catholic answers forum working4christ2 4 dummies

phil19034 · Today, 12:31 pm

Having once been a fallen away Catholic, I can answer this.

The number one reason is because they still believe in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Due to today's secular, modern, Protestant dominated, American society they might not understand or agree with Catholic teachings. But the reason they have not become Protestants is because they do believe in the Catholic understanding of transubstantiation.

When my dad left the Catholic Church to become a Baptist, I finally asked him if he believed in transubstantiation. He didn't know what it meant, so when I explained that we Catholics believe that the bread and wine actually become the Body and Blood of Christ (our Mystery of Faith) via the Holy Spirit... my dad said, "No, it's symbolic. Priests don't have the power to make that kind of miracle."

Therefore, I said to my dad... "OK, you are officially not a Catholic anymore."

To me... if they believe in transubstantiation, then they are still Catholic. They might not be a good Catholic, or a devout Catholic, or a practicing Catholic or an educated Catholic; but they still believe in the Blessed Sacrament. Therefore, they are still Catholic.

Instead of trying to kick them out, keep in mind that they most likely have NOT received a proper Catholic education. I know I didn't.

Of course, then there are some secular Catholics who view being Catholic in the same regard as atheist Jews consider themselves to still be Jewish. They view being Catholic as a culture/people/idenity. However, unlike the Atheist Jews who do not believe in God, secular Catholics still believe in God and most likely in the Eucharist. All former Catholics who are now Atheists that I know will say they "used to be Catholic." They do not consider themselves to Catholic anymore. And most who do not believe in the Blessed Sacrament will not identify themselves as Catholic either.

So in closing, I really think most times it comes down to believing in the Eucharist. It's the one thing that ALL Catholics (conservative, liberal, orthodox, secular, non-practicing, Eastern, Western, etc) all have in common.

And finally to answer your question, "God perhaps keeps these people around in hopes that someone will evangelize them?" ----- the answer is YES.

God bless!

MaryT777 · #7 Today, 12:38 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by phil19034

Having once been a fallen away Catholic, I can answer this.

The number one reason is because they still believe in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Due to today's secular, modern, Protestant dominated, American society they might not understand or agree with Catholic teachings. But the reason they have not become Protestants is because they do believe in the Catholic understanding of transubstantiation.

When my dad left the Catholic Church to become a Baptist, I finally asked him if he believed in transubstantiation. He didn't know what it meant, so when I explained that we Catholics believe that the bread and wine actually become the Body and Blood of Christ (our Mystery of Faith) via the Holy Spirit... my dad said, "No, it's symbolic. Priests don't have the power to make that kind of miracle."

Therefore, I said to my dad... "OK, you are officially not a Catholic anymore."

To me... if they believe in transubstantiation, then they are still Catholic. They might not be a good Catholic or a devout Catholic, or a practicing Catholic or an uneducated Catholic, but they still believe in the Blessed Sacrament. Therefore, they are still Catholic.

Instead of trying to kick them out, keep in mind that they most likely have NOT receive a proper Catholic education. I know I didn't.

Of course, then there are some secular Catholics who view being Catholic in the same regard as atheist Jews consider themselves to still be Jewish. They view being Catholic as a culture/people/idenity. However, unlike the Atheist Jews who do not believe in God, secular Catholics still believe in God and most likely in the Eucharist. All former Catholics who are not Atheist that I know will say they "used to be Catholic" but do not consider themselves to Catholic anymore. And most who do not believe in the Blessed Sacrament will not identify themselves as Catholic.

So in closing, I really think for most it comes down to believing in the Eucharist. It's the one thing that ALL Catholics (conservative, liberal, secular, non-practicing, Eastern, Western, etc) all have in common.

God bless!

Great post! I think you're on to something regarding the belief in the Eucharist.
God bless you as well.

**edwest2** · #8 Today, 12:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by YoungTradCath

It is very common to hear things like the "medievalism*" of Catholic moral teaching on just about everything except the poor.

My question is, why do the Catholics who hold these views care? If they aren't going to Mass, if they are not participating in the life of the Church, then why do they give one ounce of care about what the Church teaches? If you are so disaffected, then why not just leave it alone? In any other human endeavor, when someone is so disaffected, when someone hates or disbelieves an essential part of the thing in question, 99% of the time that person will leave it.

In my mind, it is most logical for a person who holds these views to just give up. If you don't agree with essential subject matter, then why do you care to stick around? If I did not agree with the Church's moral teachings, I would at least be faithful enough to my (hypothetically extremely flawed) conscience, and I would respect my own logic enough, to seal the deal and just not call myself Catholic anymore. At least be intellectually honest with yourself.

In one sense I absolutely detest this double-dealing game that many people play because it is so extremely offensive to logic and proper reason.

But in another sense this, to me, seems a sort of divine intervention. God perhaps keeps these people around in hopes that someone will evangelize them?

*I vehemently object to the world medieval being used as some sort of curse word, but it is.

This was gradually infused into the Catholic mind by anti-religious Progressives. They were preaching their brand of anti-Catholic thinking but never called it that. The most effective liars are the most subtle, often hiding behind an outer surface of sincere intellectualism and a feigned love for 'freedom.' Freedom from religion, or, at worst, promoting a corrupted version of it, was the goal. The current version of our plight started in 1967. Catholic institutions of higher learning were convinced they needed academic "freedom" and cut their ties with the Church's hierarchy.

http://www.catholichistory.net/Event...sStatement.htm

Things I heard in the late 1960s, during the start of the Sex without love or commitment Revolution, included: "All you Catholics do is listen to the Pope!" Yeah, who should we be listening to - you? But we were not taught to answer an insult with an insult. And, "You know what the problem is with you Catholics? You're sexually repressed!" No, we were taught that the primary purpose of sex is what our human biology tells us, for making babies." So, most of us ended up getting married. And, "You Catholics think sex is dirty!" No, you're saying that so we might think that having sex with whoever is OK, and the fact that you know we were taught it's not OK offends you.

The late 1960s and 70s were the 'golden age' of dissent in the Church. You want to know when all the changes and distortions and poor catechesis started, look there.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...54282563939764

In the 1960s, government at all levels, reflected and respected Christian ideas and values. And that included the media.

In 1969, the truth was that most Americans were against permissive abortion, but the media and the public were told lies, which included the 'socially backward' attitude of the Church. The whole plan of deception and falsehoods is laid out here.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/re...ionist-speaks/

So, what did we not establish in the 1970s? The New Opium Dens and the PLANNED addictions that followed? Who ran and paid for porn bookstores everywhere when just a few years prior, the worst you could legally do was buy Playboy which did not show graphic sex acts? How about strip clubs and topless bars? And who paid for the lawyers who kept us 'religious nuts' at bay? And who said, "We have the First Amendment RIGHT!" to do these gravely immoral things.

And who, starting in the 1970s, gradually allowed the media to very gradually allow risque, off-color, and tiny bits of sexual content? And, who, decade after decade, gradually turned up the volume on sexual content and even added profanity? And in 1973, the Supreme Court legalized murder of the unborn, which some of us are fighting to this day. AND THEY HAD NO GOOD REASON TO DO THIS.

Whose idea was it to put porn on cable in the 1980s or legalize No-Fault Divorce in the 1980s? Anybody?

During the Papacy of Pope Benedict, one of those dissidents from the 1960s accused him of "trying to return the Church to the Middle Ages."

If you - meaning Catholics - are told you are wrong for decades, and exposed to ever-increasing amounts of immorality as "entertainment," then it's no wonder that the dam has broke for too many. That too many Catholics have one hour a week to be Catholic and then spend the rest of their time living like pagans. It's like being schizophrenic. But not without a bunch of real interventions by the wolves.

Pope Benedict, who lived through all that, echoed your thinking:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pop...u-dont-believ/

Peace,
Ed

**po18guy** · #9 Today, 12:44 pm

It is a trait of human nature to surround ourselves with like-minded individuals and to affiliate with like-minded organizations. Should our views diverge, via external pressure, from an organization to which we already belong, this does not change our basic nature - actually it demonstrates it more fully. We then seek to conform our surroundings to our current train of thought. We prefer to drag the Church along with us rather than to move back toward her. Thus, we seek out and associate with those of our particular religious or political bent, rather than deny ourselves out of obedience to the Church. Cultural influences have been, and are increasingly tremendous. Since the media age has come upon us, we have been substantially formed by the opinions of others. I cannot think back far enough to remember a time when the popular media stood in defense of the moral teachings of the Church. Consider, for the average pew-sitter:

Church influence: 1 hour per week.
Media influence (TV alone): 26 hours per week

http://www.fcs.okstate.edu/parenting/issues/tv.htm

Very sobering numbers. Imagine the difference if those hours were spent viewing EWTN, reading the scriptures or the catechism.

**Joe 5859** · #10 Today, 12:48 pm

I think Phil is right about a good number. But I also think that the reasons are likely to vary based on the person. There are some quite educated Catholics who still go to Mass every day, who participate in parish life -- and yet they disagree with certain moral teachings.

I think that some simply don't see the connection nor do they view those issues as make-it-or-break-it issues. In their mind, it is perfectly in accord with their Catholic faith to disagree. So why leave?

Beryllos · #11 Today, 12:50 pm

Inertia? Maybe they still consider themselves Catholic because they haven't found another church they like better. A few actually make the effort to break ties with the church for specific reasons, but I think most simply drift away... and sometimes they come back (as I did, or as I am doing) when they recognize the need.

robert chacon · #12 Today, 12:52 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaryT777

I might think God keeps them in the Church in hopes they will be evangelized and led to the true teachings of the Church. I once asked a friend of mine who is against several Church teachings why she stayed and she said "I'm Catholic; that's my whole identity.

I would say most people who identify as Catholic are merely nominal Catholics. Its a sad thing to say ,but I am afraid it might be true. But like this quote illustrates, many of theme are Catholic in their identity only. The may recognize the truth of the Church at a very instinctual level,but as for the implications of the Gospel on the moral teaching they have not bothered to educate themselves about it, and so they world teaches them its values.

While they can do great damage to the Church as they proclaim to be Catholic to family and others while living secular lives, I would hate that they lose their identity as Catholics.

That makes it incumbent on the rest of us to fervently participate in the New Evangelization. Too soon will these people who merely identify as Catholics identify as atheists. At least if they convert to another Christian church they will have Christ.

It seems that many of these people often make their political philosophy their real religion, and thus often strongly oppose Church morality. They really have walked away from Christ or perhaps never knew him even though they may have been baptized and even received other sacraments. Therefore, many of them dont have the courage or conviction to support Catholic morality. The world's secularism is their real religion, and thus feel ashamed of the moral teachings of the Church since they still wear the Catholic label. Its like being mocked for wearing your team jersey after theyve have one losing season after another. Not that the Church has had losing seasons, but these people dont have the guts to stand up to others for what they believe in since they really have no faith life. Thus they cower from or worse, are offended by the Church's moral theology.

While I wish they had the courage to stand up for what is right , I have to realize they dont know what is right because they barely know Christ or His Church. We need to change that! Then they wont be offended! But stand strong for truth with the Church!

christofirst · #13 Today, 1:33 pm

I think that deep down, fear of death and the hereafter keeps a nominal Catholic nominally Catholic. Everyone eventually dies, and then what? If what the Church teaches is true, it is ultimately either Heaven or Hell. So, the fear of death is there, in the back of one's mind, but in the meantime, there's a lot of hedonistic pleasure to be had! Why not try to chip away at all of those pesky moral laws from within? And if that doesn't work, well, there's always hope for a deathbed reconciliation, after we've had it our way and it no longer matters. Keep one foot in both worlds, that's what it seems like many of us are trying to do.

**edwest2** · #14 Today, 1:38 pm

Truth.

Ed

KrazyKat · #15 Today, 1:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwest2

Truth.

Ed

Jon S · #16 Oct 16, '13, 2:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ltwin

No. Catholic doctrine, for example, about infant baptism is not simply "proclaiming the word of God", thanksgiving, and prayer.

It may include elements of those. But it adds, in my opinion, unbiblical doctrine of that baptism takes away the stain of original sin and is thus regenerative.

This 1) adds to the word of God and 2) makes infant baptism much more than just an opportunity to thank God and pray for the child. It saves the child. It makes the child a Christian outside of saving faith.

That is, from the perspective of evangelicals, Catholic practice and belief go well beyond the bounds of Scripture.

By comparison, evangelicals are safely within in the bounds of Scripture. We are not claiming anything happens during baby dedication except: proclamation of the Word, thanksgiving, and prayer.

I find this description extremely lacking, I understand what your saying and why, but you can't possibly say "it's biblical" using those few criteria. If so, all one needs to do is incorporate that to virtually any action and claim it's biblical.

Perhaps that is why Protestant tradition varies so much because it is so easy to justify what is "biblical",

Also, it is just your opinion that baptism removing original sin is not biblical when in fact it can be supported by scripture.

All I am looking for is either consistency in your arguments or acknowledgement of tradition practiced outside the Bible.

Can you identify any reformer or early church father who practiced "child dedication "

As best I can tell it came on the scene in the last 100 years.

ltwin · #17 Oct 16, '13, 2:37 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon S

I find this description extremely lacking, I understand what your saying and why, but you can't possibly say "it's biblical" using those few criteria. If so, all one needs to do is incorporate that to virtually any action and claim it's biblical.

Well what definition of biblical are you using? My definition of biblical is that which conforms to the word of God. The practice of dedicating infants to God as practiced in evangelical churches conforms to the Word of God.

It consists of pointing out, emphasizing, and explaining Scriptural truth that pertains to Christian parents and their children. Therefore, it has biblical content.

It consists of thanksgiving and prayer, perhaps accompanied by the laying on of hands and anointing with oil. Therefore, it has biblical action.

It may be a recent "tradition." But as long as its a biblical recent tradition its ok. We're not Catholics. We don't get hung up on tradition.

Filioque · #18 Oct 16, '13, 2:43 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ltwin

...Theologically, it draws on the birth of Samuel. His mother couldn't conceive, but she told God that if she did conceive, she would give her son back to the Lord (as in give her child to the priests at Shiloh) once he was weaned.
...
...For us, this is what happens to all children born to Christian parents. Parents are given children by God. At the appropriate time, the parents come to the house of God and "give the child back to God" in the form of dedicating their entire careers as parents to ensuring that their children know God and serve Him.

This is entirely biblical. And note, that we are not creating a magical rite. This is a service of thanksgiving, blessing, and commitment. It is an expression of hope that the child will accept the Lord when they grow older. We are not claiming that anything automatic occurs to the child's soul.

All we are doing is representing biblical truths, obligations, and asking God to bless the child and the parents. That is not adding something to the Bible...

Well try as you may to imitate something that your sect interprets as being derived as Biblical, it is as I've posted above, private interpretation of the Scriptures to fit a belief held by your sect.

In the NT we see that the dietary laws of the law or Moses are no longer binding. We see that the Old law is not binding. Yet who would argue that the Ten Commandments are not (just for argument sake, because I've met Sola Scriptura "Christians" who's sects don't believe the decagogue applies to us.) So what authority says that we should interpret one passage from Samuel, which does not directly tell us to dedicate Children, but the ignores the direct command to ransom of the first born son, and the purification of a woman after her days of confinement and impurity do not have to be upheld? Who after 1800 years of no such practice has the authority to proclaim that it is not only Scriptural, but that it needs to become a practice. and the practice of Infant Baptism which goes back to the time of the Apostles can be not simply discarded, but now denied?

Jon S · #19 Oct 16, '13, 2:44 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ltwin

Well what definition of biblical are you using? My definition of biblical is that which conforms to the word of God. The practice of dedicating infants to God as practiced in evangelical churches conforms to the Word of God.

It consists of pointing out, emphasizing, and explaining Scriptural truth that pertains to Christian parents and their children. Therefore, it has biblical content.

It consists of thanksgiving and prayer, perhaps accompanied by the laying on of hands and anointing with oil. Therefore, it has biblical action.

It may be a recent "tradition." But as long as its a biblical recent tradition its ok. We're not Catholics. We don't get hung up on tradition.

I do not understand how you can hold this position and then claim that Catholic Traditions are not biblical (confession to a priest, baptism, and Eucharist) would be great examples. Catholics tirelessly show how these conform to the Word of God, and yet they are rejected by Protestants as "unbiblical".

They may be an ancient "tradition". But as long as it is a biblical ancient tradition it's ok. We're not Protestants. We don't get hung up on tradition.

ltwin · #20 Oct 16, '13, 2:51 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Filioque

Well try as you may to imitate something that your sect interprets as being derived as Biblical, it is as I've posted above, private interpretation of the Scriptures to fit a belief held by your sect.

In the NT we see that the dietary laws of the law or Moses are no longer binding. We see that the Old law is not binding. Yet who would argue that the Ten Commandments are not (just for argument sake, because I've met Sola Scriptura "Christians" who's sects don't believe the decagogue applies to us.) So what authority says that we should interpret one passage from Samuel, which does not directly tell us to dedicate Children, but the ignores the direct command to ransom of the first born son, and the purification of a woman after her days of confinement and impurity do not have to be upheld? Who after 1800 years of no such practice has the authority to proclaim that it is not only Scriptural, but that it needs to become a practice. and the practice of Infant Baptism which goes back to the time of the Apostles can be not simply discarded, but now denied?

I get what you're saying. Simply put, evangelicals don't believe that infant baptism is biblically sanctioned or justifiable. We get that from reading the Bible. It doesn't matter how old the tradition is. We believe it is contrary to the true purpose and nature of baptism. Therefore, we will not practice it.

It doesn't matter how young the tradition of infant dedication is. It is not a baptism, and therefore, it avoids the Scriptural contradictions that baptizing an infant creates. It proclaims Scriptural truths in the format of a church service or segment of a church service. It reminds the church of these Scriptural truths. It gives the church an opportunity to thank God. It gives the church an opportunity to pray for the child. This is what it does, and this is why evangelicals find nothing wrong with it.

Jon S · #21 Oct 16, '13, 2:57 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ltwin

I get what you're saying. Simply put, evangelicals don't believe that infant baptism is biblically sanctioned or justifiable. We get that from reading the Bible. It doesn't matter how old the tradition is. We believe it is contrary to the true purpose and nature of baptism. Therefore, we will not practice it.

It doesn't matter how young the tradition of infant dedication is. It is not a baptism, and therefore, it avoids the Scriptural contradictions that baptizing an infant creates. It proclaims Scriptural truths in the format of a church service or segment of a church service. It reminds the church of these Scriptural truths. It gives the church an opportunity to thank God. It gives the church an opportunity to pray for the child. This is what it does, and this is why evangelicals find nothing wrong with it.

I know your heart is for Christ, but do you not see the arrogance in this.

You are saying that you....you personally....have the divine inspiration and revelation to throw away 2000 year old tradition and create your own practices.

Thomas Aquinas.....fool

Augustine.....ignorant

Ignatius.....piker

Really?!!

ltwin · #22 Oct 16, '13, 3:01 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon S

I do not understand how you can hold this position and then claim that Catholic Traditions are not biblical (confession to a priest, baptism, and Eucharist) would be great examples. Catholics tirelessly show how these conform to the Word of God, and yet they are rejected by Protestants as "unbiblical".

They may be an ancient "tradition". But as long as it is a biblical ancient tradition it's ok. We're not Protestants. We don't get hung up on tradition.

You can confess to a priest. The Bible says confess your sins one to another. Where Catholics err is when they make this into a sacrament that is required for someone to attain forgiveness for sins.

Baptism, as I've said, Catholics err because they go beyond what the Bible says about baptism. And the Eucharist is the same.

The problem is not having traditions. The problem is having traditions that go beyond biblical boundaries.

Once again, its not confession, baptism, or the Eucharist itself that are wrong. It's what Catholics believe (from their tradition or their interpretation of the Bible) that is in error from the perspective of evangelicals. So, simply put, evangelicals read the Bible and do not see biblical justification for believing what Catholics believe about these practices.

Catholics disagree, of course. They insist that they are entirely biblical and its us who have departed from the Scriptures. And the controversy continues again and again. . . .

Jon S · #23 Oct 16, '13, 3:02 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ltwin

You can confess to a priest. The Bible says confess your sins one to another. Where Catholics err is when they make this into a sacrament that is required for someone to attain forgiveness for sins.

Baptism, as I've said, Catholics err because they go beyond what the Bible says about baptism. And the Eucharist is the same.

The problem is not having traditions. The problem is having traditions that go beyond biblical boundaries.

Once again, its not confession, baptism, or the Eucharist itself that are wrong. It's what Catholics believe (from their tradition or their interpretation of the Bible) that is in error from the perspective of evangelicals. So, simply put, evangelicals read the Bible and do not see biblical justification for believing what Catholics believe about these practices.

Catholics disagree, of course. They insist that they are entirely biblical and its us who have departed from the Scriptures. And the controversy continues again and again. . . .

I wonder how much of Christian doctrine departed from the Bible in the 50 years or more while it was being written??

ltwin · #24 Oct 16, '13, 3:03 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon S

I know your heart is for Christ, but do you not see the arrogance in this.

You are saying that you....you personally....have the divine inspiration and revelation to throw away 2000 year old tradition and create your own practices.

Thomas Aquinas.....fool

Augustine.....ignorant

Ignatius.....piker

Really?!!

Nope, didn't say anything like that. I did not single handedly think up infant dedication. And I'm sure Aquinas, Augustine, and Ignatius were much smarter than me. But intelligence is not infallibility.

Jon S · #25 Oct 16, '13, 3:04 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ltwin

Nope, didn't say anything like that. I did not single handedly think up infant dedication. And I'm sure Aquinas, Augustine, and Ignatius were much smarter than me. But intelligence is not infallibility.

Yet someone, we don't know who, but someone you follow at least. Did exactly that.

ltwin · #26 Oct 16, '13, 3:08 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon S

Yet someone, we don't know who, but someone you follow at least. Did exactly that.

Did what? The men you mentioned had not greater insight into God's will than we do today. Their teachings are not above question. That doesn't mean that they were stupid. It just means they are not above question.

Jon S · #27 Oct 16, '13, 3:14 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ltwin

Did what? The men you mentioned had not greater insight into God's will than we do today. Their teachings are not above question. That doesn't mean that they were stupid. It just means they are not above question.

What I am trying to show you is some unknown person said we should do child dedications and not baptisms. We don't know who and we don't know why, but it "seems" biblical so why not.

Them we know of people who wrote volumes on child baptism and the Bible who appealed to scripture tirelessly and we so easily dismiss them for some new teaching that is perhaps. "Easier" or "less miraculous" or "more rational"

It corresponds to my Evangelical teaching that God no longer performs miracles. It's too irrational after all to believe in modem day miracles.

Novocastrian · #28 Oct 16, '13, 3:15 pm

I know that this is allowed in the Church of England, I think as a "Thanksgiving for the birth of a child". Now, the Church of England does teach that infants should be baptised, but she also thinks it prudent to allow for a lesser thanksgiving and blessing for a child if

(1) the parents do not believe in infant baptism, and it seems like they have a choice between infant baptism and not bringing the child up in the church at all, and/or;

(2) one or both of the parents is not Christian.

In the modern world, mixed marriages do exist. Say an Anglican is married to a fundamentalist Baptist/ Jew/ Muslim; the Church teaches that baptism would be the right thing for their child, but that if they really can't agree to that, it would still be good and proper to come to Church and thank God for the gift of a child.

The closest analogy of which I can think is the Orthodox Churches approach to divorce and remarriage. They say that divorce is a sin, but that it sometimes happens. They have lesser, penitential marriage services for those who have committed the sin of divorce, while recognising that imperfect laypeople (as opposed to those who have an higher responsibility, e.g. the clergy) should be treated gently if the alternative is turning away from Christ and his Church altogether. The maintain principle (so they would argue), but compromise with regard to practice.

Country Gal · #29 Oct 16, '13, 3:21 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novocastrian

I know that this is allowed in the Church of England, I think as a "Thanksgiving for the birth of a child". Now, the Church of England does teach that infants should be baptised, but she also thinks it prudent to allow for a lesser thanksgiving and blessing for a child if

(1) the parents do not believe in infant baptism, and it seems like they have a choice between infant baptism and not bringing the child up in the church at all, and/or;

(2) one or both of the parents is not Christian.

In the modern world, mixed marriages do exist. Say an Anglican is married to a fundamentalist Baptist/ Jew/ Muslim; the Church teaches that baptism would be the right thing for their child, but that if they really can't agree to that, it would still be good and proper to come to Church and thank God for the gift of a child.

The closest analogy of which I can think is the Orthodox Churches approach to divorce and remarriage. They say that divorce is a sin, but that it sometimes happens. They have lesser, penitential marriage services for those who have committed the sin of divorce, while recognising that imperfect laypeople (as opposed to those who have an higher responsibility, e.g. the clergy) should be treated gently if the alternative is turning away from Christ and his Church altogether. The maintain principle (so they would argue), but compromise with regard to practice.

Very well said.

ltwin · #30 Oct 16, '13, 3:25 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon S

What I am trying to show you is some unknown person said we should do child dedications and not baptisms. We don't know who and we don't know why, but it "seems" biblical so why not.

Them we know of people who wrote volumes on child baptism and the Bible who appealed to scripture tirelessly and we so easily dismiss them for some new teaching that is perhaps. "Easier" or "less miraculous" or "more rational"

It corresponds to my Evangelical teaching that God no longer performs miracles. It's too irrational after all to believe in modem day miracles.

I'm Pentecostal, I'm irrational and I believe in the miraculous. It has nothing to do with denying the miraculous.

For example, during my baby dedication, my grandpa spontaneously prophesied over me and my twin brother.

catholic answers forum working4christ2 4 dummies

Friday, October 18, 2013

At What Age Should a Kid Come into the Service? Be Baptized?--Why are many Catholics "offended" about Catholic morality? Take Commun...

10 Things That Forgiveness Is Not