While we are on the subject of Christian differences

[TXMomof4]

 

Think of it like a shoe that has become unlaced to the point that the shoe will no longer stay on the foot. Mortal sin causes you to be so out of shape spiritually that you need help reaching your shoe to get it laced tightly again so you can continue on your way without tripping. The priest helps you get your shoe laced on properly again by helping you purge your conscience, giving advice and penance, He also creates a conduit between God and the penitent because the penitent is in a position of having willfully cut the tie between himself and God by his choices and actions.

 

Isn't that what the Holy Spirit does? When I've strayed so far I don't even know what to do, the Holy Spirit takes my tears and "translates" for me. (Rom 8:26)

[mommaduck]

And then there are some non-Reformed Protestants who believe justification and sanctification are a done deal. They believe the righteousness and holiness of Jesus are continually imputed to them. They view the Christian walk as working out who God already made them to be and not as a process toward sanctification or salvation.

 

Which again, is why it's different from the RC/EO.

[Ms. Riding Hood]

I was a content Anglican when I began exploring Catholicism. :) I didn't think I'd convert....

 

I was a content Baptist when I married a Catholic. I refused to convert just because of marriage--I had to be able to give full intellectual assent. RCIA at our church was awful, and taught me nothing but 70's Catholic mish-mash when (as a Baptist) I wanted scriptural reasons for everything. How sad that a potential convert can't get some good Catholic teaching when she needs/wants it!

 

At any rate, after two years of praying God's clear message to me was that even if I couldn't understand everything to the degree I needed, this was about HIS holy will, not mine. So why should I convert? In the words of the Ultimate Father: Because I tell you to!

 

I kept praying and searching for the truth, and one by one each objection fell away. Not through Catholic brainwashing, either, I might add. :tongue_smilie: It was nothing less than miraculous for me, as a spectator in the process, to watch this unfold.

 

But I've often thought about how it all started. If I hadn't married a nice Catholic boy (who, by the way, knew NOTHING of his faith) then I never would have voluntarily sought out the Catholic church. I was perfectly satisfied, perfectly happy. This is my frustration with my family: I so wish they could have what I have in the RCC...but of course they feel no need to look any further. As my friend says, it's not up to US to be the Holy Spirit! But I so want to be! ;)

[mommaduck]

So Presbyterians are Reformed? This is making more sense to me now, why I didn't hear much of altar calls and much about the sinner's prayer till I got to college. In college I joined an inter-denominational group and the campus pastor was Pentecostal, so that was my first introduction to a different way of Protestantism. Which I guess this is all why reading some of these threads about Catholics versus Protestants is confusing to me because my upbringing doesn't really seem to fit neatly into either characterization.

 

And btw, I've decided to try out a local Anglican church tomorrow morning...baby steps right? :lol:

 

Yes, most Presbyterians are Reformed (I say most, because there is debate about a group or two ;) as always).

[Parrothead]

I was a content Baptist when I married a Catholic. I refused to convert just because of marriage--I had to be able to give full intellectual assent. RCIA at our church was awful, and taught me nothing but 70's Catholic mish-mash when (as a Baptist) I wanted scriptural reasons for everything. How sad that a potential convert can't get some good Catholic teaching when she needs/wants it!

 

At any rate, after two years of praying God's clear message to me was that even if I couldn't understand everything to the degree I needed, this was about HIS holy will, not mine. So why should I convert? In the words of the Ultimate Father: Because I tell you to!

 

I kept praying and searching for the truth, and one by one each objection fell away. Not through Catholic brainwashing, either, I might add. :tongue_smilie: It was nothing less than miraculous for me, as a spectator in the process, to watch this unfold.

 

But I've often thought about how it all started. If I hadn't married a nice Catholic boy (who, by the way, knew NOTHING of his faith) then I never would have voluntarily sought out the Catholic church. I was perfectly satisfied, perfectly happy. This is my frustration with my family: I so wish they could have what I have in the RCC...but of course they feel no need to look any further. As my friend says, it's not up to US to be the Holy Spirit! But I so want to be! ;)

What a great story.

[Alice]

I had a feeling you were. I was raised Baptist by a Nazarene and a semi-unitarian spiritualist. FIL was a Baptist pastor. We went through a lot of other types of churches before becoming Reformed and then I became a HARD CORE Reformed/Puritan. Eventually there was the slide into Orthodoxy (my husband and children were heading into Orthodoxy and basically, I trusted in God's Providence and took a leap of Faith :lol: A Puritan in Orthodoxy doesn't stay a Puritan for long). However, it's because of how Reformed theology looks at things, imo, that so many Reformed have become either RC or EO.

 

Actually, I remembered you from a few years ago in the Reformed social group. When I was reading the beginning of this thread I saw a couple of posts by you and was confused because I thought "She's Catholic?" So that made me read more and then I was interested in what you wrote and the thread in general.

 

Interesting the idea of a connection between the Reformed and EC/EO faiths.

[Ellesmere]

Thanks for all this info.

Thank you for listening.

 

I'm Episcopalian, which is actually pretty close to Catholic (some call it Catholic Lite ;) ).

 

Re Altar Calls--I'd say we, and Catholics, have an altar call of sorts every week--it's called Eucharist.

 

Re moment of salvation--I like what Nicky Gumbel says about infant baptism vs adult baptism (moment of salvation). He says imagine relationship is like a train. Some people board the train at a specific time. Some people are born on the train.

Not saying someone is born a Christian (that would be "reborn" ;) ) but that some are raised as Christian and so may never consciously know a time when they are not in relationship with Jesus Christ.

 

I still struggle with the baptism thing. I do know, historically, that a child used to be baptised and then immediately chrismated by a bishop. Then there was a separation of those two acts, mostly due to an increase in population and the unwillingness or inability of the parents to travel to where the bishop was. So the two acts became separated into baptism and confirmation. Now confirmation is seen as the time when the young teen "accepts Jesus as a personal saviour." Really, that phrase is part of the Anglican/Episcopalian prayerbook service of baptism, from which confirmation comes (it's like baptism part two). Someone took that vow for the baby being baptised, and then, at confirmation, the person takes responsibility for it himself. It's like activating your citizenship, in a way--

 

Just some thoughts.

Altar calls -- for some Baptists, one would never respond more than once unless they made a false profession of faith and suddenly realized that they weren't actually born again. And again, there's another reason why some Baptists will witness to Catholics and Episcopalians. They would hear responding to altar calls weekly as evidence that they have a wrong view of salvation, not realizing that your altar calls are not the same thing. Not saying I believe that, just partially explaining why there is an evangelizing ministry for Catholics.

Thanks for the information on confirmation, too.

 

 

This speaks to me a lot.

Me, too.

 

I wonder why the date/age is so important. Are there anniversary celebrations? I ask because it used to be a big thing to celebrate one's baptism day in the Catholic home.

Because they beieve everyone needs to have a point in time. A Before and After testimony. Before: the time when the person was a slave to sin and unrepentant. They may believe in God, but not have received the gift of salvation. If the person had died during this time, they would go to hell (there's no purgatory). After: From that moment on, the person is free from slavery to sin (although they still sin), now will repent, has the Holy Spirit within them, must be baptized by immersion, may take communion, must join a church and start serving.

 

 

The age of accountability is personal. Johnny over there may realize his sin is causing a rift in his relationship with God at the age of 7. Susie over there may have a completely different life and not realize that rift til she's 13. Our church doesn't baptize until a person can grasp the seriousness of their life and choices - and choose God.

In the church where I was taught, that's mostly what they would agree with. Except, they would say someone with normal cognitive function should certainly realize by a certain age, younger than thirteen. No one ever specifies exactly what that age is but it is definitely before thirteen.

 

 

I was a content Baptist when I married a Catholic ... RCIA at our church was awful, and taught me nothing but 70's Catholic mish-mash when (as a Baptist) I wanted scriptural reasons for everything. How sad that a potential convert can't get some good Catholic teaching when she needs/wants it! ...

 

I kept praying and searching for the truth, and one by one each objection fell away. Not through Catholic brainwashing, either, I might add. :tongue_smilie: It was nothing less than miraculous for me, as a spectator in the process, to watch this unfold. ...

 

Very interesting! Yep, I've been told we need a scriptural reason for everything.

When you say "no brainwashing", would you say that you were taught Catholicism rather than why other denominations are wrong?

Edited September 10, 2014 by CaladwenEleniel
spelling

[milovany]

I still struggle with the baptism thing. I do know, historically, that a child used to be baptised and then immediately chrismated by a bishop. Then there was a separation of those two acts, mostly due to an increase in population and the unwillingness or inability of the parents to travel to where the bishop was. So the two acts became separated into baptism and confirmation. Now confirmation is seen as the time when the young teen "accepts Jesus as a personal saviour."

 

 

Just a side note: In the Orthodox church, these have not be separated. Baptism and chrismation (what we call being sealed with the Holy Spirit; that which is somewhat analogous to confirmation) happen one right after the other. We also receive the Eucharist at this time, or shortly thereafter. This is true of both infants born to Orthodox parents, and older converts.

[Parrothead]

(because there is no purgatory since no one has ever collected on the reward money for finding that word in the Bible.)

 

 

So since the word "Eucharist" isn't in the Bible that doesn't exist either? Is the word "Communion" actually in the Bible?

[justamouse]

Isn't that what the Holy Spirit does? When I've strayed so far I don't even know what to do, the Holy Spirit takes my tears and "translates" for me. (Rom 8:26)

 

Having come from a Pentecostal background into Catholicism, I think I see where you're going. You would be surprised how much the Holy Spirit is talked about in the RCC, and, I would say that the RCC fully believes that these old written prayers were inspired by the HS.

 

This sounds crazy, but as I've learned to pray I've had to depend less on the 'translating'. Of course there are those times. And there are many Charismatic Catholics. The Pope has written some amazing stuff on the fullness of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of. Some were written by monks and mystics.

 

It was nothing less than miraculous for me, as a spectator in the process, to watch this unfold.

 

But I've often thought about how it all started. If I hadn't married a nice Catholic boy (who, by the way, knew NOTHING of his faith) then I never would have voluntarily sought out the Catholic church. I was perfectly satisfied, perfectly happy.

 

Lol! This *so* resonates with me. I could have written that.

 

There were three things I swore to God I'd never do:

 

Marry an Italian

Live in the town I live in

Become Catholic.

 

The last two years have been especially humbling. :D

[mommaduck]

Because everyone needs to have a point in time. A Before and After testimony. Before: the time when the person was a slave to sin and unrepentant. They may believe in God, but not have received the gift of salvation. If the person had died during this time, they would go to hell (there's no purgatory). After: From that moment on, the person is free from slavery to sin (although they still sin), now will repent, has the Holy Spirit within them, must be baptized by immersion, may take communion, must join a church and start serving. Only now is it appropriate to tithe, too. Now they can know 100% that they will go straight to heaven if they die (because there is no purgatory since no one has ever collected on the reward money for finding that word in the Bible.)

 

It's ok if a person doesn't have a specific date, but if the person remembers it is recorded in their Bible and celebrated as a "spiritual birthday". Usually it's not a celebration with other people, but might be a time to pray and especially think about it or, if applicable, contact the person who led you to the Lord and rejoice together. Since baptism isn't seen as necessary to get to heaven (but necessary to be in obedience and to take communion), that day is not usually marked every year.

 

Orthodoxy has a different view on Original Sin ;) And a different view of Christ on the cross.

 

(note to Catholic sisters: the first link is comparative of the Orthodox view vs the Catholic view vs the Protestant view. Please don't take offense that it is coming from the Orthodox view and thus will say that the Catholic view is wrong. I know the articles that would be from the Catholic view would hold that they are correct and others wrong as well...such is the way of it. It's posted just to show the EO view and the comparisons, but it can't help but hold a bias ;) )

 

The second link is to an article by Frederica Matthews Greene.

Edited May 28, 2011 by mommaduck

[purplejackmama]

I have always been curious about why the Catholic Church baptizes babies. I have never found any reference to an infant baptism in the Bible, have I missed something.

 

Just curious. thanks.

[ereks mom]

John 20:23 says "If you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven them; if you hold them bound they are held bound.

 

So sins must be confessed out loud so it can be decided if one's sins are forgiven or bound.

 

Who does the deciding?

[QueenCat]

Really, I don't know how long this particular terminology has been used among non-Catholic Christians, but it seems to me it's fairly recently ("recently" being a relative word, considering how young the non-Catholic Christian church is). Generally, they (not all non-Catholic Christians use this specific phrase) mean that at one point in your life you realized you needed God and you made a specific decision to be saved. And when they're talking to Catholics, they assume that Catholics don't have a "personal relationship with Jesus" because the Catholics were baptized as infants and were confirmed as youngsters, as opposed to answering an altar call and making that conscious decision. It is what I used to believe.

 

Hmmm... but Catholics aren't the only ones who baptize infants and do confirmation when they are older. Some Protestants do this too. I know Lutherans and Methodists do, not sure about others. I think Presbyterians too.

[mommaduck]

I have always been curious about why the Catholic Church baptizes babies. I have never found any reference to an infant baptism in the Bible, have I missed something.

 

Just curious. thanks.

 

Household baptism is mentioned. When anything in Scripture happens to a household in Scripture, it always included everyone from the infants to great grandma to the servants. That is also backed up by 2000yrs of practice (including the first few generations of the Church). Scripture + Tradition backed up by History.

[mommaduck]

Actually, I remembered you from a few years ago in the Reformed social group. When I was reading the beginning of this thread I saw a couple of posts by you and was confused because I thought "She's Catholic?" So that made me read more and then I was interested in what you wrote and the thread in general.

 

Interesting the idea of a connection between the Reformed and EC/EO faiths.

 

Yep, started attending an EO while still attending a Reformed two years ago and converted a year and a half ago.

[milovany]

I have always been curious about why the Catholic Church baptizes babies. I have never found any reference to an infant baptism in the Bible, have I missed something.

 

Just curious. thanks.

 

If you take an honest look, you'll not see an age of reason mentioned, or anyone praying a "sinner's prayer," as requirements for becoming part of the Church in the Bible. These are interpretations/additions made quite late in church history. Biblically, baptism is the new covenant equivalent to Jewish circumcision. And of course it was babies who were circumcised; they didn't need to give mental assent or have intellectual understanding in order to become part of the people of God. The Apostles and NT writers were coming from this Jewish background, so baptizing infants was natural (and is probably why it's not spelled out; it was assumed/practiced at the time the books were written). The onus for showing that infants were NOT included is sort of on those who don't believe in it. I know Scriptures can be mentioned that might make it seem like infants should not be baptized, but only if you interpret those verses outside of the context in which they were written/given.

Here is a wonderful article on why the Orthodox church practices infant baptism.

Edited May 28, 2011 by milovaný

[Ms. Riding Hood]

Very interesting! Yep, I've been told we need a scriptural reason for everything.

When you say "no brainwashing", would you say that you were taught Catholicism rather than why other denominations are wrong?

 

I do think having scriptural reasons is a powerful thing, and the good news (for Baptists) is that the overwhelming majority of Catholic belief is deeply rooted in scripture. But it was when I saw the awesome, mind-bending beauty of the authority of the Church that I was truly converted. I cried then, because I felt that for so long I had been deceived--not by any particular anti-Catholic teaching, but just in general. I had been taught wrongly, and it made me so very sad...and angry, too. I had missed so much.

 

I said "no brainwashing" sort of tongue-in-cheek, because I think some of my family/friends think that's the only possible explanation of why I could become Catholic--because I "bought into the lie", or was "sold a bill of goods". It never crosses their minds that I could have actually found truth in the Catholic church!

 

But to answer your question, yes, I was taught Catholicism. We had an excellent DRE who conducted adult classes on various subjects. He was like a Baptist preacher (unlike our priest) and really did PREACH the Catholic faith in a way that was familiar and welcome to me. He used the Bible. And when I asked my many, many questions (all new to me, but probably old and tiring to him) about all the same old objections to the faith, he answered me with unswerving faithfulness--and in love.

 

As to why other denominations were wrong...well, if I was asking the question he would address it, for example the Baptism question (infant vs older). He might point out Catholic teaching and show how it was both Biblical and historical...while my former beliefs were not necessarily in line with that. But there was never any malicious bashing--if that's what you meant.

[asta]

Who does the deciding?

 

You know, up until about a year ago, I would have said the Confessor (the priest).

 

Having had a rather... Significant life experience, I now would argue rather firmly that the binding of one's sins falls squarely on the shoulders of the sinner. eg: to put it another way, was your heart and soul *really* into your confession, or were you just "going through the motions"?

 

a

[Murphy101]

And here is where RC/EO would part ways with most Protestants. It's not that they are what saves you, but rather PART of. Salvations for us is not a one time event. It's a continuing experience. I have been saved, I am being saved, I will be saved.

 

:iagree: Once saved, always saved just isn't reality. We are always growing and we always have sin to contend with. Therefore we must always be seeking God and working to repair the damage our sins cause in relationships, both with our fellow man and with our God.

 

Honest, this isn't a troll answer...

 

I literally *cannot* hear this phrase without hearing the lyrics to "Personal Jesus" by Depeche Mode in my head. The actual song is very catchy.

 

Back to regular programming.

 

 

asta

 

I have a video clip if my 2 year old rocking out to that with her daddy on xbox karaoke. :blush: it was my first thought when I opened the thread.

 

So since the word "Eucharist" isn't in the Bible that doesn't exist either? Is the word "Communion" actually in the Bible?

 

Whenever someone decries tradition because it isn't in the bible, I want to ask them why they bother with their bible. There are MANY traditions that predate the bible and certainly if one is going to use a bible and one wants to use the most authentic or oldest version of the bible - then at best - shouldn't they be using a catholic bible? When discussing what tradition is and why it is valued, people should remember that the bible is a prime example of tradition.

 

Ug. Need coffee. I'm not sure any of that made a lick of sense.

[WIS0320]

Isn't that what the Holy Spirit does? When I've strayed so far I don't even know what to do, the Holy Spirit takes my tears and "translates" for me. (Rom 8:26)

 

The Holy Spirit IS God. Mortal sin means a person has willfully removed themselves from the will of God (all three persons) and separated themselves intentionally from the Body of Christ and that is when reconciliation is necessary with the assistance of a priest.

 

Once again this is where Protestants and Catholics divide. The Church using Tradition has defined 7 Sacraments, Reconciliation being one of them. Protestants reject pretty much all Tradition (with the exception of the compilation of the Bible and defining God as the Trinity!) even though it has been an established part of Christianity since Christ instituted His Church.

 

If you are genuinely curious, here is a good link about the Sacraments, including Reconciliation:

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm

Edited May 28, 2011 by drexel

[Ms. Riding Hood]

Will a non-Catholic Christian explain the phrase, "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" to me?

 

Even though you've had many excellent responses, just throwing mine in too--again, as a person raised Baptist and converted to Catholicism.

 

To me, this phrase can be used in two ways. If your fundamentalist friend/MIL/neighbor asks you with sincerity if you "have a personal relationship with Jesus", to me that person is asking if you are "saved"--meaning, have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior? Have you specifically prayed and invited him into your heart, and committed your way to him? Since Catholics generally don't have this experience, it is a foreign question. But a Catholic could sincerely answer, "Each day I am called to greater conversion of heart, greater love of Jesus, and greater faithfulness in my Christian walk--but if you want to know if I'm "saved", then I can only answer that Christ alone knows my heart, and through His daily mercy I hope to "finish the race" and be with him in the Kingdom of Heaven. [Well, wouldn't that be a fortunate answer! I'd never think of that in conversation. But one can wish.]

 

The second meaning of that phrase "personal relationship", is the literal meaning of really desiring to know Christ Jesus as a friend, walking with him, talking with him, loving him.

 

 

Do you think that this personal relationship with Jesus is necessary for your salvation?

 

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say necessary for salvation BUT it seems hard to imagine someone calling himself a Christian but not having that type of personal relationship. Maybe that is too narrow of an understanding on my part. It just seems that if you are living and growing in faith, you must somehow be communing with Jesus! And if you aren't living and growing in your faith, then what are you doing? We can't be lukewarm. But maybe I'm overlooking some aspect?

 

 

 

How does one have a personal relationship with not only a deity, but the Savior of the world?

I think this is the gift of the Holy Trinity. It enables us to have these different persons with which to relate. Maybe it's because I was raised with the idea of a "personal Jesus" (haha-and Depeche Mode always seemed sacrilegious with that phrase, to me!) but I've always seen Jesus as in that "Footprints" poem, walking along beside me, carrying me, sitting me on his lap, hugging me--being like a friend/brother, though of course always with the knowledge that He is the I AM. But he is approachable. In another post I mentioned just having read Hinds Feet on High Places. The Shepherd in that book (analogous of Jesus) is very much as I picture Jesus--so compassionate toward all our faults, so happy for our least desires of good. If you haven't read that, I recommend it. It always raises my heart toward God.

[WishboneDawn]

Hmmm... but Catholics aren't the only ones who baptize infants and do confirmation when they are older. Some Protestants do this too. I know Lutherans and Methodists do, not sure about others. I think Presbyterians too.

 

Anglicans as well although it's not mandatory. Mine are not baptized (more because I wasn't a part of the church then.) though most of the children of the parish were baptized as infants. They can take communion from the time of baptism as confirmation seems to have gone the way of the Dodo, much to my minister's chagrin. Other dioceses may still do confirmation? Not sure.

 

My children generally go with me when I take communion and cross their arms for a blessing.

[WIS0320]

I have always been curious about why the Catholic Church baptizes babies. I have never found any reference to an infant baptism in the Bible, have I missed something.

 

Just curious. thanks.

 

Once again, Catholics are not dependent on the Bible alone for authority on how to practice our faith. Tradition works in tandem with the Bible. The Bible was compiled because of Tradition. :001_smile: The writers who wrote the letters, poems, gospels and so on that are in the books of the Bible had no idea when writing them that they would be later compiled into one book, the Church chose to do that in the 4th century after reviewing quite a lot of Christian writings and determining which books were divinely inspired and which were not to be included.

 

With all that said, baptism is the physical act of the New Covenant. Babies have been baptized from the earliest days of Christianity and has been written about in early Christian writings.

 

Baptism isn't a symbol for Catholics, it removes the stain of Original Sin and imparts grace into the soul of the person. It binds that soul to the Body of Christ through God's grace when the Sacrament is performed. Think of the Body of Christ as a huge grapevine and each person who is part of the Body of Christ being fruit on that vine. Baptism allows the person to blossom on the vine, continual acts on the part of the person and continuing with the Sacraments throughout life produce the fruit.

 

Hope that helps.

[WishboneDawn]

Whenever someone decries tradition because it isn't in the bible, I want to ask them why they bother with their bible. There are MANY traditions that predate the bible and certainly if one is going to use a bible and one wants to use the most authentic or oldest version of the bible - then at best - shouldn't they be using a catholic bible? When discussing what tradition is and why it is valued, people should remember that the bible is a prime example of tradition.

 

Ug. Need coffee. I'm not sure any of that made a lick of sense.

 

:) I've got a simpler view of it. I tend to think a sola scriptura view is a denial of the life of the Church, of the Christians who came before the Bible and of the lives Christians lived beyond the pages of the Bible. The Bible feeds us but it's the Church, the extra-Biblical writings, our traditions that give us a place to put down our roots. I think it's something a lot of fellow Protestants are missing.

 

But I tend to think most denominations are missing pieces of the whole, even my own, and that some of those other ones I don't much agree with have pieces I don't.

[Carol in Cal.]

:) I've got a simpler view of it. I tend to think a sola scriptura view is a denial of the life of the Church, of the Christians who came before the Bible and of the lives Christians lived beyond the pages of the Bible. The Bible feeds us but it's the Church, the extra-Biblical writings, our traditions that give us a place to put down our roots. I think it's something a lot of fellow Protestants are missing.

 

 

This is really not Sola Scriptura. It's sola, not solo!

[wapiti]

This is a little off-topic, but as an adult, I find Catholic traditions to be very comforting, both in times of trouble and times of general life-change. Would someone who converted later in life feel the same comfort having not grown up with it? Do Protestants feel something comparable?

[WishboneDawn]

This is really not Sola Scriptura. It's sola, not solo!

 

You are right! I just did some further reading. Then perhaps Solo Scriptura is more appropriate for those who take it a step further? :)

[asta]

Thank you for listening.

Altar calls -- for some Baptists, one would never respond more than once unless they made a false profession of faith and suddenly realized that they weren't actually born again. And again, there's another reason why some Baptists will witness to Catholics and Episcopalians. They would hear responding to altar calls weekly as evidence that they have a wrong view of salvation, not realizing that your altar calls are not the same thing. Not saying I believe that, just partially explaining why there is an evangelizing ministry for Catholics.

Thanks for the information on confirmation, too.

 

 

This is interesting to me. I never realized that other religions viewed "going up to receive the eucharist" (which normally happens kinda sorta in front of the altar, but not *at* the altar -- but can also happen elsewhere in the church) as an "altar call".

 

Vocabulary definitions. What a trip.

 

 

a

[Carol in Cal.]

You are right! I just did some further reading. Then perhaps Solo Scriptura is more appropriate for those who take it a step further? :)

 

Yes, I think so!

[Murphy101]

This is a little off-topic, but as an adult, I find Catholic traditions to be very comforting, both in times of trouble and times of general life-change. Would someone who converted later in life feel the same comfort having not grown up with it? Do Protestants feel something comparable?

 

I'm a convert from..well basicly nothing.. And I feel the same way.

[Kimber]

This is a little off-topic, but as an adult, I find Catholic traditions to be very comforting, both in times of trouble and times of general life-change. Would someone who converted later in life feel the same comfort having not grown up with it? Do Protestants feel something comparable?

 

As a Protestant, I'd say that I find comfort in my personal relationship with Jesus.

[Murphy101]

As a Protestant, I'd say that I find comfort in my personal relationship with Jesus.

 

As a Catholic, I'd say there is no difference.

 

Finding comfort in the habits, the traditions, the scenery of God's house IS part of finding comfort in God.

 

And when one feels lost and tired and lonely and feels their relationship is strained - it is a comfort to know that even then, they are welcome and can count on certain things never changing.

[Parrothead]

Orthodoxy has a different view on Original Sin ;) And a different view of Christ on the cross.

 

(note to Catholic sisters: the first link is comparative of the Orthodox view vs the Catholic view vs the Protestant view. Please don't take offense that it is coming from the Orthodox view and thus will say that the Catholic view is wrong. I know the articles that would be from the Catholic view would hold that they are correct and others wrong as well...such is the way of it. It's posted just to show the EO view and the comparisons, but it can't help but hold a bias ;) )

 

The second link is to an article by Frederica Matthews Greene.

I've seen a chart that was interesting.

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah, y'all know where you went wrong. :lol:

I have always been curious about why the Catholic Church baptizes babies. I have never found any reference to an infant baptism in the Bible, have I missed something.

 

Just curious. thanks.

I'll get back with you in just a moment. I don't want you to think I'm overlooking your question. It will take a post (possibly a thread) all to itself.

Who does the deciding?

I agree with asta on this one. The Bible says we should confess our sins and we will be forgiven. A penitent being not truly remorseful is the only reason I've heard for a priest not giving absolution. The penitent's attitude is what does the deciding.

[Parrothead]

If you take an honest look, you'll not see an age of reason mentioned, or anyone praying a "sinner's prayer," as requirements for becoming part of the Church in the Bible. These are interpretations/additions made quite late in church history. Biblically, baptism is the new covenant equivalent to Jewish circumcision. And of course it was babies who were circumcised; they didn't need to give mental assent or have intellectual understanding in order to become part of the people of God. The Apostles and NT writers were coming from this Jewish background, so baptizing infants was natural (and is probably why it's not spelled out; it was assumed/practiced at the time the books were written). The onus for showing that infants were NOT included is sort of on those who don't believe in it. I know Scriptures can be mentioned that might make it seem like infants should not be baptized, but only if you interpret those versus outside of the context in which they were written/given.

Here is a wonderful article on why the Orthodox church practices infant baptism.

There you go purplejackmama. This is pretty much the entire reason the Catholic church baptizes infants. Nowhere in the Bible does it say not to baptize infants/small children unless it is taken out of context. But there are many examples of entire households - including the babies and children - being baptized all at once.

 

Even though you've had many excellent responses, just throwing mine in too--again, as a person raised Baptist and converted to Catholicism.

 

To me, this phrase can be used in two ways. If your fundamentalist friend/MIL/neighbor asks you with sincerity if you "have a personal relationship with Jesus", to me that person is asking if you are "saved"--meaning, have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior? Have you specifically prayed and invited him into your heart, and committed your way to him? Since Catholics generally don't have this experience, it is a foreign question. But a Catholic could sincerely answer, "Each day I am called to greater conversion of heart, greater love of Jesus, and greater faithfulness in my Christian walk--but if you want to know if I'm "saved", then I can only answer that Christ alone knows my heart, and through His daily mercy I hope to "finish the race" and be with him in the Kingdom of Heaven. [Well, wouldn't that be a fortunate answer! I'd never think of that in conversation. But one can wish.]

 

The second meaning of that phrase "personal relationship", is the literal meaning of really desiring to know Christ Jesus as a friend, walking with him, talking with him, loving him.

 

 

 

 

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say necessary for salvation BUT it seems hard to imagine someone calling himself a Christian but not having that type of personal relationship. Maybe that is too narrow of an understanding on my part. It just seems that if you are living and growing in faith, you must somehow be communing with Jesus! And if you aren't living and growing in your faith, then what are you doing? We can't be lukewarm. But maybe I'm overlooking some aspect?

 

 

 

 

I think this is the gift of the Holy Trinity. It enables us to have these different persons with which to relate. Maybe it's because I was raised with the idea of a "personal Jesus" (haha-and Depeche Mode always seemed sacrilegious with that phrase, to me!) but I've always seen Jesus as in that "Footprints" poem, walking along beside me, carrying me, sitting me on his lap, hugging me--being like a friend/brother, though of course always with the knowledge that He is the I AM. But he is approachable. In another post I mentioned just having read Hinds Feet on High Places. The Shepherd in that book (analogous of Jesus) is very much as I picture Jesus--so compassionate toward all our faults, so happy for our least desires of good. If you haven't read that, I recommend it. It always raises my heart toward God.

Thanks.

 

(Yeah, really. Who has that kind of eloquence when one is being interrogated about one's beliefs.)

[Kimber]

In response to myself only, after rereading my short response, I must correct myself and say that I don't find comfort in the relationship, but in Jesus. It might sound the same, but I don't think it is. Because it's not my relationship to Christ that comforts me, but I find comfort in Christ. Don't know if that makes sense.

 

And this is only about me, not what other Protestants find comfort in or what Catholics find comfort in. Just me.

[Parrothead]

This is interesting to me. I never realized that other religions viewed "going up to receive the eucharist" (which normally happens kinda sorta in front of the altar, but not *at* the altar -- but can also happen elsewhere in the church) as an "altar call".

 

Vocabulary definitions. What a trip.

 

 

a

I thought that was kinda cool, also.

As a Protestant, I'd say that I find comfort in my personal relationship with Jesus.

I think it would be a sad thing if one didn't.

[Parrothead]

As a Catholic, I'd say there is no difference.

 

Finding comfort in the habits, the traditions, the scenery of God's house IS part of finding comfort in God.

 

And when one feels lost and tired and lonely and feels their relationship is strained - it is a comfort to know that even then, they are welcome and can count on certain things never changing.

I'll tell you what else is comforting. Believing that Jesus is in the Eucharist and the Eucharist is kept in the tabernacle. One can just go sit in a Catholic church and sit with Jesus. Eucharistic Adoration is just that much more.

[Kimber]

One of my dear friends participated in this activity at her local church before she moved. They took shifts, and she sat in adoration from like 2am to 3 am one night a week. She said that on those days she felt more energetic than the rest of the week. She absolutely loved it.

[Parrothead]

One of my dear friends participated in this activity at her local church before she moved. They took shifts, and she sat in adoration from like 2am to 3 am one night a week. She said that on those days she felt more energetic than the rest of the week. She absolutely loved it.

It really is a powerful activity.

[Chris in VA]

I'll tell you what else is comforting. Believing that Jesus is in the Eucharist and the Eucharist is kept in the tabernacle. One can just go sit in a Catholic church and sit with Jesus. Eucharistic Adoration is just that much more.

 

I love doing this. :001_smile:

 

(Don't know how to multi-quote, but...)

 

Milovany, we do the chrismation (the annointing with oil--maybe I'm misspelling) at the same time as baptism, too. I was thinking of something else and called it by the wrong name. And, I LOVE the Orthodox way of offering infants their first Communion at their baptism. :001_smile:

 

As far as Communion being the "altar call," I was really just using it as a metaphor--Although we do call everyone to the altar, and a non-Christian can come up for a blessing (but not communion--there is a practice called Open Communion, in which some Epis churches do allow anyone to partake, but it is not official doctrine), it's not the same as committing your life at a certain time, as "being saved" sort of thing.

 

Just to be clearer.

 

I'm really appreciating this discussion.

[asta]

I think this is the gift of the Holy Trinity. It enables us to have these different persons with which to relate. Maybe it's because I was raised with the idea of a "personal Jesus" (haha-and Depeche Mode always seemed sacrilegious with that phrase, to me!) but I've always seen Jesus as in that "Footprints" poem, walking along beside me, carrying me, sitting me on his lap, hugging me--being like a friend/brother, though of course always with the knowledge that He is the I AM. But he is approachable. In another post I mentioned just having read Hinds Feet on High Places. The Shepherd in that book (analogous of Jesus) is very much as I picture Jesus--so compassionate toward all our faults, so happy for our least desires of good. If you haven't read that, I recommend it. It always raises my heart toward God.

 

Interestingly enough, "Personal Jesus" was a slam against people who believed that faith/Jesus/redemption could be found at the end of a telephone line (eg: holy roller televangelists).

 

As a Catholic, I'd say there is no difference.

 

Finding comfort in the habits, the traditions, the scenery of God's house IS part of finding comfort in God.

 

And when one feels lost and tired and lonely and feels their relationship is strained - it is a comfort to know that even then, they are welcome and can count on certain things never changing.

 

I know this isn't germane to the discussion, but I'm putting it out there anyway.

 

As an Aspie, change is bad. No, horrible.

 

To have something that is the same, literally everywhere you go, is so incredibly comforting I cannot even begin to tell you.

 

The supposed "stifling atmosphere" that some people feel from the slow pace of change in the Church is exactly what keeps many of us IN the Church.

 

It doesn't matter where I am in the world, or what language is being spoken. I know when to stand up, when to kneel, and the order of the mass. If I don't know the language (eg: can't read the missal), I just say the prayers in English. Whatever.

 

And every last church smells exactly the same. Frankincense, myrrh, chrism, and candle wax. It's the smell of peace as far as I'm concerned.

 

When I'm dead and gone, my DS will have it, too. Anywhere he goes. And just as the Holy Mother and her son watched over me in my parent's absence, so will they look over my son.

 

What more could a person ask for?

 

 

a

[QueenCat]

I think this is where the same but different starts to happen. There is no specific moment that is celebrated. I can't tell you what day or how old I was when I realized more than "Jesus loves me, this I know." I will say I was probably very young.

 

How this happens is vastly different and probably much much more personal with a Catholic (or even EO) than with any other Christian. There aren't alter calls (is that term correct?) where one decides to give a "shout out." (Not to be flippant at all.) There really is no recognition, and maybe not even a conscious decision for some.

 

It may have something to do with knowing from infancy that we are God's children. If someone asks me, I've always been a Christian. I've always known that Jesus is my Savior.

 

Different, but very much the same.

 

ETA: What about the little ones? What if they have not reached the "age of accountability" (is this different for different denominations?) but know they have sinned and want forgiveness? Are they told they have to wait to be baptized?

 

Same here, I don't have remember not knowing God, or that Jesus saved me. I grew up Lutheran, baptized as a baby, confirmed at 15. There isn't a defining moment when I suddenly knew I was saved. Something in me since birth.

[milovany]

 

Milovany, we do the chrismation (the annointing with oil--maybe I'm misspelling) at the same time as baptism, too. I was thinking of something else and called it by the wrong name. And, I LOVE the Orthodox way of offering infants their first Communion at their baptism. :001_smile:

 

 

Okay, I'm sorry if I misunderstood! I, too, love that even infants receive the Eucharist. Everyone is on the same "footing" in Orthodoxy, in this way. It makes me want to have one more baby so I can have a cradle, infant-baptized Orthodox baby! :D

 

Don't know how to multi-quote ...

 

I can tell you: Down next to the Quote button that you used to quote the first post, there's a button with a quotation mark and a plus sign on it. Hit that on any post you want to quote in your reply, and when you hit Post Reply (i.e., when you're done hitting that button on all the posts you want to quote), they'll all be in the message box ready for your comments. Just post in between the comments. Preview your message to make sure it's showing up right. HTH!

Edited May 28, 2011 by milovaný

[justamouse]

This is a little off-topic, but as an adult, I find Catholic traditions to be very comforting, both in times of trouble and times of general life-change. Would someone who converted later in life feel the same comfort having not grown up with it? Do Protestants feel something comparable?

 

I feel a loss not having grown up with it. It's why I'm making the change--for my children.

 

When I was homechurching the draw I felt to tradition and ritual was almost palpable. I wanted to walk into a cathedral and just sit in a pew, basking int he reverence seeping out of the walls. And I had to ask others-do humans in general feel drawn to tradition? To ritual? I mean, I take a shower the same way every day. There are so many things I do every day, the same way. Does that need for well worn paths just speak to the human experience? For myself I had to answer yes. Even Christ participated in Holy days with His apostles. If He did, it must have merit. And I wanted to experience that with other Christians.

 

It's one of them many reasons I converted.

 

Another thing that I've been thinking about that's been spoken of, that one singular time as opposed to a continual view of salvation.

 

I was baptized and made my first communion, but from there my parents hopped around to other churches settling in a Pentecostal. I don't remember a time when I didn't have a 'personal' relationship with Jesus, so I totally get how Catholics feel being asked that. But as I grew up Protestant there were many times that I decided to take another step deeper into my faith and I would question was I ever saved in the first place? Especially with the idea floating around out there that you never have to deal with sin in your life once you've 'been saved'. That you were as good and squeaky clean as you were ever gonna get and so stop working on yourself.

 

Now I can look at that and see the lack of humility in myself in believing that. I like taking the position of "Jesus, have mercy on me a sinner. " It keeps pride in check. It also helps me put into perspective the deeper turns I've taken. Since salvation is a constant thing, of course there were different experiences as I journeyed.

Edited May 28, 2011 by justamouse

[actuary]

 

Another thing that I've been thinking about that's been spoken of, that one singular time as opposed to a continual view of salvation.

 

I was baptized and made my first communion, but from there my parents hopped around to other churches settling in a Pentecostal. I don't remember a time when I didn't have a 'personal' relationship with Jesus, so I totally get how Catholics feel being asked that. But as I grew up Protestant there were many times that I decided to take another step deeper into my faith and I would question was I ever saved in the first place? Especially with the idea floating around out there that you never have to deal with sin in your life once you've 'been saved'. That you were as good and squeaky clean as you were ever gonna get and so stop working on yourself.

 

Now I can look at that and see the lack of humility in myself in believing that. I like taking the position of "Jesus, have mercy on me a sinner. " It keeps pride in check.

 

All of my friends who have the singular view of salvation though still believe in the position of "Jesus, have mercy on me a sinner." The way they've explained it to me is that even though you've been saved, you still are continually seeking to honor God and that we are all sinners. So once you've been saved, your salvation is not at stake, but you should still be confessing your sins, realizing that you are a sinner, repenting, etc. So, they don't stop working on themselves once they get saved. To them, being saved is only the first step.

 

I'm still not sure which view of salvation I have though.

[wapiti]

I know this isn't germane to the discussion, but I'm putting it out there anyway.

 

As an Aspie, change is bad. No, horrible.

 

To have something that is the same, literally everywhere you go, is so incredibly comforting I cannot even begin to tell you.

 

The supposed "stifling atmosphere" that some people feel from the slow pace of change in the Church is exactly what keeps many of us IN the Church.

 

It doesn't matter where I am in the world, or what language is being spoken. I know when to stand up, when to kneel, and the order of the mass. If I don't know the language (eg: can't read the missal), I just say the prayers in English. Whatever.

 

And every last church smells exactly the same. Frankincense, myrrh, chrism, and candle wax. It's the smell of peace as far as I'm concerned.

 

When I'm dead and gone, my DS will have it, too. Anywhere he goes. And just as the Holy Mother and her son watched over me in my parent's absence, so will they look over my son.

 

What more could a person ask for?

 

 

a

 

Oh but I do think it is germane! This is a part of what I had in mind when I asked about tradition being comforting. Part of that is very tangible - the order of the mass, the prayers, the smells - how funny that you mentioned the smells - that's one of the precise things I had in mind. It all can make me feel enveloped in the Trinity. Something about the tangible translates over to the untangible, the intellectual world of the beliefs. It all reminds me that God is still with me, even in moments when I'm struggling. There have been times in my life when I've been away from attending mass (for no particular reason) and just popping into mass in a random church in a new part of the country could have me in tears from the great comfort.

[milovany]

 

I'm still not sure which view of salvation I have though.

 

Here's an article on the View of Sin in the Early Church for your consideration. I really appreciated, when I read this the first time, how it answered so many questions I had about my evangelical-at-the-time faith. (It's from the Eastern Orthodox viewpoint.)

[QueenCat]

You mean some Catholics don't accept a very Protestant interpretation of salvation? Shocking. :)

 

Doesn't bother me but then I'm probably more in line with Catholic thinking on the issue of salvation. Matthew 18:20 and John 3:17 are worth a look. This is why I have a problem with people describing themselves as "Bible believing" Christians (as if differentiating themselves from those other non-Bible believing Christians :glare:) or quoting a lot of scripture to support their beliefs about who is and who is not Christian. There are a LOT of words in the Bible. There are a LOT of different paths you can walk as a Christian and yet find scriptural support for. Some of those paths even seem to be opposite each other but they are often no less Biblical then the ones they seem to be in conflict with.

 

Let's remember that not all Protestants think that way. Lutherans and Methodists baptize infants.... but will baptize someone who is older if they weren't when they were younger, usually because they weren't born in to a Christian family. When they baptize when older, they do both the baptism and confirmation at the same time.

[milovany]

To have something that is the same, literally everywhere you go, is so incredibly comforting I cannot even begin to tell you.

 

The supposed "stifling atmosphere" that some people feel from the slow pace of change in the Church is exactly what keeps many of us IN the Church.

 

It doesn't matter where I am in the world, or what language is being spoken. I know when to stand up, when to kneel, and the order of the mass. If I don't know the language (eg: can't read the missal), I just say the prayers in English. Whatever.

 

And every last church smells exactly the same. Frankincense, myrrh, chrism, and candle wax. It's the smell of peace as far as I'm concerned.

 

When I'm dead and gone, my DS will have it, too. Anywhere he goes. And just as the Holy Mother and her son watched over me in my parent's absence, so will they look over my son.

 

What more could a person ask for?

 

 

 

Beautiful post, asta. It is these things that give our faith the depth that we love.