what will the kids be if I marry a Protestantgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
i am a catholic woman in love with a protestant man and we plan to marry.but what religion will the kids follow?
-- maria doyle (mariadoyle@hotmail.com), December 18, 2004
The kids are supposed to be raised Catholic.
-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), December 18, 2004.
They have free will, so when they are old enough they will decide fro themselves...Your duty is to love and raise htem, not to worry over these matters behind your own controle, that ar etoo far int he distant future to concern onesself with.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 18, 2004.
zarove is somewhat right in that when the children are old enough it will have to be by their will that they adhere to the church teaching. However, as a catholic you will be required to promise that your children will be baptised catholic and that you will raise them catholic to the best of your ability. This is not an unreasonable request of you, seeing as if you are truly catholic then you should want the same for your children.
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 18, 2004.
i think you should make sure they understand the subtle, semantic difference between the eucharist in the Catholic Church as opposed to some protestant churches. it would be better for them, i think, if they understood the significance, or lack thereof, of the communion host in different sects.
-- jas (jas_r_22@hotmail.com), December 18, 2004.
The difference between the Eucharist and a Protestant communion service is neither subtle not semantic. The Eucharist is the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Protestant "communion" is bread. There is nothing subtle about that.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 18, 2004.
Maria;
The lives of any children you raise will be as Catholics, if you have them baptized. But if you and your husband simply leave it to chance as to WHAT they will believe; the FAITH they live in,God will be holding you responsible at the Last Judgment. Not necessarily your husband. He will have a ready excuse, he wasn't one of the faithful.
Blame will fall on the Catholic who allowed her children to grow up indifferent to the Will of God. This is God's Will; that once baptized, a soul must be IN the Church. Not on the outside, nor in any other church. There was only the One Church founded by Christ on the apostles. You already know that Church, and leaving it up to chance where your babies go later is the same as denying the Holy Faith.
If, for some reason later on the children should quit their faith, and not because you didn't teach them, then THEY'LL be delinquent. But the responsibility from marriage on is for you to bring them INTO Christ's Church. In fact, you'll have a strict obligation to your protestant husband as well. Unless you try to bring him into the Church, you'll also fail him. It's a serious spiritual mission you undertake from now on. May the grace of Jesus Christ, with the most Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints come ever closer to you. We'll also pray for you and your children.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 18, 2004.
Maria,This is something that you and your husband will have to discuss. How important is it to you that your children be baptised and raised with your Catholic Faith? How strongly does your husband feel about his children being baptized and raised as Protestants?
Pray on it. It's not for us to tell you what your children will be. It is between your husband and you.
If it's (hopefully) important to you, than you should tell your soon to be husband why you feel so passionately about your children being of your faith. The reasons why ect..
If your husband doesn't mind that you wish to raise them as Catholics. Perhaps by the grace of God he might even consider converting to Catholicism. Then the whole family could be Catholic :)
Say he doesn't wish to convert for whatever reason. Where do you plan on getting married?
If it's in a Catholic Church, one of the stipulations is that your husband will promise to be supportive and let you baptise and raise your children as Catholics as well.
(It is my hopes that you and your husband (who will hopefully be moved by the Spirit to be converted) will choose to raise them Catholic).
Remember as Catholics we do have free choice of what religion we wish to be. We are schooled in our religion and the various sacriments available to us. And (usually around 8th grade) when we are older and know what sort of religion calls us in our hearts, we are offered the Sacriment of Confirmation.
Where we decide 'Yes. I would like to remain a Catholic of my own free choice for the rest of my life' (God Willing).
So then no matter how thier upbringing is, if they wish to be Protestant they could just opt not to take thier Sacriment of Confirmation. Or if they wish to remain Roman Catholic they can take it.
I hope I made sense. (I know I would want my (hypothetical) child(ren) to be of My faith and to be able to raise them as Catholics as well.)
Good luck and coincidentally congratulations and blessings for your wedding, may it be filled with much love, harmony and peace. Love, Grace & Peace, Dorian
In an effort to include all faiths: Enlightened Rohastu, Happy Hanukah, Bah Humbug, Merry Christmas, Blessed Winters Solstice/Yule, Abundant Kwanza & Prosperous New Year any child(ren) as Catholics)
-- Dorian (Catholic@yahoo.com), December 19, 2004.
PLEASE;
What's this inane bit about ''to include all faiths: Enlightened Rohastu, Happy Hanukah, Bah Humbug, Merry Christmas, Blessed Winters Solstice/Yule, Abundant Kwanza & Prosperous New Year any child(ren) as Catholics,'' --? ? ?It makes you harder and harder to take seriously. When people are constantly distracted by cute bzz-bzz like that they no longer bother with your announcements. Efforts to include ''all faiths'' is about as relevant today as driving in the wrong lane into oncoming traffic. ALL FAITHS MEANS NO FAITH.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 19, 2004.
maria,In my opinion -request your fiance to convert to Catholicism. The answer regarding your children then will be both correct and unconflicted -as will the marriage and family you bring them into.
-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 21, 2004.
Another interestign thing abiut"Including all faiths" is that this is a Catholic message board, and not designed to catert to "all Faiths".Not to sound narorw midned...thn again, Im not Cahtolic, and habv eno problems with Catholics talkig about catholci issues on a catholic board...
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 21, 2004.
You can think what you wish about my ecumenical December holiday wishes Eugene et.. If you haven't noticed, I'm not here for your acceptance, or approval. Nor do I need them. I only need God's love.If you think it's got no place on a Catholic Forum (which has readers of all and sometimes no, faiths reading it) than you can complain to your local diocese and ask them to fire (usually a Priest schooled in more than just Catholicism) whomever handles your Ecumenical Seminars and Community Services. (don't precisely recall the name of that person's post).
Since you're soo offended. Here's an even more mature suggestion. Skip over my posts.
Other faiths doesn't mean 'no faith'.
ATHEIST means one who doesn't believe in God. Which means NO FAITH
Shame on you for failing to realize that so long as someone believes in God, there's always a chance to help them rally round to your particular branch of faith (when the Holy Spirit calls them).
I refuse to alienate anyone, just because you're both too shakey in your beliefs to bother with being charitable to our brothers and sisters in Christ. Even if they're not aware of it yet.
Don't bother commenting back, because I won't waste my time bickering on a board that's supposed to be here to enlighten people & help them find information if they can't find it on thier own.
Hope everyone's Christmas and New Year is filled with abundant blessings and wonderful gifts of the Spirit.
Love, Grace & Peace, Dorian
In an Effort to include people of all faiths: Enlightened Rohastu, Happy Hanukah, Bah Humbug, MERRY CHRSTIMAS, Blessed Winters Solstice/Yule, Abundant Kwanza & Prosperous New Year!!!
-- Dorian (MerryXmas@yahoo.com), December 24, 2004.
I refuse to alienate anyoneDorian,
You make no sense with this? If it is true one can not lead, one must at least follow -there is no choosing of middle ground, at best middle ground is that which is forced or taken in ignorance...
As we are called to both imitate Christ and hold firm to Truth as embodied in Church teaching we must not only embrace that which sets division we must oppose that which suggests otherwise.
You may find it helpful to refect on the following and going further in to the context the passage is set will possibly prove even more a benefit:
Luke 12:51
"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division."
-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 25, 2004.
"In an Effort to include people of all faiths: Enlightened Rohastu, Happy Hanukah, Bah Humbug, MERRY CHRSTIMAS, Blessed Winters Solstice/Yule, Abundant Kwanza & Prosperous New Year!!!"hmmm.
Enlightened Rohastu, Happy Hanukah,Bah Humbug, MERRY CHRSTIMAS,Blessed Winters Solstice/Yule, Abundant Kwanza & Prosperous New Yeareverybody!!!
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 25, 2004.
'They have free will, so when they are old enough they will decide fro themselves...Your duty is to love and raise htem, not to worry over these matters behind your own controle, that ar etoo far int he distant future to concern onesself with. 'LoL
the first time in my life that i actually agree with zarove about something
-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), December 25, 2004.
don't attack dorianyou should maybe learn to accept and respect other's people beliefs instead
EUGENE C. CHAVEZ :
"Maria; The lives of any children you raise will be as Catholics, if you have them baptized. But if you and your husband simply leave it to chance as to WHAT they will believe; the FAITH they live in,
God will be holding you responsible at the Last Judgment. Not necessarily your husband. He will have a ready excuse, he wasn't one of the faithful.
[WHAT??? why should she be responsible for that? are your saying that all-not christians are going to burn in hell??? what difference does it make if her children are catholic,protestant,muslim,hindu or atheists if they are good people? her responsibility is to teach them right form wrong and learn them to know the real values of life and the right morale,religion is a personal thing in which you are wheter convinced or not]-sdqa
"Blame will fall on the Catholic who allowed her children to grow up indifferent to the Will of God. This is God's Will; that once baptized, a soul must be IN the Church. Not on the outside, nor in any other church. There was only the One Church founded by Christ on the apostles. You already know that Church, and leaving it up to chance where your babies go later is the same as denying the Holy Faith."
[first i see no reason why it should be god's will if someone is batpised to remain a catholic,baptising the child wasen't god's will ,but the will of the parents,if the parents weren't christians,the child would never be baptised and wouldn't also be christian;and leaving it for the chance where her babies go later isn't denying faith but leaving her children the options open to choose for theirselves in what they want to believe later and in what not and i don't see what should be wrong with that;after all,in the end it will be her children's descision anyway,many people i know were raised as catholics and later stopped believing]-sdqa
"If, for some reason later on the children should quit their faith, and not because you didn't teach them, then THEY'LL be delinquent. But the responsibility from marriage on is for you to bring them INTO Christ's Church. In fact, you'll have a strict obligation to your protestant husband as well. Unless you try to bring him into the Church, you'll also fail him. It's a serious spiritual mission you undertake from now on. May the grace of Jesus Christ, with the most Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints come ever closer to you. We'll also pray for you and your children. "
[why should someone be a deliquent for not being a catholic? there are many good people among the non-catholic christians and the non-christians if you didn't know that...and eugene,i don't know this verse how it's correct in english(because i'm chinese and i only live 2 years in quebec) but it's something like this : jesus said :'there are many folds,but i will all unite them in one'
so i don't think it matters much if you're catholic or protestant,even if you're not christian at all;good people are good people and what religion they are doesn't really matter]-sdqa
-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), December 25, 2004.
don't attack dorianyou should maybe learn to accept and respect other's people beliefs instead
sdqa,
You are either unaware of or misunderstanding in that you marry the two -the individual, and the espoused or enacted.
Both 'liberal' and 'conservative' guilty alike preach this confused morally relevant 'toleration' argument -it is meaningless...
No one has to nor should tolerate opinions or actions if such opinions or actions are in opposition to or would 'dilute' Church teaching.
In tolerance one should take great care to observe an important difference between individuals and their opinions or actions...
While one is required or compelled to oppose and be intolerant of certain opinions or actions one is also required and compelled to embrace (tolerate) an individuals endowed humanity and dignity...
You apparently employ the tool of those who are unaware of or lack understanding of this difference...
-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 25, 2004.
let's try this -italic off...don't attack dorian
you should maybe learn to accept and respect other's people beliefs instead
sdqa,
You are either unaware of or misunderstanding in that you marry the two -the individual, and the espoused or enacted.
Both 'liberal' and 'conservative' guilty alike preach this confused morally relevant 'toleration' argument -it is meaningless...
No one has to nor should tolerate opinions or actions if such opinions or actions are in opposition to or would 'dilute' Church teaching.
In tolerance one should take great care to observe an important difference between individuals and their opinions or actions...
While one is required or compelled to oppose and be intolerant of certain opinions or actions one is also required and compelled to embrace (tolerate) an individuals endowed humanity and dignity...
You apparently employ the tool of those who are unaware of or lack understanding of this difference...
-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 25, 2004.
Remember...who will be the parent who takes the children to church?? I was brought up believing that the children are raised in the faith of the mother's, she is the one who gave birth to the child(ren). My mother was protestant and my father is catholic.
-- Lori (lorival0130@yahoo.com), January 12, 2005.
i am a catholic woman in love with a protestant man and we plan to marry.but what religion will the kids follow?Ultimately? None.
-- jake (j@k.e), January 12, 2005.
Yes Paul,The Protestant Communion is about Jesus--not eating a wafer that is suppose to be Him--but about really worshiping Jesus in rememberance, like He asked us to do at the very first Communion which He hosted. By-the-way, His was celebrated with bread too.
-- (anon@anon.com), January 12, 2005.
Maria,Hopefully jake is right.
Jesus hated religion anyway.
Christianity is about relationship with Jesus Christ. And the only way to have a relationship with Him is to get to know Him, by spending time with Him. The only way to do this is through His Word.
Your best bet is to go to a Bible-believing preaching church like the one your future husband probably comes from.
-- (anon@anon.com), January 12, 2005.
Response to what will the kids be if i marry a protestantGenerally boys or girls, or sometimes both.
-- Pede (Maternity@ward.com), January 12, 2005.
Protestants do not have communion. They may have an empty symbolc ritual with remembrance of sorts. Not communion, with or without bread and wine.Why? Because Communion meand a UNION of two or more, in the Eucharist. We receive Jesus in His entirety, Body, Blood, soul and divinity; as true food, not make believe. He unites Himself to our own bodies and souls, and abides in us and with us-- the ''combining'' of us with Him as One, or, communion.
No such effect takes place ANYWHERE, but in the Mass of Christ's own Church.
Other so-called communions are but ceremonial vanities; good for the community's self-esteem, but not holy. We have the real, Christian, Holy Communion. It's at the very heart of the New Covenant Jesus sealed with His precious blood.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 13, 2005.
Yes, I know Eugene,But the true Communion that Jesus instituted is the one that Protestants participate in with Jesus--as He is present spiritually and with us always..,especially where two or more are gathered in His name.
Jesus didn't eat Himself, nor did the disciples believe they were literally eating Jesus' literal flesh and blood, as Jesus was alive and well at the first Communion Supper.
-- (anon@anon.com), January 13, 2005.
That's where all non-Catholics fail. You don't know the true scriptural interpretation of Christ's words.When God declares: ''My flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed,'' a real believer doesn't search high and low desperately for an alternative to the truth.
It's the reason Christ began His ministry by stressing to all the absolute requirement of FAITH.
He demanded faith in every word which was passing through His lips, everywhere he went. Then, before their eyes He vindicated their faith, working wonders.
He was making them understand; ''What I say, I mean; and no one will be deceived.''
Thereafter, at the moment when ONLY real faith could sustain a believer, the moment of Transubstantiation -- a MIRACLE; the faithful believed, and believe him today. Those who haven't the faith change whatever meaning in scripture is too challenging. They parse a word here, underscore a word there; but somehow make a liar out of the Son of God. Are you one of those?
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 13, 2005.
anon says: Jesus hated religion anyway.This statement is absolutely false!
Read James 1:27 (KJV)
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.The Bible, in fact, approves of relgion.
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), January 13, 2005.
But notice the description of religion in that verse Emily?I was rather thinking of this when I said Jesus hates religion:
Mark 7:5-13
So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?”
He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “ ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”
And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”
***********************
Clearly Jesus was admonishing the religious leaders in His day for doing exactly what the Catholic Church does today.
-- (anon@anon.com), January 14, 2005.
That's nonsense. First because those verses never imply religion was offensive to Jesus. He Himself observed every religious feast and tenet of Israel, and worshipped in the Temple.Second, you don't know a thing about doings in the Catholic Church. Nothing we ''do'' is comparable to the errors of the Scribes and Pharisees in any gospel narrative. Why don't you come and see for yourself, ''anon''--? We won't bite you, or sprinkle you with holy water. ---------------Come after you've had breakfast, bring your own lunch and please-- leave before dinner.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 14, 2005.
Jesus was definately talking about religion--in the false sense anyway. Not true religion as Emily described--but the false kind. That's what He didn't like, people making up their own traditions and losing touch with God and His Word because of it. Sound familiar?
-- (anon@anon.com), January 14, 2005.
Don't be stubborn. Even if the Pharisees held some traditions that Christ didn't like, their religion was not false; they worshipped the true God of Abraham, observing the Mosaic Law. So did Jesus; who was circumcised, celebrated the same religious holy days as the Pharisees, and assisted at the synagogue. He had nothing to do with false traditions, and neither have Catholics. In fact, we never ''lose touch with God or His Holy Word.'' To me it seems very familiar, though. It's exactly what went wrong with your so-called reformation. You lost touch with God and you bowdlerize His Word. (You did it here today, wrongly applying the scriptures.)
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 14, 2005.
You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of menyes, anon, this line sounds like something familiar... it sounds like every single protestant church out there.
for example, the bible tells us that faith without works is dead, and that the true believer will be known by his good works... SOME protestants have so parced the scriptures that they dont even recognize the need for good works anymore.
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 14, 2005.
Sound familiar?anon,
Yes -man made tradition contravening Apostolic Tradition is a very familiar protestant errancy. If you know this is errant -why do you persist in it?
Read the below linked information and get yourself in order before attemping to instruct others:
Sola Scriptura
-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 14, 2005.
I disagree with you wholeheartedly Eugene,Your religion is full of the same exact problems as was that of the Pharisees and Saducees. These leaders confused the truth with all their own rules and regulations, traditions and doctrines that only served to take away from God's basic Word.
The Roman Church, whose historic Catholicism was the center and soul of Luther's life, should number him among the Saints. In an hour when everything Catholicism holds dear was disappearing from the church's leadership, he stood valiantly for Catholic tradition.
Julius II, Leo X, and Clement VII had brought to the verge of ruin the authority of the church in thought and practice. Cardinal Cajetan at Augsburg, John Eck at Leipzig, the cardinal archbishop of Mayence, Aleander at Worms---all were willing to sacrifice God and the human soul to Roman power.
Luther fought, against his Catholic will but driven by spiritual honesty, for the Catholic faith. The power for this rebuilding came from within the older church itself---Ignatius Loyola and the Society of Jesus furnished that leadership.., but the superb Loyola would have been burned, excommunicated, outlawed, and gone the way of the dove in the power of the serpents.., had not Luther brought down the Renaissance papacy.
Gone forever is the world in which Luther was born and worked. He was studying Paul's epistles while the Americas were being mapped. Devils, witches, and the world of superstition were his native enviroment. The devils were chief antagonists in his life--and they remain with us still.....
In the Wartburg he may have thrown an inkwell at an imagined devil-- but in the Wartburg he also translated the New Testament--an epoch- making, language-creating service!
Luther was tortured and tormented spiritually--due to the fact that he felt far from God. He could not find his way as a Catholic monk. But as a monk, Luther diagnosed the disease of Christian Europe to be the same as his own spiritual disease., he had broken through to the gospel, and then he offered it to Europe.
In the monestary--Luther had been searching for God's pardon and his peace. He faithfully obeyed his order, and observed punctiliously the spiritual techniques. Yet he found himself no nearer to God. He began to see that the way of the monk was merely a long discipline of religious duty and effort. Mysticism was an attempt to climb up to heaven.
Luther came to realize that it was not a matter of God being far from us... and people having to strive to reach him. The reverse was true. Humanity, created and sinful, was distant from God.
God--in Christ, had come to find and save us. This, by-the-way., was no new truth, but simply the old gospel of grace, which had been overlaid.
The Reformers held that the believer came into direct relation and union with Christ, as the one, only and all-sufficient source of grace. His grace is available to the pentinent believer by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the preaching of the Word of God.
This did away with the need for the Virgin as mediator, the clergy as priests, and the departed saints as intercessors.
But the Reformers were never innovators, as the papacy was so often to allege--but renovators.
What they removed were the medieval innovations of Rome, in favor of the doctrines of the Word of God and the early Christian theologians.
The Reformers argued that there was no precedent in the early church for the priest as mediator. Such a role was not part of the gospel. They also argued that nothing in Scripture supports the secular power of the clergy.
-- (anon@anon.com), January 14, 2005.
False;
''Reformers argued that there was no precedent in the early church for the priest as mediator.''The priest is not a mediator. ''Such a role was not part of the gospel.'' All the apostles are priests ordained by Christ, and passing on the same priesthood in the laying on of hands. Completely scriptural; However-- Nothing is written in scripture to support the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It never was told us by God that the Bible would be our sole rule of faith. That was an invention of men; your so-called reformers.
''They also argued that nothing in Scripture supports the secular power of the clergy.'' -------------- What if that were so? The Bible isn't our sole rule of faith; not according to any scripture.
What's more, secular power has nothing to do with holy orders. Priests are not serving the world, they serve God. (Protestant ministers serve the world before God.)
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 14, 2005.
If, for some reason later on the children should quit their faith, and not because you didn't teach them, then THEY'LL be delinquent.So , that MAKES ME a deliquent too ??
God will be holding you responsible at the Last Judgment. Not necessarily your husband. He will have a ready excuse, he wasn't one of the faithful.
How do you know that for sure , can you show me some legal proof ??
Eugene , suppose I marry a catholic girl , what in case if we will have kids ?? Or Suppose I marry an atheistic or nihilistic girl ??
Salut & Cheers fom a NON BELIEVER:
-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 16, 2005.
Eugene -- For someone who has a lot of negative things to say about how the Protestants practice their faith...Tell me, have you ever attended a Protestant church service?? I'm sure many of us would love to know!!!!
-- Lori (lorival0130@yahoo.com), January 16, 2005.
Protestants practice their faith, Lori,
Without benefit of the Holy Spirit. I sympathise with them. Not only have I attended a number of worship services of theirs, but even lived with a family for a few days as a little boy. They're very sweet; I'm never negative about them as people of good will. Generally speaking.The services appalled me; not because they were reprehensible as shows, performances for an audience. They are nice shows; but not worship. In one wedding service, they never even recited the Lord's Prayer. How can Christians turn their backs on the very prayer Jesus expressly recommended? (It's too Catholic, you see.) In another one, I saw a woman minister. Quite orthodox in her words, in fact. But her office isn't apostolic. Who can take it seriously?
I like gospel music. Black singers are clearly precious in the sight of Our Lord. But they have no connection to Christ's Holy Church. NOT ANY. The meeting house is fancy-schmancy, the preaching is thunderous and healthy. but it's mostly false doctrine. I feel bad for these folks. In my own parish I have a great friend, Chuck; who sings so beautifully, a veteran of the gospel-choirs of the black Baptist Church. He converted to the faith and is now one of the most fervent Catholics one would ever want to meet. An ex-Baptist who found the Catholic faith. He is really a beloved son of the Holy Spirit; and in the beginning he was ''Goin' nowhere, Gene. That's where I was goin'''. He says. He left the wilderness of sectarian belief and came into Christ's house; the place where His glory dwells! How's that for my ''negative'' view of protestants? We love them. But they have to be called home; love demands that we open their eyes to the real Jesus Christ. God bless you and yours, Lori. May he keep all harm and misfortune away from you always. --Amen.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 16, 2005.
> "In an hour when everything Catholicism holds dear was disappearing from the church's leadership, he stood valiantly for Catholic tradition"A: While your premise is a gross exaggeration, it is nevertheless certainly true that Luther initially accepted and supported every doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church. He was fully devoted to the Real Presence of Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist, had a strong personal devotion to Mary and the other saints, relied heavily upon their intercession, and fully accepted the God-given authority of the Church. He is therefore a classic study in the necessity of submission to the Church, for within a few years of rejecting the divinely appointed authority of the Church he had fallen into multiple heresies, central to which was his foolish attempt to replace that God-given authority itself with a book compiled through that same authority.
> "Ignatius Loyola and the Society of Jesus furnished that leadership.., but the superb Loyola would have been burned, excommunicated, outlawed, and gone the way of the dove in the power of the serpents.., had not Luther brought down the Renaissance papacy"
A: Oh, please! Loyola and Luther were two of the many clergymen who recognized the need for reform in some areas of Church administration. Loyola is renowned because he remained in God's Church and worked tirelessly for needed reform as a champion of the faith. Luther is infamous because he rebelled against God's Church, abandoned God's plan, and unleashed upon the world the greatest plague that has ever threatened the Christian faith. It is a dishonor to Loyola to mention both men in the same sentence.
> "Gone forever is the world in which Luther was born and worked. He was studying Paul's epistles while the Americas were being mapped. Devils, witches, and the world of superstition were his native enviroment. The devils were chief antagonists in his life--and they remain with us still....."
A: The same can be said of every clergyman of the time, including those who actually brought about the needed reform within God's Church.
> "In the Wartburg he may have thrown an inkwell at an imagined devil-- but in the Wartburg he also translated the New Testament--an epoch- making, language-creating service!"
A: Given that the Catholic Church had translated the Scriptures into fourteen languages before Luther was born; and given that Luther's translation was so riddled with errors that his own followers abandoned it within a few years, I would have to rate his effort as substantially less than "epoch-making".
> "Luther was tortured and tormented spiritually--due to the fact that he felt far from God. He could not find his way as a Catholic monk. But as a monk, Luther diagnosed the disease of Christian Europe to be the same as his own spiritual disease., he had broken through to the gospel, and then he offered it to Europe."
A: The gospel had already been offered to Europe, in unity and in truth, for 1,500 years before Luther's rebellion. What Luther offered to Europe was dissent, division, disunity, and doctrinal chaos, which still runs rampant through denominational traditions today, 450 years after he initiated the movement that caused it.
> "In the monestary--Luther had been searching for God's pardon and his peace. He faithfully obeyed his order, and observed punctiliously the spiritual techniques. Yet he found himself no nearer to God. He began to see that the way of the monk was merely a long discipline of religious duty and effort. Mysticism was an attempt to climb up to heaven".
A: Curious then that the same system produced many of the holiest and most brilliant saints with whom God has ever blessed His Church - Benedict, Bernard, Anthony, Augustine, Bruno, Dominic, Francis, etc. In light of the exemplary lives of such genuine champions of the faith, Luther's personal failure and open rebellion can hardly be interpreted as a failure of the system he rebelled against.
> "God--in Christ, had come to find and save us. This, by-the-way., was no new truth, but simply the old gospel of grace, which had been overlaid."
A: Indeed this was the "old" gospel of grace - the only gospel - which had been preached in unity and truth by Christ's Church for fifteen centuries before Luther's "epiphany". Yet within a generation of Luther's rebellion, conflicting gospels based on the shifting sands of private interpretation were being promulgated throughout the known world.
> "The Reformers held that the believer came into direct relation and union with Christ, as the one, only and all-sufficient source of grace. His grace is available to the pentinent believer by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the preaching of the Word of God."
A: On the contrary, his grace through the preaching of the Word of God by those ordained to preach it was what the Church held to be true. What the so-called "reformers" held to be true was God's grace through personal reading and self-interpretation of the Word of God, a notion that directly conflicted with not only the entire history of Christianity, but also with the Word of God itself.
> "This did away with the need for the Virgin as mediator, the clergy as priests, and the departed saints as intercessors."
A: Indeed it did, as well as many other divinely revealed essential truths of the Christian faith. Unauthoritative personal interpretation can do away with anything the interpreter wishes to do away with. Today you can pick any doctrine of the Christian faith you wish, and find denominations claiming to be Christian which reject that belief outright, or twist it into something utterly unrelated to its original meaning. Incidentally, Mary is not a "Mediator". There is one Mediator, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. You can find that in a book compiled under the authority of the Catholic Church - the Holy Bible. Mary is an intercessor, as is every Christian person.
> "What they removed were the medieval innovations of Rome, in favor of the doctrines of the Word of God and the early Christian theologians.
A: The curious thing is that the various denominations couldn't even agree on what constituted "the medieval innovations of Rome", since each denomination removed different beliefs and practices than the others. The folly of trying to discover truth in the absence of genuine authority became increasingly obvious; but the plague had been released upon the world and there was no turning back on the slippery slope toward doctrinal chaos.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 16, 2005.
Thank you, Paul,
For your enlightening rebuttal of this apologist for heresy; his grandiose praise of a non- reformation. If indeed we'd seen reformation, the sainthood of Luther might not be sao far- fetched. ''Anon'' was rebuking me, actually. He said the Catholic religion is ''full of the same exact problems as that of the Pharisees and Saducees. These leaders confused the truth with all their own rules and regulations, traditions and doctrines that only served to take away from God's basic Word.''I'd suggest to him/her, come here and name some of those ''Own rules and regulations, traditions and doctrines that only served to take away from God's basic Word,'' So ironic he says it takes away from God's Word. Protestants took out seven and a half books and various divine revelations from Christ's own mouth; --from Mary's intercession, well-shown in John's gospel, to the Eucharist.
Ironic as well, how heretics accuse the Catholic of confusing the truth, as if they knew the truth. You've given this one a taste of it.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 16, 2005.
Eugene , what about my questions ??Can You give me an answer , please ??
Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 17, 2005.
Hi Laurent,I'm not answering for Eugene. He can come up with a better one than I can.
But yes, it would make "you" delinquent because you are old enough to investigate and make your own decisions. (I'm supposing here, that you were raised Catholic and understand the basics of Church teaching)
I was delinquent for years so its not meant as an insult from me. Proof? Its Catholic teaching, thats it. If you marry a practicing Catholic girl you'll have to bring the kids up Catholic. You know how it goes.
-- Jim (furst@flash.net), January 17, 2005.
Good reply, Jim.ME a deliquent too ? (Not only delinquent, but an intransigent sinner with no regrets.)
''How do you know that for sure, can you show me some legal proof?''
Proof is for judges, Laurent. You cannot be your own judge, because you are not impartial. (Conflict of interest.) I'll merely tell you from the heart. For your own good.
The time is coming soon, when no more words shall come out of your mouth. You will lie down silent. God always told us this; but of course, you don't believe. However --even if you don't, the day is coming when you'll fall into the hands of of the devil. God told you that, too. You didn't believe. You demanded proof.
Your only defense has been ''I don't believe; nobody can prove it.'' You say this today, alive for a few more years. But you won't stay alive very long; nor will we.
We believed, and God will keep His promises, He will reward us. You will believe at last. The devil shall give you all the proof you asked for. There is NO OTHER OUTCOME, Laurent.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 17, 2005.
(I'm supposing here, that you were raised Catholic and understand the basics of Church teaching)Unfortunely , yes !! Besides , it was not my free choice to be one !!
But it was my full free choice to left !!
If you marry a practicing Catholic girl you'll have to bring the kids up Catholic. You know how it goes.
ME a deliquent too ? (Not only delinquent, but an intransigent sinner with no regrets.)
In both cases , I simply disagree !!
Eugene , me too , I'm telling you from the heart , and believe me , it's on the right place !!
You cannot be your own judge, because you are not impartial. (Conflict of interest.)
Agree !!
You demanded proof
Asking for proof , is not the same demanding for proof !!
But you won't stay alive very long; nor will we.
I die tomorrow ?? So be it !! (Seize The Day)
There is NO OTHER OUTCOME, Laurent.
Just as anyone else , I do have the right to believe in what I want !!
Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 17, 2005.
No one is denying your right to burn if it pleases you. We all have free will. When God spoke to Israel, He said:''I place before you life and death. Choose therefore, life.'' --In this obstinacy, you're choosing death. (Damnation with no return.)
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 17, 2005.
Why would I burn or even choose such a way ??Why would I choose the way of death ??
I don't please and even wish none of them !!
I really love to live , besides I'm an optimist !!
Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 17, 2005.
A young boy is stranded on a desert island. A boat comes and a sailor shouts to the boy, "Come on board and you can get out of here." "I want to get out of here," the boy replies, "But I don't want to get on the boat" Years later, He is now a young man. Another boat comes by,"Get on board," the sailor offers,"And you can get out of here." "I want to get out of here, but I don't want to get on the boat." Now he's an old man, a ship comes by,"Get on the boat sir, and we can get you out of this place." But the old man, set in his ways, remains put,"I am not getting on that boat." Soon the old man dies, stranded on the island he wanted to get away from, yet too stubborn to take the help that was offered. Why? Because he wanted to do it his way, and to him, his way was all that mattered.Sad that.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), January 17, 2005.
Laurent, Think anything you wish. We'll pray for you.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 17, 2005.
Olivier , Eugene , anyone else: A bit a weird question:A bet: Suppose , someone offers you 1000000$ , under 1 condition , you only have to drink 1 glass of beer !!
What would you do ??
Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 19, 2005.
Oh? To be sure; first I'd ask him to drink half. Then, refill and I drink a full glass. It could be poisoned. If he drinks first it isn't. (In fact, I'd offer him half the prize for doing it that way.)What about you?
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 19, 2005.
Good thinking Eugene. I may have been half dead by the time your suspicion occured to me.
-- Jim (furst@flash.net), January 19, 2005.
Well , my bet-question , what I would do , a very simple answer:I refuse to join this party !!
Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 21, 2005.