you have had is a “Believer’s baptism” you’ll need to get baptized again. Must of them are smart enough to pick up on this.

So you’re right, of course. You’re either Baptized or you’re not, so that’s the touche. The sorta comes from that I know I’m not exactly using the proper terms, but it does help to break things down for those who don’t believe the same things we do.

I have to defer to you on your knowledge of Protestants, because I’ve only known four in my life. I have to admit that I don’t always understand the language of the Evangelical Protestants. I’m a Jew. Therefore, I’m more comfortable with the Eastern way of speaking, that includes Orthodox and Muslims. I understand them. The only Protestants whom I really understand are the Lutherans and Episcopal/Anglicans. That’s because they use language that’s similar to that of Roman Catholics.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[Melchior_1]

I have to defer to you on your knowledge of Protestants, because I’ve only known four in my life. I have to admit that I don’t always understand the language of the Evangelical Protestants. I’m a Jew. Therefore, I’m more comfortable with the Eastern way of speaking, that includes Orthodox and Muslims. I understand them. The only Protestants whom I really understand are the Lutherans and Episcopal/Anglicans. That’s because they use language that’s similar to that of Roman Catholics.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

Much like how I defer to your knowledge of Judaism; somehow I’ve gone through life only meeting one practicing one, and two non-practicing ones. Well, I need to count you in there now, of course

A “believer’s baptism” (usually done full immersion), is those who reached the age of reason. They profess to believe in Christ, accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, and use it as a means to enter into their community. If you were baptized as an infant, they sometimes request you get baptized again, because now you’re consenting to the baptism. This used to bother me, until I saw their point of view; they don’t think our Baptisms are valid due to lack of consent of the baby. Meanwhile, we don’t see theirs as conferring the same Graces through the use of the Sacrament, so they have to be baptized again (properly).

Some do “baby dedications” to cover the infants, a way of having the parents acknowledge they will raise their children in the faith. Some people even do “serial baptisms”. I’m not lying, my sister-in-law told me she had a friend who got “baptized” eight times. They’ll use baptism as a means to help boot strap themselves through tough times or as a re-commitment to Christ.

This of course all varies depending on the denomination. I used to primarily specialize in apologetics work with evangelicals (ironically due to an ex-girlfriend), so I’ve learned a few things here or there (and by “here or there” I mean a lot). Wikipedia has some decent information on “believer’s baptism” as well, if you ever want to do more reading on it.

Bringing things back to what Morgan asked, we can clearly see that there are distinct differences between the “evangelical” crowd’s believer’s baptism versus those who practice the Baptism that confers “Sacramental Graces” (ie; sanctifying grace and purification). So in that sense, I can see why the question was raised. There’s some far out notions of baptism. But there is the ONE Baptism for the forgiveness of sins misc etc, and if you have that it makes it easier to come home to Rome, because you have had the graces from THE Baptism already.

 

[JReducation]

Much like how I defer to your knowledge of Judaism; somehow I’ve gone through life only meeting one practicing one, and two non-practicing ones. Well, I need to count you in there now, of course

A “believer’s baptism” (usually done full immersion), is those who reached the age of reason. They profess to believe in Christ, accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, and use it as a means to enter into their community. If you were baptized as an infant, they sometimes request you get baptized again, because now you’re consenting to the baptism. This used to bother me, until I saw their point of view; they don’t think our Baptisms are valid due to lack of consent of the baby. Meanwhile, we don’t see theirs as conferring the same Graces through the use of the Sacrament, so they have to be baptized again (properly).

Some do “baby dedications” to cover the infants, a way of having the parents acknowledge they will raise their children in the faith. Some people even do “serial baptisms”. I’m not lying, my sister-in-law told me she had a friend who got “baptized” eight times. They’ll use baptism as a means to help boot strap themselves through tough times or as a re-commitment to Christ.

This of course all varies depending on the denomination. I used to primarily specialize in apologetics work with evangelicals (ironically due to an ex-girlfriend), so I’ve learned a few things here or there (and by “here or there” I mean a lot). Wikipedia has some decent information on “believer’s baptism” as well, if you ever want to do more reading on it.

Bringing things back to what Morgan asked, we can clearly see that there are distinct differences between the “evangelical” crowd’s believer’s baptism versus those who practice the Baptism that confers “Sacramental Graces” (ie; sanctifying grace and purification). So in that sense, I can see why the question was raised. There’s some far out notions of baptism. But there is the ONE Baptism for the forgiveness of sins misc etc, and if you have that it makes it easier to come home to Rome, because you have had the graces from THE Baptism already.

According to Orthodox Jews, I’m a heretic, because I believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation, which are the biggest stumbling blocks for devout Jews. Therefore, I’m excommunicated. They even deny our Jewish heritage. To them, a Jew who becomes a Christian loses his identity.

This is not true for all Jews. Reformed Jews, Reconstructionists and Jewish atheists distinguish between ethnicity and faith. Whether a Jew is an atheist or a Christian, ethnically, he’s a Jew. The Orthodox Jews see Jewry as both a faith and a nation that cannot be separated. If you stop practicing the Jewish faith, not only is it apostasy, but it’s also treason. Fortunately, unlike other nations, Jews don’t kill heretic and traitors. Not normal Jews. Radicals and terrorists do. But we look at them as Catholics look at Hitler.

Hitler was baptized Catholic, but he was far from being Catholic. A Jewish terrorist may be a Jew by birth and religious profession, but he’s far from being a Jew. In the Talmud, there is a prohibition against terrorism. Unfortunately, these folks don’t consider themselves terrorists anymore than Hitler considered himself a common criminal.

I’ll tell you this, there are three men who have influenced more conversions from Judaism to Catholicism without ever proselytizing to Jews: Pius XII, John XXIII and John Paul II. If Catholic laymen want to draw Jews to Catholicism, they need to drop the rhetoric and the attempts to proselytize. In Judaism, proselytizing is a grave sin. The image that is given by the “preacher” is a very sinful image. Kindness is the first Mitzvah. That’s why many of us converted. We met very kind Catholics, among them were these three popes who did so much for Jews. THAT got our attention.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Since the baptism is valid then why do they have to convert to the true church? I never understood this.

Plenty of reasons. “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you” (John 6) is one reason. Another is that fidelity to the leadership of the successors of Christ’s Apostles in communion with the Holy See is a genuinely important part of living as a part of Christ’s Church on earth.

None of that, however, negates the fact that all Nicene Christians, including orthodox Protestants, have a valid baptism.

The Catholic church is really the only valid Christianity

Not exactly. Protestantism is “valid Christianity” in the sense that it is validly Christian, despite its errors. I think we should say, rather, that the fullness of truth belongs to the Catholic Church alone, in which the fullness of Christ’s Church subsists (as Vatican II said).

but somehow outsiders have valid baptisms that in no way qualify them as Catholics. Can someone explain this?

To be Catholic, as you know, you must belong fully to a particular church (diocese) whose bishop is in communion with the bishop of Rome. Not fitting this definition, however, does not disqualify a community’s baptism. As long as the minister of the Sacrament intends to baptize, speaks the Trinitarian formula, and uses water, that is valid and true baptism.

Perfect unity with the Catholic Church is simply not a prerequisite for valid baptism.

The implication throughout is that if you receive a non-Sacramental Baptism aka Believer’s baptism, you will need the real Baptism to receive the Graces, which of course means that if you convert to Catholicism and all you have had is a “Believer’s baptism” you’ll need to get baptized again.

Meanwhile, we don’t see theirs as conferring the same Graces through the use of the Sacrament, so they have to be baptized again (properly).

If this “believer’s baptism” includes invoking the Trinitarian formula, then it does actually convey the same Graces and is a Sacrament, and the Catholic Church would not attempt to “rebaptize” such a person.

It doesn’t matter that that Protestant community practicing it probably doesn’t even believe in baptismal regeneration. It still happens nonetheless as long as they use the Trinitarian formula and water…

 

[Melchior_1]

If this “believer’s baptism” includes invoking the Trinitarian formula, then it does actually convey the same Graces and is a Sacrament, and the Catholic Church would not attempt to “rebaptize” such a person.

It doesn’t matter that that Protestant community practicing it probably doesn’t even believe in baptismal regeneration. It still happens nonetheless as long as they use the Trinitarian formula and water…

I had some stuff written down here, but I wasn’t happy with how it was written.

If the intent isn’t there, the validity of the baptism might be questionable. “One baptism for the remission of sins” is a big deal, and some could say that it is an essential part of a proper Baptism. The catch is proving the intent for that kind of baptism wasn’t there. If that intent knowingly wasn’t there, it’s a good chance at the very least a conditional baptism may need to happen.

EDIT:

This happened in my wife’s RCIA class. Someone was “baptized” before, but due to the lack of form, matter, AND intent she needed to be baptized with the Sacrament. Form is easy to get wrong, matter is easy to get wrong. Intent is within the heart of those performing the baptism, that’s harder to prove because it’s internal and not external. So unless the church or minister doing the baptism publicly says “this baptism is NOT for the remission of sins”, then I think most in the Church would assume it’s valid (again, provided the form and intent are there).

 

[JReducation]

The way it was taught to us in seminary was that you always assume intent to baptize. The language is very nuanced and deliberately so. There are cases, rare but some, where baptism may be adminstered by a non-believer such as Jew, Muslim or atheist. However, the baptism is done in good faith withe the intent to baptize, even though the person administering the sacrament does not understand the whole concept of Original Sin and absolution from sin, sanctifying grace, etc etc. These cases were often found in hospitals where Christian babies were in danger of death and nurses (usually), knowing the wishes of the parent, administered emergency baptism. They did it as an act of charity, not because they share in our faith or even understand.

In addition, there are many lay Catholics who also baptize in emergencies or in places such as missions where deacons and priests are not frequent visitors to the town. These are very simple people who don’t understand the sacrament and its effects, but they understand that it’s a Catholic tradition to baptize. In such places, infant mortality rates are often very high. These people, though they may not know the theology of the sacrament, do know that it’s part of being Catholic and it is a part of their culture and heritage. Therefore, their intent is not absolve from Original Sin and release Sanctifying Grace, because they don’t know the ins and outs of the sacrament. But their intent is to Baptize, because it’s the right thing for Catholics. We recognize such baptisms as valid. There are parallels between this situation and that of a non-Catholic who baptizes with the intent to baptize, even though he may not know what this means and the effects.

In many mission territories, the missionaries would delegate someone to perform the baptisms in their absence. I remember working in the Amazon. When the rainy season started, there were places that you could not reach until the season was over. This meant several months. Catechesis was poor, because you couldn’t do it every week and baptism was necessary. You taught the basics when you could get there. The local people took over.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1

 

[Padraig1972]

Remember, if they baptize using water and the Trinitarian formula, it is the same sacrament. “We believe in one baptism.” That’s what we say in the Creed. Notice, it does not say that we believe in a Catholic baptism. There is no such thing. It either is or is not a baptism.

If this child is being baptized, it is an occasion for joy. The child is being washed of Original Sin. It is a real sacrament.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I do agree and feel joy with my cousin, her husband and little Christoffer Andrè. I have witnessed many baptisms and it always such a joy. The funny feeling was being in a protestant church, which is the first time in like five years.

It is one baptism, yes i do recognize that.

 

[JReducation]

I do agree and feel joy with my cousin, her husband and little Christoffer Andrè. I have witnessed many baptisms and it always such a joy. The funny feeling was being in a protestant church, which is the first time in like five years.

It is one baptism, yes i do recognize that.

I gather your family is French.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[Neildown]

There’s nothing wrong with praying with Protestants as far as I can see, just don’t advocate Protestantism in doing so. I pray alongside at least one Protestant every week at my Bible study. I do my thing and he does his. I make the sign of the cross and he doesn’t. Being so strict about things like that can lead to people looking at you as if you’re a bigot, which in the end hurts the Church more than it helps.

I’m not saying we are supposed to bend our very beliefs backwards to make ourselves appeal to other people - I’m just saying that this isn’t an issue that requires choosing between the Church and popular opinion in the first place.

 

[Padraig1972]

I gather your family is French.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

They are norwegian and very lutheran. So being a catholic gives them a headache i think.
But it is ok, i need to learn and grow in faith. So do they.

 

[JReducation]

They are norwegian and very lutheran. So being a catholic gives them a headache i think.
But it is ok, i need to learn and grow in faith. So do they.

I was wondering, because of the spelling of the baby’s name.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[Padraig1972]

You are right, his name is a bit french-inspired. I like it, it suits the little boy well.