What about the kids??greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread
Hi, first of all, I am not catholic and my girlfriend of over 2 years is. I don't plan on converting but I do hope she converts with me. I feel that a marriage under one religion will simplify one's relationship greatly to avoid problems down the road. However, if she doesn't wish to convert, that will be ok by me as well. As far as my question, if she does remain catholic, I understand that she has to take an oath stating her faith and all the other stuff. Well I know one of the statements is that she is supposed to bring the kids up catholic. I would rather bring them up Lutheran. We have discussed this and I think we have agreed up on this. What will happen when she is asked to say she will bring up the kids catholic when she knows we won't be? Will the marriage be valid if we don't bring the kids up catholic? Anything else that I haven't thought of?
-- Grant (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 28, 2003
I think you should discuss this very carfully. Make sure how she feels about this subject and tell her that you do not want her to lie and will not let her lie about it. Sounds like she has some soul serching to do and that is not a bad thing. Good Luck
-- Mike (email@example.com), February 28, 2003.
she is supposed to bring the kids up catholic. I would rather bring them up Lutheran.
God would prefer them to be Catholic.
-- jake (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 01, 2003.
What does the Lutheran Church offer that the Catholic Church does not offer? What does the Catholic Church offer that the Lutheran Church does not offer? Make those two lists. Then decide what is best for your children.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 01, 2003.
In spite of her many shortcomings the Catholic Church is the Church Christ wants all of us to be part of, as best we can. God knows the Catholic Church is terribly far from perfect.
-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), March 01, 2003.
"God would prefer them to be Catholic."
Jake -- did God tell you this personally?
-- Smith (email@example.com), March 01, 2003.
Jake -- did God tell you this personally?
No, He has told me this through His One True Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
-- jake (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 01, 2003.
Jesus founded one Church. He stated it was His intention that the Church He founded, and no other, would make disciples of ALL people. History identifies that Church as the Holy Catholic Church. Therefore, yes, God did specifically state His personal preference, indeed His divine, eternal will, that all people would be Catholic. Surely you don't think that God would have chosen to subject people to a system of thousands of competing, conflicting sects where there is no real authority and no-one has any way of being certain of the truth??
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 01, 2003.
presumably you, a Lutheran, are having a Catholic marriage (or why would she be promising these things?) - so can you have a joint Catholic & Lutheran marriage at the same time?!?!
-- Derek Duval Jnr (email@example.com), March 01, 2003.
In order to have your marriage blessed by the Catholic Church, your fiance will have to agree to raise your children Catholic. If you refuse to do this, you need to clarify this to her. She will then have to make the decision as to whether to marry you in the Lutheran church or to remain a Catholic in good standing by not marrying.
-- Glenn (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 01, 2003.
I guess the question that hasn't been answered is will she get in trouble by the church if she doesn't have them brought up Catholic and will our marriage still be considered "valid"?
-- Grant (email@example.com), March 04, 2003.
There is no such question as "still valid". If a Christian marriage is valid one second after the ceremony, then it is valid until one of the couple dies. There is nothing that can make a valid sacramental marriage invalid.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 04, 2003.
If you get married in the Catholic Church, you "both" must vow to bring your children up in the Catholic Faith (not just your girlfriend.) So, if the both of you are comfortable lying to God, (you are marrying in the sight of God, after all) then, there is nothing that I can say to ease your conscience.
(Funny how Adam was willing to sit idly by while Eve ate the forbidden fruit...Likewise, Grant, you seem to be looking for a loophole for your fiance to act deceptively at God's altar. This is not a good beginning for a holy union.)
If I have misjudged this situation, I do apologize. By the questions you pose, however, that is the way it appeared to me, and I would hope that you are as concerned for your girlfriend's eternal soul, as well as your own.
May God Bless and guide you.
-- Anna <>< (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 05, 2003.
Hello, Grant and fellow Catholics.
I am afraid, Anna and Glenn, that you have common misconceptions about what will be required of Grant and his fiance.
Anna, under the old (1917) Code of Canon Law, what you said was true -- namely, that both potential spouses of a mixed marriage had to promise to raise the children as Catholics.
However, a new Code of Canon Law was promulgated in 1983, and the old regulation was significantly modified. Glenn, you were closer to being correct, but still not quite right, when you wrote that Grant's fiance "will have to agree to raise your children Catholic."
Under the 1983 Code, the Catholic person must sincerely promise to do all in his/her power to have all the children baptized and raised as Catholics. And under the 1983 Code, the non-Catholic person must be informed of the promises made by the Catholic person. (If, after children are born, the non-Catholic then forces the Catholic to be unable to keep his/her promise, the Catholic is not held at fault.)
Here is Canon 1125, so you can see the actual words:
Canon 1125 -- The local [bishop can grant permission for a mixed marriage] if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions are fulfilled:
1° the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith, and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power in order that all the children be baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;
2° the other party is to be informed in good time of these promises to be made by the Catholic party, so that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and of the obligation of the Catholic party;
3° both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage, which are not to be excluded by either contractant.
Now, having read that Canon [and I hope that Grant sees it and shows it to his fiance], I would offer the following opinions:
(1) It would be a grave sin for a Catholic to make any of the required promises without meaning the words spoken. It would be better for the Catholic to break off the engagement if he/she could not make a promise honestly. It would be better for a Catholic not to agree to marry than to agree, in advance, to raise children as non-Catholics. A Catholic who enters a mixed marriage thinking that it would be equally OK for the kids to be raised in one faith as in the other doesn't really understand what Catholicism is (the fullness of the truth, the only Church founded by Jesus).
(2) It would be a major mistake, and even an injustice, for a non-Catholic to demand that the children not be raised Catholic -- despite knowing what his/her spouse has just promised. It would be better for such a non-Catholic to break off the engagement.
God bless you.
-- J. F. Gecik (email@example.com), March 06, 2003.
Thank you, John, for the clarification and correction.
-- Anna <>< (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 06, 2003.
Thank you John for the official catholic words, however, the response I got from everyone is what I expected to hear. Please pardon my "french" but, it seems to me that many catholics have their head shoved so far up the pope's ass that they can't see the daylight around them. I don't appriciate you telling me that I should break up with my girlfriend because of the minor differences we have, or saying she doesn't understand what she is (by the way, she was brought up in a strict catholic family and attends church weekly), or that our eternal souls are at danger because of a simple word at the begining of our churches, and that the catholic church is so much better than any other church. Arrogance would be a good word for many catholics. (Not my girlfriend, she seems to understand what the Christian religon is all about. It's not about a church, it's about your relationship with God. Many catholics somehow just don't seem to get that) If this sounds like I'm bashing the catholic church, I'm not. After all, my girlfriend is catholic and I love her very much. I don't have anything against catholics, but what I have a problem with is the opionons that some catholics seem to often get about themselves and others who aren't like them. In a mixed marriage, their needs to be comprimises in order for it to work. Right? It is a two sided coin here, I'm not just going to lay down to every want of the catholic church just because they are pushy like that. (example: 2) It would be a major mistake, and even an injustice, for a non-Catholic to demand that the children not be raised Catholic -- despite knowing what his/her spouse has just promised. <-- This seems like the catholic church forces her to make this promise and threatens not to make the marriage "valid" if she doesn't comply. Then the new law makes me look bad because I "force" her to go along with me.) The one comprimise we had thought of was catholic wedding, lutheran kids. A catholic wedding seems to be very important to her and lutheran kids is very important to me. So thats the comprimise we came up with. Anyway, I want to give my kids a good Christian up bringing, and raising them in the lutheran church I feel is the best way to do so. I basically think of the lutheran church as a simplified version of the catholic church. Just about everything we teach is also taught in the catholic church, however, it seems to me that catholics throw in a lot of unnecessary stuff which is often up for debate or contrdicts themselves. But, I wanted to know how the catholic church feels about that and if it is legal. If thats the way the catholic church really feels about it, then they should have never changed that law in the first place. Maybe you all should open your eyes and see whats really important. A good Christian up bringing in a happy Christian home.
Please remember whats really important here May God be with you all
-- Grant (email@example.com), March 07, 2003.
Hello Grant -- I am not Catholic (Episcopal) and married to a Catholic. I have posted on here as well with questions/comments and the reception is not warm and has been defensive for the most part. Not many Catholics that I know are like the ones on this board -- so keep that in mind. I am sure they are fine people that post here on a regular basis but sometimes I myself don't understand where they are coming from. They will have their opinion and quotes, etc, but follow your heart and what works for you as a couple in your faiths.
And for some of you that post regularly: I don't think God is for a select group -- and please I ask no posts about "His Church" and that "my communion" is merely snack food and is nothing because it is not Catholic -- you will not change my mind (heart)like I will not change yours.
So Basically, Grant - I hear you -- wish you well on your decisions.
-- V.Smith (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 07, 2003.
Thank you V. Smith
It's about time I hear something other than critisism. Much appreiciated. At least I know not everyone on this web site is out to get me.
-- Grant (email@example.com), March 07, 2003.
Do a little history research. Shouldn't take you too long. How old is the Catholic Church and who was it started by? How old is the Lutheran Church and who was it started by? Then you will see who mistaken you are when you say the Lutheran church is the best way to raise you children. (It was after all started by a discontent, disobedient priest, who later married a discontent, disobedient nun. You really think following a church started by a man who could not keep the promises he made to God the way to go?)
Well, do your research, buddy. I bet you didn't even have a clue when your church was started. Most protestant people that I know have no clue when or where their churches came into existence. But I know when, where and by Whom mine came into existence. So I think I'll stick with Him.
-- Isabel (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 07, 2003.
Hello, Grant and Mrs. Smith.
Let me take things in reverse order...
Grant, you wrote: " At least I know not everyone on this web site is out to get me."
There is no one at all "on this web site" who "is out to get" you. Your comment seems to hint at paranoia. That is an occasional response that Catholics here get from Protestants who are stunned to find that there are Catholics who love their Church, can defend their faith, and do not suffer anti-Catholicism silently. But the fact that we react strongly does not mean that we are "out to get" you. We are only "out to inform you." [By the way, Grant, "V. Smith" is not "on this web site" (i.e., a regular). She is a new and temporary visitor, like yourself.]
Mrs. Smith, you wrote: "I have posted on here as well with questions/comments and the reception is not warm and has been defensive for the most part."
Catholics here are not "defensive" in a negative sense of that word. They are "defending" what they know is the fullness of the truth. This forum is a place where the Catholic faith is sometimes attacked/disputed. Maybe without realizing it, you have attacked it. So a "defense" is only natural on our part. Just curious ... Since this is the Catholic forum, why did you visit?
You also wrote: "Not many Catholics that I know are like the ones on this board".
Well, I'm glad that you know some Catholics who are like us -- fervent and orthodox! But I'm sad that the majority of the Catholics you know sound as though they may be lukewarm, lacking the courage to challenge and correct you.
Grant, you have deeply disappointed me with everything you said in your reply to me, particularly these disgusting words:
"Please pardon my 'french' but, it seems to me that many catholics have their head shoved so far up the pope's ass that they can't see the daylight around them."
No, Grant. I will not pardon your obscenities, "french" or otherwise. Previously, I had a bit of hope that your marriage to a Catholic might work, but I can see now that it has no hope. You have tried to hide your hatred for Catholicism, but you have not succeeded. Grant, I have to pray for your heart and mind to be converted -- or, if that is impossible, that something causes you to be separated (ASAP) from the poor Catholic woman who stands so much to lose if she stays with you.
Sts. Michael and James, pray for us.
-- J. F. Gecik (email@example.com), March 07, 2003.
Grant -- see what I mean? Hope you find your way.
John: "Attacking" - I don't feel that is accurate -- or much of what you posted but like I said before to you - I don't know where you are coming from so there is no point in this and you need not explain it to me.
-- V.Smith (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 08, 2003.
--Do a little history research.....I bet you didn't even have a clue when your church was started.
On the contrary Isabel, I happen to be a college student at a local university. This semester I am taking a Foundations of Western Culture class which in detail provides the history of how the culture of the western world was. At this current time, we are studying about the time of Jesus to 500 A.D. I have learned a lot about the history of Christians.
--How old is the Catholic Church and who was it started by?
Before there was the catholic church, everyone who followed Christ and his teachings, they were called Christians. These early Christians did indeed have bishops. The bishops were in charge of all aspects of church life. As far as my understanding, catholics believe Peter to be the first pope, however, he was only considered a bishop. He ran his own area and church and continued to spread the word of Christ. But he most likely died in the great fire of Rome along with Paul. The first person who could be considered a pope was Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan in Italy. He was one of the earliest bishops to challenge the power of the emperors. That is also when the church and state became combined. I believe it was the Roman emperor who then had forced everyone in Rome to convert to Christianity in 380 A.D. He did this to provide organization of Rome. Thats where the word catholic or universal came in. So, the catholic church was started in 380 A.D. and I guess was started by the Roman emperor or by the Bishop of Milan.
--How old is the Lutheran Church and who was it started by?
The Lutheran church derives from Martin Luther. Because of the corruption going on in the catholic church, he, on October 31, 1517 posted 95 Theses statements on the door of a local church. This sparked the Reformation. He basically challenged the catholic church on scriptural things and beliefs. Also on the corruption of the catholic church that the combination of the church and state created. This is to my understandings of the Lutheran church, I haven't gotten that far in my history class yet, but the paragraph above is all based off of historical evidence. (based off of class notes and the book "The West in the World" by Joyce Salisbury. By the way she is my teacher.)
--you say the Lutheran church is the best way to raise you children.
I didn't say that raising kids Lutheran is the best way to raise a child, what I meant by that statement is that is the best way for me to give my children in the best Christian up bringing.
--I bet you didn't even have a clue when your church was started. Most protestant people that I know have no clue when or where their churches came into existence.
This statement really pissed me off. You don't know me enough to say that kind of statement. For your information, I have done plenty of research on the differences between the two churches. I do go to church weekly and actively participate in church events. And I would bet you could say the same thing about catholics too.
Now for answers to John...
First of all, I am not anti-catholic. Like I said before, my girlfriend is catholic and I have many catholic friends. I understand you can defend your beliefs and I have no problem with that, but what I do have a problem with is those who iggnorantly post answers that do not have historical background or attack the others beliefs. (I was attacked first if you recall by Anna, John, and Paul. I was told to break off the relationship, do some soul searching, told I and my girlfriend didn't understand what we believe) It more sounds like you are anti-protestant.
--Maybe without realizing it, you have attacked it. So a "defense" is only natural on our part.
I had said no attacking comments up until that point when you forced me to. You can go back and read if you don't believe me. I was provoked to defend myself.
--Since this is the Catholic forum, why did you visit?
I was doing some research looking for an answer to my quesion. Since I didn't see any questions like the one I posted, I decided to post one of my own. I wouldn't get the answer I needed on a lutheran web site so that's why I'm here. Make sense?
--Grant, you have deeply disappointed me with everything you said in your reply to me, particularly these disgusting words:...
My words there were a little harsh and I am sorry if that offended any other catholics. That statement was directly point at you John and the few other catholics just like you. Again, I was forced to reply to the attacking slander and my anger showed the best of me. I shouldn't have sunk to your level but I did and I am sorry to anyone whom I may have offened. (besides John)
--You have tried to hide your hatred for Catholicism, but you have not succeeded.
Where have I declared my "hatred for Catholicism" in general anywhere in my postings. I am getting sick of you saying I am not anti- catholic. It's not very Christian of you hoping my relationship with my girlfriend will not work. John, I think your the one who needs the prayers most!
-- Grant (email@example.com), March 10, 2003.
Thats where the word catholic or universal came in. So, the catholic church was started in 380 A.D. and I guess was started by the Roman emperor or by the Bishop of Milan.
You are wrong there. The word Catholic was used by the end of the first century. Of what religion is your teacher? That may explain the amount of misinformation that you have received.
-- Isabel (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 10, 2003.
With all due respect, your sense of history is badly distorted. If you learned this stuff in college, it is obviously at a college with a specific agenda, not one which educates students objectively.
"Before there was the catholic church, everyone who followed Christ and his teachings, they were called Christians"
A: In fact, before there was the Catholic Church there was only Judaism and paganism. Once Christ founded His Church, the members of that Chuirch were first called simply "the Church", then came to be called "Christians", and finally adopted the name "Holy Catholic Church", about the end of the first century. At all those points in its history, it was one and the same Church - the one Christ founded. There was no other.
"Catholics believe Peter to be the first pope, however, he was only considered a bishop"
A: Nonsense! The scriptures are full of information which indicates that Peter stood out as the one with supreme authority. Jesus gave Peter, and no-one else, the keys to the kingdom - the universal symbol of authority. The apostles are referred to as "Peter and his companions". Paul sought Peter's counsel before undertaking his own mission. There are a number of other clear indications as well. I will not enumerate them all here; but stating that Peter was "simply one of several bishops" ignores abundant evidence from both history and scripture. This is what happens when a person decides what they want to believe, then looks for something to support it, rather than honestly looking at the evidence before deciding what to believe.
"But he most likely died in the great fire of Rome along with Paul"
A: The historical record clearly indicates that both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome"
"I believe it was the Roman emperor who then had forced everyone in Rome to convert to Christianity in 380 A.D"
A: Yes, Constantine, the first Christian Roman emperor, did make Catholicism the official religion of the kingdom, ending the centuries of persecution under which the Catholic Church had existed prior to that edict.
"Thats where the word catholic or universal came in"
A: That is simply false. The Church knew it was "catholic" from day one, since Christ had commanded that the one Church He founded would go forth and make disciples of all peoples. However, the earliest written record of the official use of the title "Holy Catholic Church" is from the writings of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who was a disciple of the apostle John, and was ordained by John. Ignatius wrote of the Holy Catholic Church in 107 A.D. But the name was already widely used by then.
"The Lutheran church derives from Martin Luther. He basically challenged the catholic church on scriptural things and beliefs"
Yes he did, and in so doing he also challenged the words of Jesus Himself, who had told the Church "He who hears you hears Me; he who rejects you rejects Me" ... "Whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven". Ignoring these words of God, Luther rejected many of the beliefs of the apostles, which every Christian on earth had held sacred for 1500 years. He tore sections out of the Holy Bible, inserted words into the text to support his new doctrines, and introduced a system which has caused more dissention and division in Christianity than any other human action in history.
"that is the best way for me to give my children in the best Christian up bringing"
If you knew the historical reality from an unbiased viewpoint, I doubt you could say that your children would receive a better Christian upbringing in a church founded in the 16th century by a rebellious Catholic priest than in a Church founded for all men by Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior of the world. But it doesn't sound like you are going to receive an unbiased presentation from your teacher. It sounds like you are being subjected to indoctrination, not education.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 10, 2003.
Since I am graciously considered a "new" but "temporary" visitor (makes me feel all warm inside knowing I am so welcome here by the way)-- I will make this brief: The Catholic Church,despite how it was founded, has a publicized recent history of concealing/shuffling priests that abuse children - if you base the decision on "choosing" a religion for bringing up children -- is history of a church that valid of a basis? Regardless of how it is founded the history (including recent history) is up for scrutiny if you base it on that alone.(I am not stating one religion is "better" so you can retract your claws) By the way, I am aware child abuse is not specific to Catholicism so don't go there either.
-- V.Smith (email@example.com), March 10, 2003.
If you are aware that child abuse is not specific to Catholicism, why bring it up? All churches are made up of sinners. Otherwise there would be no reason to have churches.
It is not the "history" of the Church that is the basis for being a member. It is the identity of the Church. History merely reveals that identity. The identity of the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ, God, for every human being, and His stated intent that every human being should belong to it. That is the basis of belonging to the Church.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 10, 2003.
Paul and Isabel
I don't know where you got your information from, but I do know that I got mine from a well known and respected Ph.D. college professor. She has told us how she got her information and it was based off of historical artifacts and other evidence with no bias of her or her co- author. The way that the history was descirbed made a lot of sense. And I doubt that she would write a book that would contradict many other historians. Can you tell me where you got your information?
-- Grant (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 11, 2003.
Protestant historians write Protestant histories all the time. A Protestant history is one which puts a pro-Protestant spin on historic facts - and that is being generous. Some of these "histories" are pure fabrications, and I just feel sorry for students who are subjected to them, and who actually come away thinking they have "learned" something real. I get my information from genuine historical works written by both secular and church historians who are committed to uncovering and presenting the objective facts. I have also read works by decidedly pro-Catholic and pro-Protestant writers, but I do not consider such people historians. I have also read works of blatant fiction presented as history - I speak here of trash like that produced by Chick Publications. I assume what you have been using is not of that ilk. Still, with all due respect, you cannot take a course on church history or Christian history at a Lutheran college, taught by a Lutheran professor and using a book written by a Lutheran author, and expect to learn any real history. I cannot imagine what kinds of "artifacts" your professor may have used, since all historical Christian artifacts and writings prior to the 16th century were Catholic. Though I may not have actually seen it, I can assure you that your professor's book does indeed contradict the writings of many renowned historians. Based on what you have said, it is apparently a typical biased work presented under the guise of history, but designed to proselytize and legitimize the ungodly rebellion which spawned denominational religion, not to allow students to learn historical fact.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 11, 2003.
By your answer, I get the impression that you think I am attending a Lutheran college. However, I'm not. I am attending the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. One of the top university's in the state (besides Madison). The book she wrote is published by a well known publishing company (McGraw Hill Higher Education Publishing Co.) I don't think they publish crap like you talk about. My professor is a true historian and is obviously dedicated to her work. Take it up with her if you don't believe it.
-- Grant (email@example.com), March 11, 2003.
Grant, The professor that taught you this apparently ignored documents dating to 107 A.D. or so where the word Catholic was used in describing the Church.
Here is one site that has excerpts from these writings: Catholic
There are sites that have the documents in totality. Please let me know if you would like those sites.
-- Glenn (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 12, 2003.
What ever the case is you guys, I know you don't like my sources and I don't like yours. I didn't come here to get into a debate about church history. My first initial question never really got answered. Is my girlfriend going to get punished by the catholic church if we raise our kids lutheran? Yes or no. And if yes, what are the consequences?
-- Grant (email@example.com), March 14, 2003.
What Glenn posted was the actual writings of the Church fathers, not some historian's preconceived biased interpretion of history. It might surprise you to know that VOLUMES AND VOLUMES of early church writings, bishops, pastors, are available on-line for all to see. Another great site is ccel.org which contains not only the writings of Augustine, Clement, Ignatius, but Luther and Calvin as well. You can read the letters of Polycarp, Athanasius FOR YOURSELF! What a blessing!
You said, "I don't think they publish crap like you talk about. My professor is a true historian and is obviously dedicated to her work. Take it up with her if you don't believe it." She may be dedicated, and she may be sincere, but she obviously has not looked at the evidence. You made a powerful claim earlier in this thread that the Church was not formed until the late 300's, however you would see from the evidence (should you take the time to look) that that statement is patently false!
As to whether the "Church is going to punish you . . ." NO, the Church is not going to punish you. If your wife has a parish she attends, you should meet with her pastor. We have numerous split marriages in our parish; husband is Baptist, mom Catholic, and they seem to do very nicely.
Your hatred of the Church is quite obvious, as is the case for so many uninformed Protestants. I pray the Lord will cause you to hunger for the truth, and that you will at least question the bigoted, prejudiced propaganda that has been handed down from generation to generation in the Protestant camp.
Christ have Mercy,
-- Gail (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 14, 2003.
I thought John did a wonderful job in answering your original question when he quoted Canon law to you:
“the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith, and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power in order that all the children be baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;”
“the other party is to be informed in good time of these promises to be made by the Catholic party, so that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and of the obligation of the Catholic party;”
“both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage, which are not to be excluded by either contractant.”
Grant, then John went on to say, “It would be a grave sin for a Catholic to make any of the required promises without meaning the words spoken. It would be better for the Catholic to break off the engagement if he/she could not make a promise honestly. It would be better for a Catholic not to agree to marry than to agree, in advance, to raise children as non-Catholics. A Catholic who enters a mixed marriage thinking that it would be equally OK for the kids to be raised in one faith as in the other doesn't really understand what Catholicism is (the fullness of the truth, the only Church founded by Jesus).”
Is there something in all of this Grant that you don’t understand? The penalty for your girlfriend for seriously not carrying her obligations to the best of her ability as a Catholic is “grave sin”. (She will not be held accountable for circumstances beyond her control, but as a Catholic she has moral obligations here.) Grave sin means mortal sin. In not seriously carrying out her obligations as a Catholic to the best of her ability she would place herself in a state of mortal sin.
So, in direct answer to your question, the Church does not "punish" anyone. If a person dies in a state of mortal sin then they are separated from God for eternity. Grant, if you love your girlfriend, don't you desire the highest and best for her? Isn't that what love is - an unselfish desire for the highest and best for the sake of the beloved? Isn't the highest and best to be united to God for eternity? Then if you do love her, your decision is made easy. If your girlfriend beleives in her faith and in the consequences for not living out that faith to the best of her abilities, then you should assist her in everway possible.
-- Ed Lauzon (email@example.com), March 14, 2003.
I see Gail posted at the same time I did. Grant, she has given you and your girlfriend some excellent advice. Why don't the two of you arrange for an appointment to see her pastor. He will be able to clear up many misconceptions, eliminate many misgivings and provide you with correct information.
-- Ed Lauzon (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 14, 2003.
Thank you, Ed, for praising and defending some of the things I told Grant. All the things that you and Paul and Gail told Grant were excellent.
Grant, you really have been taught severely inaccurate history. You can check what your misinformed teacher/author has written -- against what the Encyclopedia Britannica [not a Catholic publication] says about the Catholic Church, how long it has existed, who were the popes, etc.. The EB doesn't get things 100% right, but is far closer to the facts than your book is.
Grant, you objected to the following statements of mine that you found in my message of March 7: ----- "Maybe without realizing it, you have attacked it [the Catholic faith]. So a 'defense' is only natural on our part."
----- "Since this is the Catholic forum, why did you visit?
Now, Grant, please scroll up to my post of March 7, re-read it carefully, and notice that the above two statements were addressed to Mrs. V. Smith, not to you. [Is careless reading a habit of yours, leading to wrong understanding of Christian history, wrong interpretation of the Bible, etc.?]
Finally, Grant, in response to my objection to your obscene, anti-Catholic comment, you showed that you are cowardly.
First, you tried to equate your nefarious act with my polite comments to you. You stated: "I shouldn't have sunk to your level but I did." You were the only one who "sank" to a low "level" on this thread.
Next, you pretended to apologize, saying: "My words there were a little harsh and I am sorry if that offended any other catholics. That statement was directly point at you John and the few other catholics just like you. ... I am sorry to anyone whom I may have offended (besides John)." You "apologize" to everyone except me, when I was the one who objected and was thus the person to whom your apology should have been directed most of all. You have the nerve to think that it was OK to direct your obscenity toward me. That is pure, anti-Catholic hatred.
Grant, I pray for you and your Catholic friend to undergo a great change of heart about religion, or, if this is not possible, for you to go your separate ways.
St. James, pray for us.
-- J. F. Gecik (email@example.com), March 15, 2003.
As far as history I have been taught, I have found other websites that are very close to what I have been taught (all non-religious sources) I tried getting into EB but apparently you have to have a subscirption so I really couldn't check there. Like I said before, neither of us are going to convince one another and I will leave it at that. Besides, I didn't come here to discuss history. You can have all the problems you want with my sources, I don't care so all can stop the debate.
As far as your second paragraph about Mrs. Smith. After CAREFULLY re- reading your message there, I did decipher through your unorganized piece of crap that you were more directed toward Mrs. Smith. It is more of your careless writing that causes people to get confused. When you start off talking to me, then switch to Mrs. Smith, then come back at me, it's hard to tell who your talking to. Also, you took a crack at both her and me in the first paragraph, and then just her supposedly in the next one, and then just me in the last one. Not very organized. One of the most important things stressed in good writing is organization. Take another English class please.
Finally John, the "anti-catholic" comment made by me was more made out of frustration and anger at how some catholics make other people feel. (me to name just one) However, I did apologize to anyone that might have been offended by my comment because my comment should have been more directed toward you. You say that my obcenity toward you is pure anit-catholic hatred, that's where you are wrong. It is just pure hatred of you John. It is catholics like you that make the church look bad.
And John, I don't appreciate you telling me that my girlfriend and I should separate because a small difference in our churches. I hope someday you can have an open-mind someday (though doubtful) about how small the differences are and that a happy loving relationship under our God is what is important, not the church!
John and to all, God bless and good night
-- Grant (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 26, 2003.
Hello again, Grant. With each passing post, I feel more and more sorry for you. I can see that you are a person so full of evil thoughts that it is destroying your soul. I will pray for you to repent before the end of this season of Lent.
Along with more foul language, you wrote:
"When you start off talking to me, then switch to Mrs. Smith, then come back at me, it's hard to tell who your talking to."
No. Before each separate section, I left a gap with an extra blank line, and I introduced each section with the name of the person to whom the subsequent comments were directed. This is something that a second-grader would be able to follow. You blew it, but can't admit it. Unable to humble yourself before a person representing a religion that you detest, you blame your own reading error on me.
Later, you wrote the sentence that reveals just how tightly you are clutched by satan:
"You [John] say that my obcenity toward you is pure anti-catholic hatred, that's where you are wrong. It is just pure hatred of you John."
It's amazing that you were too much of a coward to admit your reading error, but you openly admit your guilt of the mortal sin of personal hatred. I don't hate you, but love you and worry about you as my misguided brother in Christ.
May God forgive you and heal the spiritual illness that is destroying you inside.
-- J. F. Gecik (email@example.com), March 28, 2003.
I'm not an authority on anything, but if anything Grant, DON'T split with your fiancee over religion. I guess the straightest answer to your question that you can get is that if you guys are getting married, and if you guys have decided to raise your kids as Lutherans, then you need to have a Lutheran wedding. I know she'd love a Catholic one, but to have a Catholic one, there are some stipulations as have been mentioned. I'm sure you guys love each other very very much! Just consecrate (lift up) your LOVE for each other, and consecrate each other, to the Lord and ask for His abundant blessings.
Regarding the True Church matter, just keep praying. Open up your heart and ask God to show you His true church. I know you are a steadfast Lutheran who truly loves God. I'm glad of that, and I'm sure God is glad of that. And I know that many people on this forum have upset you by seeming defensive and/or offensive. But all I can say is just remember to open your heart, and pray, pray, pray. He will guide you all the way, if you choose to walk His paths okay?
btw, I'm catholic too ;0)
-- marie (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 28, 2003.
Um, and perhaps a little note of peacemaking to all on the forum...
It probably would be a good idea NOT to condemn Grant... it's not exactly very productive. All he did was ask a question about a matter which all Catholics naturally feel strongly about, and that inevitably leads to the response that has erupted. But alo keep in mind that such a violent response also evokes a violent defense on his part. He believes as strongly in his religion as we do in ours, and you all know as well as I do that anyone "slamming" your religion is bound to get your hackles up and that's what's happening here.
Grant, don't close yourself off to the fact that maybe the Catholic Church is God' true church okay? Pray about it, study it, look at it from every angle, turn it all inside out like Scott Hahn did. But most importantly, pray. I'm not saying CONVERT! CONVERT! I'm saying, give it a chance, and maybe something will come of it, and maybe not, yah? You may stay Lutheran, you may convert... nobody knows what'll happen down the road eh? God Bless!
-- marie (email@example.com), March 28, 2003.
and that inevitably leads to the response that has erupted.
OK, maybe I need to go back and reread this thread, but if I remember correctly, all that happened was, Grant asked a question, people gave him answers according to Church teaching (of which I don't think mixed marriages are a good thing, because children need to see unity in their parents, and it is more likely that children will lose the faith when they have a non-practicing parent, but at any rate.....) then Grant exploded because he did not like the answers.
I'm not saying CONVERT! CONVERT!
I am! CONVERT! CONVERT! Come into the one true Church as quickly as possible so that you may reap the rewards from It.
-- Isabel (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 28, 2003.
I would first off like to thank Marie for her wonderful advice. She was kind and conciterate of me and actually understood where my question was going. You certainly seem to be a very level headed understanding person. Thank you. Just some comments. In your first paragraph, that is the answer I was affraid I was going to get but kind of knew that's what was going to have to happen. She is just as devout in her church as I am in mine which is going to cause a conflict. When I came here, I was hoping to find a different answer that I haven't thought of yet but so far I guess not. And thank you for your comforting words at the end of that paragraph. Yes we do love each other very much and will follow and love God the best way we know how. We definetly won't separtate like some have suggested.
I understand what you are saying in your second paragraph as well. Just a personal thought and nobody has to agree with me but I feel that there is no "true" church. All of the churches around the world are run by humans and all humans who live on this Earth (besides Jesus) are flawed, therefore each individual church is flawed as well. I think that a church has to say it is the "true" church because that wouldn't look good to somebody who is thinking of joining that paticular church that they openly say "we are flawed". I hope you know what I mean. But the important thing is that you personally find your own relationship with God. If you feel you are the closest to God through the catholic church, then good for you. I personally after studying the differences between our two churches brought me closer to the Lutheran church and my own personal understanding of God and my beliefs. If anyone doesn't like my perspective, so be it, but I bet Marie understands what I am saying. Thank you Marie and I will continue to pray and walk in the direction He guides me.
Your third paragraph is exactly correct! And your fourth paragraph I have been doing way before I came here and will continue to do. Thank you!
As far as John,
You are so far off it makes my head spin. I don't think that particular quote demonstrates any foul language, but it did have a frusturated tone. Even though you did leave a blank line between paragraphs, you're about as scatterbrained as a "second-grader" with ADHD. See, if you were organized like I am here, (talking to Marie first, and then addressing you) reading would have been a little easier. I think of myself as a humble person and I can admit when I am wrong as I did in the last post (saying you were indeed talking to Mrs. Smith and not me) as well as a couple other times I admited my anger got to me in my writing. It is you on the other hand that had the poor grammar and can't admit to being wrong, then blaming me for my poor reading habits.
In your following paragraph, you told me I was clutched by satan. In my quote, (here I am again, admiting I was wrong) You said I had "pure anti-catholic hatred" and I said you were wrong but it was pure "hatred of you", I shouldn't have used those words but I just merely used those words out of the context you wrote me. In fact, I don't hate you (hate is a very strong word), but after talking with you, I don't like you very much. I think I am entitled to that as you are about me. The Bible say to love you enemies, while I find that hard to do, I can at least tolerate them and not wish any harm on them.
I hope that you can finally come to some understanding with me and my situation. If you have anything mean to say, please refrain for I am tired of responding to defend myself. Thank you and may God be with you.
And for Isabel, I just laughed at your response. (by the way, like I said before we both are just as devout to our churches. that means we are both practicing parents [to be] and thats why my thread is different from any other marriage thread on this site.) Your pretty much in the same boat as John is as far as understanding the situation. I hope you both can come to some understanding. May God be with you too.
-- Grant (email@example.com), March 28, 2003.
Dear Grant, What does the Lutheran Church offer that the Catholic Church does not offer? What does the Catholic Church offer that the Lutheran Church does not offer? Make those two lists. Then decide what is best for your children.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 01, 2003.
hmmm, what does the Catholic church have to offer that the Lutheran does not????
-- Melanie Hutchison (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 07, 2003.
I'm sorry about that post, i misread a comment made.
and John...i think you need to get over it, and get a life.
-- Melanie Hutchison (email@example.com), April 07, 2003.
Perhaps my message is much to late and perhaps people see it as one sided but indeed be truth. In as much as the bible and the early chruch fathers can all tell us it be truth. It is encouraging Grant, if you do read this that God is at least as much a part of your life as he is. The Catholic Church keep in mind has been the only church to withstand the test of time over the past 2000 years. The holy spirit has guided one church, the holy spirit does not have 3 million parts so that it can guide 3 million churches, instead many protestants fail to see the whole scope of what it means to be Christian, what it means to be Catholic. I can back up my claims if asked to, afterall the only Christian church that existed for 1600 years was the Catholic Church, referred to by the early church fathers as early as the century after Christ's death. The new testament that all Catholics and protestants read was you guessed it, Catholic in origin. As a protestant you likely also believe that faith saves you alone, not faith and works, Catholics believe that ultimate salvation comes only from firm belief and good deeds. I hope that I have not offended, and that the holy spirit will guide you to the correct decision. I would hope you look into this matter, find out the truth of the Catholic Church. You might just be pleasantly suprised. God be with you and good luck with your wedding.
-- Nathaniel Lauer (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 03, 2003.