Married as a Catholic but wife wants to get baptized in Pentecostal Church? What will happen to our matrimony?
- Status
A
Athanasiy
Guest
In the region where I live (the border between Romania and Ukraine) the Pentecostal movement successfully competes with the Orthodox. In many villages, Pentecostals are more in quantity than the Orthodox. Even if the Orthodox can throw mud at them, the Pentecostals are good Christians. Very active, non-drinkers, beautiful large, conservative families.
Last edited:
E
Edmundus1581
Guest
That is assuming that she is not already baptised as a Catholic, which she is, as clarified in the OPs follow up post. So the marriage is sacramental and that won’t change if the wife accepts a second (invalid and illicit) “baptism”, but she would obviously be putting at risk both her own faith and the good of the marriage.Matulis:
Your marriage may become sacramental instead of natural. Some of the Pentecostal communities
have valid baptism, others do not.
I too will pray for this worrying situation.
Last edited:
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
The Apostles at Pentecost, this outpouring of the Holy Spirit is very much part of our Faith. We receive this through the Sacraments.
What is being discussed here is a protestant movement that began at the turn of the 20th Century, an overtly emotional sort of set of practices.
What is being discussed here is a protestant movement that began at the turn of the 20th Century, an overtly emotional sort of set of practices.
Quite true.
I just want to make sure all know this specific outpouring the Protestants claim to have is something the Catholic Church has always had.
B
BarryVA
Guest
My last post was removed, so I’ll try to water it down. Yes, Azusa street was a move of the spirit. But “the church” we see in the NT started in the Bible. We have over 1,000 religions today. There was one in the Bible. So either we follow that one or we guess as to which one is right. Even baptists disagree with Calvinists, for example, so there is division not just between Catholics and Christians, but among Protestant Christians themselves.
The book of Acts is when the church began “without Christ” being there in the flesh. Acts chapter 2 details this. I would encourage reading in KJV as all versions are a bit different. I don’t want to do anything differently than the apostles did. This includes water baptism in Jesus name as shown in Acts 2:38 and then again in every single baptism in the New Testament. Jesus said in in Mark 16:16 “He who BELIEVES AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Would Jesus mention baptism here, and again in Matthew 28:19 if it were not necessary? Acts 10:46-48 has Peter saying “can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have (already) received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he COMMANDED them to be baptized IN THE NAME (singular pronoun) of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.” Peter is commanding, for the 2nd time, baptism, as Jesus commanded in the Great Commission.
Further…please read (as in Acts 10-45:46) instances of people in the NT receiving the Holy Spirit. I know this will sound foreign to most (I am am former Catholic myself), but this was almost always accompanied by the outward “sign” of speaking in tongues. I have done this. It is real. Many fake it. But it is Biblical. A woman in my church once prayed in tongues for 3-5 minutes. A woman to her right heard her prayer in French. She was praying for this woman’s son. She knew only English. I would not make this up. I fear the Lord Jesus. Acts 2:38 and on shows us Peter telling us this is for all of us, and our children, and to all who are far off, but never implies the gift of the Holy Spirit will “cease.” I come to share the truth of Jesus Christ and not to offend. God bless anyone who reads this. “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Surely the apostles knew Christ intimately. There were his family and closest friends. In my humble opinion, they didn’t “get baptism wrong.” They were fulfilling the command from Jesus in Matthew 28:19 about baptism. They knew that the “name” of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" is Jesus Christ. That is why they baptized in his name…adults, not children. I have nothing against infant baptism; in fact, my son was just baptized Russian Orthodox, which is what my wife is. But he didn’t know what was going on, and the oil caused a bad reaction on his skin (lol). We must be baptized with water. The MAIN MISSION of the apostles, EVEN TO THOSE WHO HAD ALREADY ACCEPTED CHRIST, was to 1) baptize them, and 2) encourage them to receive the Holy Ghost. The book of Acts opened my eyes to this. It happened again, again, and again. God bless you all in Jesus’ name.
The book of Acts is when the church began “without Christ” being there in the flesh. Acts chapter 2 details this. I would encourage reading in KJV as all versions are a bit different. I don’t want to do anything differently than the apostles did. This includes water baptism in Jesus name as shown in Acts 2:38 and then again in every single baptism in the New Testament. Jesus said in in Mark 16:16 “He who BELIEVES AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Would Jesus mention baptism here, and again in Matthew 28:19 if it were not necessary? Acts 10:46-48 has Peter saying “can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have (already) received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he COMMANDED them to be baptized IN THE NAME (singular pronoun) of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.” Peter is commanding, for the 2nd time, baptism, as Jesus commanded in the Great Commission.
Further…please read (as in Acts 10-45:46) instances of people in the NT receiving the Holy Spirit. I know this will sound foreign to most (I am am former Catholic myself), but this was almost always accompanied by the outward “sign” of speaking in tongues. I have done this. It is real. Many fake it. But it is Biblical. A woman in my church once prayed in tongues for 3-5 minutes. A woman to her right heard her prayer in French. She was praying for this woman’s son. She knew only English. I would not make this up. I fear the Lord Jesus. Acts 2:38 and on shows us Peter telling us this is for all of us, and our children, and to all who are far off, but never implies the gift of the Holy Spirit will “cease.” I come to share the truth of Jesus Christ and not to offend. God bless anyone who reads this. “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Surely the apostles knew Christ intimately. There were his family and closest friends. In my humble opinion, they didn’t “get baptism wrong.” They were fulfilling the command from Jesus in Matthew 28:19 about baptism. They knew that the “name” of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" is Jesus Christ. That is why they baptized in his name…adults, not children. I have nothing against infant baptism; in fact, my son was just baptized Russian Orthodox, which is what my wife is. But he didn’t know what was going on, and the oil caused a bad reaction on his skin (lol). We must be baptized with water. The MAIN MISSION of the apostles, EVEN TO THOSE WHO HAD ALREADY ACCEPTED CHRIST, was to 1) baptize them, and 2) encourage them to receive the Holy Ghost. The book of Acts opened my eyes to this. It happened again, again, and again. God bless you all in Jesus’ name.
B
BarryVA
Guest
My last post was removed, so I’ll try to water it down. Yes, Azusa street was a move of the spirit. But “the church” we see in the NT started in the Bible. We have over 1,000 religions today. There was one in the Bible. So either we follow that one or we guess as to which one is right. Even baptists disagree with Calvinists, for example, so there is division not just between Catholics and Christians, but among Protestant Christians themselves.
The book of Acts is when the church began “without Christ” being there in the flesh. Acts chapter 2 details this. I would encourage reading in KJV as all versions are a bit different. I don’t want to do anything differently than the apostles did. This includes water baptism in Jesus name as shown in Acts 2:38 and then again in every single baptism in the New Testament. Jesus said in in Mark 16:16 “He who BELIEVES AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Would Jesus mention baptism here, and again in Matthew 28:19 if it were not necessary? Acts 10:46-48 has Peter saying “can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have (already) received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he COMMANDED them to be baptized IN THE NAME (singular pronoun) of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.” Peter is commanding, for the 2nd time, baptism, as Jesus commanded in the Great Commission.
Further…please read (as in Acts 10-45:46) instances of people in the NT receiving the Holy Spirit. I know this will sound foreign to most (I am am former Catholic myself), but this was almost always accompanied by the outward “sign” of speaking in tongues. I have done this. It is real. Many fake it. But it is Biblical. A woman in my church once prayed in tongues for 3-5 minutes. A woman to her right heard her prayer in French. She was praying for this woman’s son. She knew only English. I would not make this up. I fear the Lord Jesus. Acts 2:38 and on shows us Peter telling us this is for all of us, and our children, and to all who are far off, but never implies the gift of the Holy Spirit will “cease.” I come to share the truth of Jesus Christ and not to offend. God bless anyone who reads this. “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Surely the apostles knew Christ intimately. There were his family and closest friends. In my humble opinion, they didn’t “get baptism wrong.” They were fulfilling the command from Jesus in Matthew 28:19 about baptism. They knew that the “name” of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" is Jesus Christ. That is why they baptized in his name…adults, not children. I have nothing against infant baptism; in fact, my son was just baptized Russian Orthodox, which is what my wife is. But he didn’t know what was going on, and the oil caused a bad reaction on his skin (lol). We must be baptized with water. The MAIN MISSION of the apostles, EVEN TO THOSE WHO HAD ALREADY ACCEPTED CHRIST, was to 1) baptize them, and 2) encourage them to receive the Holy Ghost. The book of Acts opened my eyes to this. It happened again, again, and again. God bless you all in Jesus’ name. Have a blessed week.
The book of Acts is when the church began “without Christ” being there in the flesh. Acts chapter 2 details this. I would encourage reading in KJV as all versions are a bit different. I don’t want to do anything differently than the apostles did. This includes water baptism in Jesus name as shown in Acts 2:38 and then again in every single baptism in the New Testament. Jesus said in in Mark 16:16 “He who BELIEVES AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Would Jesus mention baptism here, and again in Matthew 28:19 if it were not necessary? Acts 10:46-48 has Peter saying “can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have (already) received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he COMMANDED them to be baptized IN THE NAME (singular pronoun) of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.” Peter is commanding, for the 2nd time, baptism, as Jesus commanded in the Great Commission.
Further…please read (as in Acts 10-45:46) instances of people in the NT receiving the Holy Spirit. I know this will sound foreign to most (I am am former Catholic myself), but this was almost always accompanied by the outward “sign” of speaking in tongues. I have done this. It is real. Many fake it. But it is Biblical. A woman in my church once prayed in tongues for 3-5 minutes. A woman to her right heard her prayer in French. She was praying for this woman’s son. She knew only English. I would not make this up. I fear the Lord Jesus. Acts 2:38 and on shows us Peter telling us this is for all of us, and our children, and to all who are far off, but never implies the gift of the Holy Spirit will “cease.” I come to share the truth of Jesus Christ and not to offend. God bless anyone who reads this. “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Surely the apostles knew Christ intimately. There were his family and closest friends. In my humble opinion, they didn’t “get baptism wrong.” They were fulfilling the command from Jesus in Matthew 28:19 about baptism. They knew that the “name” of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" is Jesus Christ. That is why they baptized in his name…adults, not children. I have nothing against infant baptism; in fact, my son was just baptized Russian Orthodox, which is what my wife is. But he didn’t know what was going on, and the oil caused a bad reaction on his skin (lol). We must be baptized with water. The MAIN MISSION of the apostles, EVEN TO THOSE WHO HAD ALREADY ACCEPTED CHRIST, was to 1) baptize them, and 2) encourage them to receive the Holy Ghost. The book of Acts opened my eyes to this. It happened again, again, and again. God bless you all in Jesus’ name. Have a blessed week.
B
BarryVA
Guest
Please see my reply to DaveBj below. My previous post was removed by this site. God bless you friend.
B
BarryVA
Guest
I’m aware of the site’s name : ). I am a former Catholic. I don’t mean to offend. The question was directed at my church, so it stands to reason that someone with my beliefs might be able to help answer the question. However, the site didn’t kick me off for being Protestant (yet; they just removed my post) for posting the scriptures about Biblical baptisms, so I assumed all faiths were welcome. God bless you sister.
Last edited:
- Status