Struggling which faith for child? Very Long...

[HazMatt]

I got to thinking about a topic my wife and I have been struggling with after reading and responding to another post (funny how this place does that to you).
Let me preface this post with an explanation that I do not mean to offend anyone here and that I have been finding myself reading this section more and more lately (somethin's happening I think). I will need to name particular religions since it is such an intricate part of this discussion...
Background -
My wife and I have an almost 2 year old son. My wife's family is a very devout Catholic family. Just as an example, we were married by her cousin, a priest and another cousin is a nun. My in-laws (including mother and father-in-law) all went to catholic schools and my wife went to a catholic grade school. She now works in a private catholic school in Portland.
I was raised Lutheran, but went through a very serious rebellious period, in which I stopped going to chuch, never being confirmed, and was never baptized (Mother was raised a strict Baptist - converted). My father is not religious at all and just went along with the flow. I had a situation happen in my freshman year in college that brought me back to the church and become a spiritual person.
Now near present day - Wife and I are engaged, see three different priests for counseling (per the Catholic church) and attend a two day retreat of Engaged Encounter (which I now recommend to anyone engaged!!). During these sessions, the issue of children comes up. We discuss in depth and both of us decided that it wasn't that important what religion to raise our children, but we did want to raise them in a religious atmosphere. Fast forward to today - my wife and I have both kinda changed our tunes in this regard. I do not want to raise our children in the Catholic faith - I have had some personal experiences I wont go into here that will keep me from ever agreeing to that. My wife also does not necessarily agree to the teachings of the church, however it is all she knows and that "tradition" is important to her. Also, her family has a lot to do with it. Our son was baptized in a Catholic Church. I attend the Catholic chuch near our house with my wife and son just so I can support our family unit. I believe that is more important than what church I go to on Sundays. I also don't go to church on a regular basis. I have stated in this area before that I am not a super religious person, but consider myself a spiritual person. My wife says a person doesn't have to agree with all the aspects of a particular religion in order to practice that faith, but I don't understand or necessarily agree with that. I respect all religions and understand, or like to think I do, where all of them are coming from/teaching. However, I do not want my family teaching our son/future children the Catholic faith.
My wife and I discuss this on a somewhat regular basis, but it usually doesn't end well, and usually for no other reason than we both are so darn stubbon headed and start to take things personally - at least I do :redface: (now I can admit it). Is there anyone else out there that are in interdenominational marriages that had issues like this in their past? I have spoken with some folks who I respect greatly, and have received varying advice. I feel funny going to a catholic service, and sitting there, then standing there, then sitting, (just kidding :grin:)listening to the priest, going through the creed, giving a donation, etc., etc. and all the while thinking - why am I here if I don't agree with this and that. I think I am missing something and am probably missing the bigger picture, but it still irks me. Sorry, I got off track - what I am looking for is some advice as to how to move forward in deciding what faith to raise our child. Should we study a variety of religions and pick one neither of belong to but match with our beliefs more closely?
Sorry for rambling for so long - I really do respect everyone's thoughts here and am very interested to see some of your responses. (I hope my question was clear enough through my rambling)
Thanks for any advice.

HM

[fishnwHim]

HM, That is a great subject, and one I am sure that many parents have struggled with. As I contemplated your Question, A verse came to me Matthew 22:36-39 Starting with 36- Teacher , which is the greatest commandment in the law ? 37- Jesus said to him " you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind" 38- this is the first and great commandment. 39- And the second is like it " you shall love your neighbor as yourself". Jesus is all about love and is love, therefore any decision you and your wife make , needs to be made in love. The two of you need to make this decision , you will get a ton of advice from men , some may be good , but how will you know for sure. Here is my suggestion , and keep in mind I am not a scholar, just a lover of Jesus. You said that something might be happening with you and I agree. Why don't you first read FM2's post on Religion vs. Christianity and if you and your wife haven't already done so pray the prayer at the end of his post. Then maybe the two of you could sit done together on a regular basis and begin to read through the new testament and let God show you the way. I believe once you have asked Him to help you He will make it clear on what to do. The worst thing you could do is let this come between you and your wife, that's not what Jesus would want for you or your son, and I am sure you don't either. Just remember if you and your wife work through this with love and understanding, then your son will have a great chance to know Gods love for him , rather than being conflicted by what church he should attend. Please remember I am but a man, please seek God on this. My best wishes and prayers to you and your family. :wave: :wave:

[happybrew]

0

[rimrock]

HazMatt,

There is nothing like talking to someone who has been there in similar situations. I would encourage you to take happybrew up on his offer. I have found him to be very understanding and a faithful brother. This is why the Lord has given us the body of believers – fellowship, because no one knows like one who has been there themselves. Know I will be praying.

[Chromaflage]

Matt, I too can provide some insight on the matter. Although I have had only little exposure to the Catholic faith, my wife and I went through almost exactly what you described. We found that the key to the issue, in addition to God's guidance and serious prayerful consideration, both parties need to agree that first in the oneness of the marriage. And, I know I'm going to get :smash: :smash: :smash: for this one, BUT, from a biblical perspective, men, as the head of the household, are charged with assuming the role of spiritual leader within the family. I truly believe that God grants different wisdoms to both the husband and wife so that each compliment each other...spiritually and otherwise. This was the foundation from which my wife and I began our spiritual journey together.

That said, be ready to laugh, we ended up attending a Lutheran Church and are still there today. This is amuzing because I was raised Conservative Baptist and my wife's heritage, from way back, is Lutheran. So, in a sense, I married into it - just as you seem to have with the Catholic church. My wife and I have grown to be able to discuss our individual differences in our beliefs. On some things, we just agree to disagree - no deal breakers, but some philosophical differences - we call them personality quirks. :wink:

I would really like to share more as I have more time.....preferably in person, on a river between takedowns. :dance: :dance:

Let's fish sometime!

Kerry

[HazMatt]

Thank you all for your wonderful responses. Sorry for the delayed response. I have been out of town on business since Monday and wasn't able to check the website.
I will try to elaborate a bit further on this subject since it seems that others have been through this and answer some of the questions posed by happybrew while responding.
I consider myself very lucky in that we were married by my wife's cousin in the Catholic Church. He truly is one of the better men I have ever met. We were married my wife's home parish, which was a different parish from where Father Bob presided. We had to meet with the priest from the church and being non-catholic, I was not required nor asked to sign the document. We kinda got blindsided by this particular priest, as within the Catholic church, a couple has to meet with a priest, and have a discussion with them on our lives, our beliefs, etc. We were supposed to have this discussion with Father Bob, but the other priest beat him to it. There is a series of questions that are asked each person, such as, "What is your address?, What religion are you?, What religion were your parents?, Are you baptized?," etc. Well, at that time, my then fiance and I were barely making it, and had moved in together as we considered this our only option (moved out here from midwest with no family/friends, no jobs, etc.) Looking back, was this the best decision - who knows, but we definitely struggled with it. So when the address question came up, so did a red flag to this priest. Then the religion question - My mom - "Luthern converted from Baptist, Father - non practicing" - Red Flag. Then me - I said "Lutheran", but at the time, I hadn't been baptized (mother was raised Baptist). Another Red flag. Then children. The priest gets the contract out to sign, and says I don't sign because I am not Catholic, and that Kate has to sign it. The statement goes "I will do everything in my power to raise any children in the Roman Catholic Church." Well, my wife went into semantics (English Teacher) with the priest and asked "What is "Everything in my power? This means it is in my control and whatever I deem." The priest was visibly disturbed by this question and said "Just sign it." Then after this 15 minute conversation, he sits back and says "I'm sensing a problem between you two. You should think about this marriage." Mind you, I was younger - only 6 years ago, though, but this was the first time meeting this man and it seemed he was passing judgement on me and my relationship. We then got to meet with Father Bob - who apologized for what happened and then explained that he would have viewed me as a potential "recruit", as for a team. Looking at it as a clean slate and to have the chance at getting another person on the "Team". Great view, I thought.
Anyway, after meeting with a third priest here in Portland, another very good man, and going through the Engaged Encounter, we were married in the Catholic Church, however it was not a full mass, and we did not have Communion because of the differences in beliefs of the bread and body between Catholic and Protestant Churches.
I do understand that I may have just have been "unlucky" in my experiences with the Catholic church, but even within the church we attend - the priest is a wonderful man, but something just recently occurred that I don't understand why. I keep going back to Father Bob's statement of "I can get another player for my team." It seems that many things that are occurring are just pushing people away from this faith.
Some of the things that I am challenged with the Catholic Church include:
- The bread and body are transformed into the actual blood and body of Christ, not as symbols of this.
I believe that it is the symbol of His blood and body and that when he spoke of it at the last supper, it was not meant as it literally.
- My having to be forgiven of sins from someone else.
I have a personal relationship with God and I can go to a church and be forgiven of sins, but if I don't truly repent in my heart, it don't mean anything.
- That the Catholic faith is the only one true correct religion. I was told that I was going to the Hot place because I wasn't Catholic one time - by a priest (I didn't appreciate that.) With buddism and hinduism and the millions of followers with them and the similarities between them and Christianity, and the millions of other followers of the various Christian religions, how can any church claim that. I studied the LDS religion for almost a year and had a sticking point with that.
- Not worshiping idols, but praying to the Holy Family in services and giving offers to it. I just don't understand/ haven't asked. (It is easier to critisize from afar than ask for clarification :redface:)
- Praying to Mother Mary rather than the Lord Himself. I have asked about this, and still just don't understand/agree with it.
- The Pope authority/responsibility/etc. over my life. OK - I know this is a bit far fetched, but in theory he could see this thread and decide I am so messed, my wife and I shouldn't be together and "void" our marriage.
- The ability to interpret the Bible in my own understanding and beliefs, not by having someone tell me what something means. Although I do accept guidance.
- More social issues such as birth control, protecting of priests (I know the media is involved with this one), BIG GULP before this one. :grin:...same sex marriage (this is a biggie for most churches and even Christianity as a whole-but I have strong personal feelings on this just like everyone else). There are others, but these are some of the bigger things.
I know for a fact that happybrew and most of the folks in this section of ifish know a whole heck of a lot more than me about Christianity, the Bible, believe in their convictions to faith more than I, and I am just a neophyte, if that, in this whole process, and absolutely LOVE to discuss these topics. I am definitely going to be bringing this up with my wife this great Easter weekend and see how we can approach this in a whey (been in a cheese plant this week) that we both can lovingly accept.
I need to keep reminding myself - It isn't about me, This is for my Son.

Happybrew, thank you for the offer for the private talk. I decided to get some things out here in the open so others can see how I feel about certain issues and may be able to provide some further guidance. I will also get back to everyone next week after this weekend and share how things go. I have been avoiding this WAY too long and am excited to futher my learnings.
Chroma -
Let's set a date - I'll row...

Thanks all. I HAVE TO work now

[happybrew]

Hazmatt:

I'm sorry you had a bad experience with a priest. Some are better than others, as you seem to have found out.

Regarding your concerns:
- The bread and body are transformed into the actual blood and body of Christ, not as symbols of this.
I believe that it is the symbol of His blood and body and that when he spoke of it at the last supper, it was not meant as it literally.




The reason Catholics believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ is biblical. John 6:47-51

47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."



It appears to be symbolic at first, however Jesus is taken literally by those who hear them, including the apostles. He does not contradict this. He continues.


52* The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56* He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58* This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." 59* This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caperna-um.



Jesus reaffirms this. When Jesus spoke in parables, he explained his parable to his disciples. No explanation of symbols is given here. To the contrary, he questions his disciples whether they accept this teaching.


60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" 61* But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? 62* Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63* It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64* But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. 65* And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?" 68* Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." 70* Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" 71* He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.



Many of his disciples left him because of this teaching, that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. The ones who remained were confident that it must be true because of who they knew Jesus to be.

With a symbol, one thing stands for another. In this instance, his flesh and his blood are not known to stand for anything. Furthermore, Jesus clarifies this teaching by indicating it is the spirit that the flesh conveys that gives life. Hence, Catholic believe that it is not merely Jesus's flesh and blood, but his divinity as well. God humbled himself, and had such great love for us, that he even became our spiritual food, to sustain us on our journey.

Transubstantiation means a change of substance. It is not a change of form, which is the appearance of something. It is a change in what it actually is. This has its biblical basis in the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper.

Luke 22:19-20

19* And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. * 21*



Matthew 26:26-29

26* Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; 28* for this is my blood of the * covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."



Mark 14:22-25

22* * And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body." 23* And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24* And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, * which is poured out for many. 25 Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."



Jesus states that it is his body and his blood. Catholics do not search for some other meaning in this or John 6, but take Jesus' words at face value. Furthermore, when Jesus commands the apostles to "do this in memory of me", we take "do this" to mean "do what Jesus just did", which is transform the bread and wine into his body and blood. This is tied to the doctrine of apostolic succession. How could anyone get the authority to do what Jesus just did unless Jesus gave them the authority? But we know that it happened, because Acts 20:7 records how the Christians gathered on the first day to break bread, and Paul discusses it in 1 Cor 11 the Eucharistic feast. He states in verse 27


27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.



This would be impossible if it were merely a symbol.

This is rather long, and I think it is the most important. I will answer your other concerns in other posts, but that is the Catholic understanding of Scripture that underpins Catholic teaching on the Eucharist.

happybrew

[happybrew]

My having to be forgiven of sins from someone else.
I have a personal relationship with God and I can go to a church and be forgiven of sins, but if I don't truly repent in my heart, it don't mean anything.




Actually, in Confession, God is the one doing the forgiving.
Per the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), paragraph 1424,

In a profound sense it is also a "confession" -
acknowledgment and praise - of the holiness of God and of his mercy
toward sinful man.

It is called the sacrament of forgiveness, since by the priest's sacramental absolution God grants the penitent "pardon and peace."6




Furthermore, it presupposes a personal relationship with God. You are correct that it doesn't mean anything without actual repentence. This is also Catholic teaching. CCC 1428

Christ's call to conversion continues to resound in the lives of Christians. This second conversion is an uninterrupted task for the whole Church who, "clasping sinners to her bosom, [is] at once holy and always in need of purification, [and] follows constantly the path of penance and renewal."18 This endeavor of conversion is not just a human work. It is the movement of a "contrite heart," drawn and moved by grace to respond to the merciful love of God who loved us first.


Furthermore, perfect contrition obtains forgiveness of sins without confession, although it does not eliminate the need for confession.

1451 Among the penitent's acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again."
1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called "perfect" (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.51



Catholic teaching is that without repentance and sorrow for one's sin, there is no valid confession. Every sacrament has two essential elements, the form, and the matter. The form is how it is performed. The matter is what is used to perform it. The matter for the sacrament of reconciliation is repentance and sorrow. The form is oral confession. Without valid matter, there is no valid sacrament, so without repentance, there is no valid confession.

Catholic teaching on the necessity of confession to a priest comes from three main sources. Leviticus, the Gospels, and the epistle of James.

Leviticus 5:5

5 When a man is guilty in any of these, he shall confess the sin he has committed, 6 and he shall bring his guilt offering to the LORD for the sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.




James 5:13-16
13 Is any one among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise. 14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.



This is once again tied to the doctrine of apostolic succession. This came directly from Jesus after his resurrection. John 20:21-23

21* Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." 22* And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23* If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."



So there it is in a nutshell.

happybrew

[happybrew]

- That the Catholic faith is the only one true correct religion. I was told that I was going to the Hot place because I wasn't Catholic one time - by a priest (I didn't appreciate that.) With buddism and hinduism and the millions of followers with them and the similarities between them and Christianity, and the millions of other followers of the various Christian religions, how can any church claim that. I studied the LDS religion for almost a year and had a sticking point with that.




It is NOT, I repeat NOT Catholic teaching that all non-catholics will go to Hell, and quite frankly I think that if you were told you would go to Hell for not being a Catholic, that involved a gross misunderstanding of Catholic teaching and a glaring lack of charity.

The Catholic Church teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church. This is not the same as saying everyone who is not a Catholic will go to Hell. The Church consists of all the baptized. The Church teaches that the Trinitarian formula of baptism is valid, regardless of who does it. Furthermore, those who through no fault of their own are not Catholics, or even Christians, can still go to heaven if they would have become Catholic if given a realistic choice. This includes people who are driven away by the misdeeds or bad example of some Catholics, those who never had an opportunity to hear the Gospel, those who never knew their faith or were taught things to be of the faith which were not.

From the CCC:


848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."



From the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium


15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities.



This isn't to minimize the teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church, because it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic, but given that even most Catholics in the U.S. don't know or are misinformed about what the Catholic Church teaches, it would be unreasonable to suppose that most non-Catholics have any reasonable hope of becoming Catholic. God is merciful, and he doesn't create people to damn them. Anyone who is open to whatever measure of God's grace they have in their life will be saved. On the other hand, if they reject that grace, they are at risk, just as Catholics who reject that grace are at risk. We are in continual need of repentance and conversion.

happybrew

[HazMatt]

HappyBrew,

Thank you so very much for you thoughtful and insightful responses. Your responses just go to show your faithfulness and knowledge with such a complex topic such as religion. I truly appreciate the time you took to write such involved thoughts and quotes.
I never meant for it to seem that I condemned the Catholic faith and that I really do know that it was just a few bad experiences in such a large organization (lack of a better term) is not too bad. I am going to sit down this week and reread everything you wrote and quoted and do some reading of my own. As I said earlier about being a neophyte - I'm not even sure if I am that - by my responses and your thoughtful replies truly show how much more I can and need to learn. I think right now I am just a man with opinions out here trying to figure out a pretty complex topic which makes me just dangerous enough to take something and run with it.
Again - thank you so much for taking the time out of your days to write such informative replies.
Thank you,
HM
I will keep you updated as I travel down this wandering road...

[feisty's wife]

Have you ever given any thought to re-incarnation? This faith answer's an awful lot of question's, more to my own satisfaction than Churchianity ever has. :dance: :dance: :dance:

[happybrew]

Not worshiping idols, but praying to the Holy Family in services and giving offers to it. I just don't understand/ haven't asked. (It is easier to critisize from afar than ask for clarification )
- Praying to Mother Mary rather than the Lord Himself. I have asked about this, and still just don't understand/agree with it.




These are connected.

In Revelation 5:8, our prayers are presented to Jesus by others.
8* And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;



In Revelation 8:3-4, they are presented by an angel.
3* And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; 4 and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.



At the end of Hebrews, chapter 11, Paul (or whoever wrote it, that's in some dispute among scholars) talks about the saints in Heaven. At the beginning of chapter 12, he says
Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, 2* looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.




This gives us a partial picture of heaven. We are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses. Prayers are presented by others to Jesus. How did they get them? If Jesus already had them, he had no need to receive them again from someone else. Thus, the saints and angels of heaven received them from those who prayed them, who can hear them because they surround us.

Obviously, this is a doctrine that must be inferred from Scripture, rather than directly spelled out, but the Catholic position is that this is the best explanation for the evidence. We can ask others to pray for us. That is an easy thing to understand if you are asking those on earth to pray for you. But we can also ask our older brothers and sisters in Christ to do so as well.

Are we required to do this? No, just as we don't have to ask a fellow Christian to pray for us. However the Caholic understanding of the Church is that it is all the faithful, not just those here on Earth. Just as one might ask people in one's parish to pray for you or someone else, we can ask those in Heaven. This is what is meant by the "Communion of Saints". It is all the saints.

Mary is a saint. She is distinctive in that she is the mother of our Lord, who carried God in her womb for 9 months. Furthermore, the brief accounts of Mary in the Gospels give us a wonderful model for holiness. First, in Luke, chapter 1, the angel calls Mary "full of grace" and declares "The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you". No one else in Scripture is given this distinction, so the Catholic Church recognizes it as special.

Mary then says "I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done unto me according to they word." If only we could do the same! She is a model of humility in that she put herself entirely at the service of God.

Mary does not exalt herself. At the wedding feast at Cana, Mary told those who came to her to go to Jesus and "do whatever he tells you." This is Mary's message for us. If only we would do it!

Luke records at the end of Chapter 2 that Mary pondered Jesus' words and kept them in her heart. If only we would do so. Mary followed his ministry, and did not abandon him at the Cross.

In John's account of the crucifixion, he says to John "behold your mother", and to Mary, "behold your son". A Catholic understanding of this passage is that God was giving Mary to the Church, and that Mary is mother to the Church.

Now there is more to this than just the intercession of the saints. There is also the veneration of the saints. Some people are confused about this. It has been called idolatry by some. In reality, it is, or should be, sort of a "yay team!" sort of thing. To place anyone or anything on the same level as or above God is idolatry. The veneration of the saints is recognition of what God has done for them. We are saved by Jesus Christ, and this means the saints have been saved by Jesus Christ. Because of the enormous grace that God pours out on our lives, Enoch and Elijia were taken up directly to Heaven, and the bones of Elisha, even Peter's shadow brought about miracles. Can it go too far? Of course. Any good thing can become bad when overdone. But by recognizing God's grace poured out on the saints, we give glory to God and celebrate the outpouring of His Holy Spirit upon his people.

happybrew

[happybrew]

I will answer the rest of your concerns as I have the time. Due to the nature of your questions, some of my replies will involve a lot of my own opinion of them, particularly regarding scandal in the Church.
I never meant for it to seem that I condemned the Catholic faith and that I really do know that it was just a few bad experiences in such a large organization (lack of a better term) is not too bad.

It didn't seem that way at all. In a lot of ways, you are where I was at ten-fifteen years ago. I think the Holy Spirit guides us to seek answers to our questions. It's a normal and healthy thing. We are not drones. We were created with an intellect and a will, which God intended for us to use. God calls us to be close to Him, to know Him.

happybrew

[rimrock]

Well, thought long and hard about posting or not, but maybe another prospective could be of benefit.

Many good questions and responses have been shared. It is quite apparent HazMatt you have been thinking these through – that’s excellent. “I am just a neophyte” that’s not a bad place to figuratively remain for all of us. This allows us to continue to be flexible and moldable in the hands of God.

As I have said before, I greatly respect happybrew and consider him a brother in the Lord. In contrast I don’t believe the Catholic Church is the body that teaches the complete fullness of the Bible – not sure any church can make this claim; don’t quite know what this means? It is true that, evangelical Christians (a term which refers to believers who hold to historic Christian beliefs) share much more in common with Catholicism than many liberal Protestant denominations. But the Catholic Church will hold to teachings that lie outside of Scripture alone and add apostolic traditions to be authoritative as well – thus the reformation or protest, which the term Protestant comes from.

A Protestant understanding would challenge the teachings of transubstantiation, praying to saints… But the major area of difference (the other again being Scripture alone) is on the question of salvation; specifically the means of our justification. Protestants believe that salvation is by grace in Christ through faith alone. In other words we are saved by grace, but saved unto good works which demonstrates our faith, but never adds to it. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that salvation is by grace alone in Christ — but (and this is big) it is secured through faith and works. Classical Catholicism holds the view that salvation involves a combination of faith and infused righteousness. This means that God’s grace gives us the capability to become righteous, and enables us to perform good works by which we can receive God’s forgiveness. Protestants hold that we can never become righteous, but can only be covered by a foreign righteous that is not of ourselves.

These are extremely important issues that should be respectfully addressed and clarified for what lies in the balance is the very Gospel itself. I also would not say, like some Protestants, that all Catholics lie outside of Christianity – this is an ignoramus leap based more on prejudice than discernment. Catholics do hold to many of the majors such as – the Trinity, inerrancy of the Bible, Jesus’ deity and humanity, His virgin birth, His atoning death and bodily resurrection, ascension, second coming, judgment of humanity, general resurrection of the dead, eternal life…

There is however a gulf that cannot be crossed between Buddhists, Hindus and Christianity that you referred to in your first post. There are no “similarities” that draw us to the same belief and understanding.

The Christian life is a marathon and it takes time to grow spiritually. After all we didn’t grow up physically overnight either, so spiritual growth can take time as well. I applaud your genuine desire to know the Truth and grace of the Lord Jesus.

[happybrew]

But the Catholic Church will hold to teachings that lie outside of Scripture alone and add apostolic traditions to be authoritative as well – thus the reformation or protest, which the term Protestant comes from.



Rimrock, I think this is a fair assessment, although I personally would emphasize the alone in scripture alone.

A Protestant understanding would challenge the teachings of transubstantiation, praying to saints… But the major area of difference (the other again being Scripture alone) is on the question of salvation; specifically the means of our justification. Protestants believe that salvation is by grace in Christ through faith alone.



I'm not sure all Protestant denominations teach faith alone, but this could be true. This, however, was a stumbling block for me, because according to scripture,

James 2:14-17
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

In fact, the only place the words "faith" and "alone" occur adjacent to each other is in James 2:24

24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.


I think that in a person's normal practice this difference doesn't amount to a whole hill of beans because it won't make much practical difference in a person's practice or in their reliance upon Jesus Christ, however as a Bible believing Christian, it is my desire to take the whole Bible at face value unless there is a compelling matter of fact or of logic that requires explanation. Without such a matter of fact or logic, I have to believe what the letter of James says, that we are not saved by faith alone, although the context in which the last quote is written makes it clear that faith is an integral part of salvation.

It's not my intent to create dispute, as you have written many things here that I can only say "Amen!" to, and I don't think we disagree on matters of importance. I think that as long as we have faith and are doing good, and avoiding sin, and rely upon the grace of Jesus Christ for our salvation, it is akin to a dispute over how many angels will fit on the head of a pin. However, I think a clarification of why Catholics believe what we believe is in order.

happybrew

[happybrew]

- The Pope authority/responsibility/etc. over my life. OK - I know this is a bit far fetched, but in theory he could see this thread and decide I am so messed, my wife and I shouldn't be together and "void" our marriage.




Well, not really. The Church teaches that the Pope is infallible when teaching authoritatively in the matters of faith and morals. This means that he has to specifically intend to clarify a doctrinal stance. This is a rare thing. Centuries will go by without this happening. The normal means of teaching is through the ordinary teaching of the bishops of the Church, taken as a totality, or through an ecumenical council, such as the council of Nicea, or Trent, or Vatican II. These are also rare.

The Pope doesn't have authority or responsibility over your life. You do. The Church teaches the principle of subsidiarity, which is, per the CCC,
The
teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.


While this is normally applied to the social teachings of the church, it is also applied to Church governence. There must be a grave reason for it to be set aside. Thus, the Pope does not intervene in normal cases in what goes on in a particular diocese. Furthermore, if neither of you has a prior valid marriage, I can't see how such a marriage could be anulled. Furthermore, the Bishop in your diocese will not do it.

It would take quite a bit. Even with many Catholic politicians openly defying Church teaching it was a handful of bishops who even spoke in generalities about it, and only a couple who named names. It is far more likely that politicians and individuals in the Church will try to intervene to get the Church to do something than the other way around.

happybrew

It is not the personal authority of the Pope that governs the life of a Catholic, but the teachings of the Church. It is the responsibility of the individual, not the Pope, to ensure compliance. Church teaching is actually based mainly upon upon Church Councils. Thus, social teaching that says profit is not the only goal behind business activity, but the betterment of society and good of consumers and workers as well guides my business decisions. And I cannot decide that the Gospel of Thomas or one of the many letters from early days purporting to be from Mary are to be included in Sacred Scripture, or that Genesis or Hebrews should be taken out. The Church has defined through Church Councils what Scripture includes.

[happybrew]

Clarification of the above post:

Per canon law:


Can. 331 The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth. Consequently, by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power.




"ordinary" power means the power of a bishop. The "ordinary" of a diocese is the bishop. It is a Catholic technical term that can be misunderstood. The canon law indicates that the pope has the authority of a bishop throughout the Church, as opposed to within a diocese, which is the limit of a normal bishop's authority.

happybrew

[rimrock]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Protestant understanding would challenge the teachings of transubstantiation, praying to saints… But the major area of difference (the other again being Scripture alone) is on the question of salvation; specifically the means of our justification. Protestants believe that salvation is by grace in Christ through faith alone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'm not sure all Protestant denominations teach faith alone, but this could be true.



Very true, I believe I over stated this. Rather all evangelical protestant denominations teach faith alone. You are correct to clarify not all Protestant denominations teach faith alone.


I greatly appreciate your references in James. I would like to add:


Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. (James 2:18).




Absolutely, an evangelical position would affirm that if one claimed a long standing “faith” in Christ that did not bring about a changed life or any good works this would hardly constitute saving faith. The separating issue in a Protestant understanding is in the difference between Justification (one time act) and Sanctification (ongoing act). I’m not entirely clear but I interpret the Catholic position to be more of a combining of the two and not a definite distinction. Reformation Protestant position on justification:

1. Justification is the forensic [i.e., legal] declaration that the Christian is righteous, rather than the process by which one is made righteous. It involves a change in status rather than in nature.

2. A deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification (the external act by which God declares the believer to be righteous) and sanctification or regeneration (the internal process of renewal by the Holy Spirit).

3. Justifying righteousness is the alien righteousness of Christ, imputed to the believer and external to him, not a righteousness that is inherent within him, located within him, or in any way belonging to him.

Therefore, the verses in James with this understanding point to the necessary and continual process of sanctification; they don’t point to justification at all. If these two were combined in these verses there would be confusion. Justification is solely a judicial declared act of God that changes our status before Him but not our state of total depravity.

Good points to discuss; thanks for identifying your position. As I have said I believe there are many important similarities between Reformed Protestants and Catholics; there are many majors that are shared, but not all. I do feel that some Protestants can marginalize the need for good works and point to Grace without understanding the nature of it. Works do demonstrate the changing grace of God in our lives; the one flows naturally from the other.

I want to tell you that I sure enjoy your insights and the heart you have for the Lord. It is great to discuss these points without breaking our unity. I appreciate God’s Spirit in you.

[AnglersRental]

You guys are much better versed in this than I am, but let me throw in a few thoughts.

Historically, my understanding is that Protestant churches broke away primarily as a result of rejecting the authority of the Pope as the successor of Peter. The disputes over the authority of the Church orignally included many things like corruption, politics, church doctrine and economics, but the I understood the early Protestent view was that the individual Bishops were the successors of Peter and not just the Biship of Rome.

I see almost all Christian churches if today as following the same basic Roman theology and bible and orthodoxy established by the early Roman church, to me the differences are relativly minor in the overall context of the faith.

The biggest functional difference I see in modern Protestant churches vs. the Cathlic church is the belief of personal salvation through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and not through the intermediary of the priesthood. I personally hold this to be true.

In terms of doctrine I see the core difference being the Protestant teaching that Christ's own righteousness is imputed to those who believe, and on that ground alone, they are accepted by God. I personally believe this is the heart of the message of the Gospel.

Romans 1:17

For in the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, "The one who is righteous will live by faith"

My belief is that to "live by faith" is to follow the teachings and example set by Jesus to the best of our ability. The example and teachings of Jesus are very clear with regard to the works we do in our lives and in his name. I believe that if we are doing good works to attain salvation, we are living according to our own self will. If we have been saved because of Gods grace we cannot help but do good works, and as a result those works will be according Gods will and purpose.

On a personal level, I have done plenty of favors and other nice things for people over the years. But when I am completly honest with myself, without faith, my past 'good works' usually have some small or large selfish component attached. If I was doing something nice for someone, part of the reason might have been to boost my ego and to make myself look good. If I gave a gift to someone, part of me was usually expecting to get something nice in return. Things like that. Today as a result of faith I can do good works without the expectations. I can do good works to Gods purpose instead of because I want something out of it.

With the righteousness of God revealed through faith for faith, I believe the works we do as followers of Jesus are to Gods purpose instead of to the purpose of man.

Brad

[rimrock]

In terms of doctrine I see the core difference being the Protestant teaching that Christ's own righteousness is imputed to those who believe, and on that ground alone, they are accepted by God. I personally believe this is the heart of the message of the Gospel.




For someone who says they aren’t well versed this is extremely well said.

Without going into a long history, the seeds of the reformation began probably with Wycliffe igniting the spark, Hess famed it into a flame, and then Luther carried the torch. There was far more than one single issue. The biggies were the authority of the Pope vs. the authority of Scripture (Scripture alone), centrality of the Gospel/justification (Grace and Faith alone), and the priesthood of all believers just to name the main ones.

As I have said the evangelical Protestant holds much more in common with Roman Catholicism then many liberal Protestants, but I wouldn’t say the differences are minor. It’s always important to major on the majors and not major on the minors, but there are some differences in the majors (means of justification). As you have said it lies at the very heart of the message of the Gospel. Polite candid discussion is important and I’m greatly encouraged that we can do this here.

On a personnel level as you have shared, I too see not only my past good works as having a component of selfishness but most of my present ones as well. I specialize in tripping over my own agenda and purposes. Only my position has changed before God through Jesus and I see all to well it isn’t my nature that has changed.


With the righteousness of God revealed through faith for faith, I believe the works we do as followers of Jesus are to God’s purpose instead of to the purpose of man.




Rather excellent for one who isn’t “well versed”. This shows our need for God’s Spirit to have the things of God as our purposes as well.

[AnglersRental]

On a personnel level as you have shared, I too see not only my past good works as having a component of selfishness but most of my present ones as well. I specialize in tripping over my own agenda and purposes. Only my position has changed before God through Jesus and I see all to well it isn’t my nature that has changed.



To clarify, I certainly didnt mean to say that everything I do today is to Gods purpose alone. Merely that before making the decision to turn my will and my life over to God, whatever works I did were according to my own self will. Perhaps they were even to Gods purpose, I certainly don't know and that is not for me to judge.

Today, having decided to turn my will and my life over to the care of God, I have the oppertunity to seek knowledge of Gods will for my life and have faith that my works are to his purpose when I do so. Certainly, seeking knowledge of the will of God in all my affairs is a daily challenge, one that I always struggle with. Today, I must remind myself to be grateful just to have the oppertunity to do so. And thanks for making me think that through a little more - it reminds me to be humble.

Brad

[rimrock]

To clarify, I certainly didnt mean to say that everything I do today is to Gods purpose alone. Merely that before making the decision to turn my will and my life over to God, whatever works I did were according to my own self will. Perhaps they were even to Gods purpose, I certainly don't know and that is not for me to judge.




Didn’t think you mis-implied this at all in your earlier post, I was building upon your excellent point in which you were already pointing this out. I find you to be quite insightful and filled with an understanding for seeking God’s will in your life. Thanks for clarifying though; it’s always a good practice, even though I believe you know and embrace your ongoing need for God and having His Spirit conform you into the man God would have you to be. I appreciate all that you share here.

[AnglersRental]

HazMatt - I was looking up something for another post and came across this link.

Can non-Catholics be saved and attain Heaven? (http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc_salv.htm)

I thought of this thread and thought it might be useful.

Brad

[HazMatt]

Thank you all again for the wealth of information. There has been more posted here than I ever would have imagined. The advice all of you have posted has been great and I have printed it out and am reading it a bit at time, making sure I understand and realize to the fullest extent I can as to what you all mean and may have meant. This is a new subject for me, and I am learning a lot just from reading through the responses.
Thanks once again.

HM

[happybrew]

UG- I read your link, and it's good, but can be misunderstood if one doesn't know what is meant by the Catholic Church. Catholic means universal. It is the totality of the mystical body of Christ. Thus, the Pope has jurisdiction over it according to Catholic teaching. Per St. Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church, in Summa Theologica III q.8 a.3,

I answer that, This is the difference between the natural body of man and the Church's mystical body, that the members of the natural body are all together, and the members of the mystical are not all together---neither as regards their natural being, since the body of the Church is made up of the men who have been from the beginning of the world until its end---nor as regards their supernatural being, since, of those who are at any one time, some there are who are without grace, yet will afterwards obtain it, and some have it already. We must therefore consider the members of the mystical body not only as they are in act, but as they are in potentiality. Nevertheless, some are in potentiality who will never be reduced to act, and some are reduced at some time to act; and this according to the triple class, of which the first is by faith, the second by the charity of this life, the third by the fruition of the life to come. Hence we must say that if we take the whole time of the world in general, Christ is the Head of all men, but diversely. For, first and principally, He is the Head of such as are united to Him by glory; secondly, of those who are actually united to Him by charity; thirdly, of those who are actually united to Him by faith; fourthly, of those who are united to Him merely in potentiality, which is not yet reduced to act, yet will be reduced to act according to Divine predestination; fifthly, of those who are united to Him in potentiality, which will never be reduced to act; such are those men existing in the world, who are not predestined, who, however, on their departure from this world, wholly cease to be members of Christ, as being no longer in potentiality to be united to Christ.


Reply to Objection 1: Those who are unbaptized, though not actually in the Church, are in the Church potentially. And this potentiality is rooted in two things---first and principally, in the power of Christ, which is sufficient for the salvation of the whole human race; secondly, in free-will.




In simple, non-philosophical language, he is saying that some are actually in the Church, some reject the Church, and some will enter the Church in the life to come. Thus, there is no contradiction between "no salvation outside the Church" and a non-Christian being saved. Under the traditionalist heresy that misunderstands this, Moses and Abraham would not go to heaven because they were not Catholics. Under the actual Church teaching, they became members of the Catholic Church in the next life. This possibility is open to all who are not now Catholic, however those who explicitly reject the Church knowing fully what it is, and being in a position where they could reasonably accept it will not be saved.

happybrew