Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Big Discovery [by David, former Presbyterian]
Journeyof ImperfectSaint.blogspot.com ^ | October 4, 2009 | David

Posted on 06/03/2012 1:47:18 PM PDT by Salvation

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The Big Discovery

        I made some good friends outside my church and found out that they were all Catholics.  Now, I did not know much about Catholicism at the time.  By the way, the Mass did seem somewhat mysterious to me externally.  In fact, what little I had heard from other church members was all negative.  There was a Mrs. J at my church, who had just retired from her missionary post in China.  She was such a kind and endearing soul to all.  One day she got back from visiting someone at a hospital and looked extremely sad and disturbed.  It turned out that when she got to the hospital room, she saw that a Catholic priest was already there with the patient.  Now the question was if the patient would ever get to heaven. 
 
        Nevertheless, my Catholic friends all looked quite normal and happy.  Then could the Catholic Church, the largest church in the the world, be in error?  It so happened that at that time I was also beginning to question my Protestant faith.  The fact that there were numerous different denominations around the world bothered me.  Also, as a Protestant, whether you're a minister or lay person, you are free to marry and divorce any number of times.  It's hard to see that Jesus would be happy with these two facts.  Since I am the kind of person who always likes to find the answer to any question that's important, I decided to look into Catholicism.
 
        I made up my mind not to talk to anyone about my investigation.  I was single then and had a lot of free time to myself.  The local public library housed an excellent collection of books on Catholicism, so I started borrowing books on the subject.  I read every weekend, even taking notes as I read.  The went on for over a year.  I read all those books that viciously attack the Catholic Church too, but somehow they did not affect me much because I sensed that these attacks could not have been prompted by the Holy Spirit.  The books that really helped me were the ones on early Church history.  I could see that the continuity was there and the beliefs and practices of the early Church had been preserved to this day in the Catholic Church.  The only conclusion I could come to was that the Catholic Church was indeed the church Jesus had come and established.  Like Christ himself, the Church, being his body, must be accepted (or rejected) totally, with no middle ground. 
 
        Here's some advice for those who seek the truth.  Your chances of success will greatly improve if, first, you start out with a completely open mind and secondly, go to the source(s) directly to get the facts.  Many who misunderstand the Catholic Church today have already made up their mind that the Church is wrong, thus never bothering to pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to find out what the Church really teaches.  This is being close-minded. 


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; converts; willconvertforfood
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 1,051-1,062 next last
To: papertyger

Please.

You are grasping at straws.

Your redirection is irrelevant


201 posted on 06/05/2012 7:09:44 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: metmom

****Because it is their beliefs you are discussing and they have the right to have input into it as well****

I was?

Gee, looking over my posts, I don’t find a single belief of any of them expressed by me. In fact, I don’t have a clue what any of them actually do believe.

If it is of such import to them, then they can do what I did, which is to click on a thread which interests me and respond to someone if I have a response or a question.

And, why do they have a right to have input? Other than we all have a right to express ourselves on this forum, but I never felt the need to ping a whole list of people to a particular post or thread.

I speak only for myself, use only my own words and thoughts and if any other Catholic cares to join in, then that is great and they are welcome.


202 posted on 06/05/2012 7:12:49 PM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Of course you ignore the fact that the vast majority of annulments are really divorces by another name.

You argue the exception to justify the majority.

Catholic annulments are no different than protestant divorces for most cases.

You feel smug that they are called something else, and that’s fine.

There is no real difference for the vast majority of non-kennedy, non-gingrich annulments.


203 posted on 06/05/2012 7:18:30 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
You are grasping at straws. Your redirection is irrelevant

It's not irrelevant. But I wouldn't expect a Muslim to understand simple analogies if they go against the sayings of the prophet.

204 posted on 06/05/2012 7:23:28 PM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

I think the Bible calls it “pride”.


205 posted on 06/05/2012 7:25:15 PM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

You have lost the bubble friend.

Care to take another stab at it?


206 posted on 06/05/2012 7:28:24 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Jvette
I think the Bible calls it “pride”.

Actually, I think that's "taking the name of the Lord in vain."

207 posted on 06/05/2012 7:30:19 PM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
You have lost the bubble friend. Care to take another stab at it?

Nah. I just figure if you can make things up as you go along, I can too!

208 posted on 06/05/2012 7:37:02 PM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

That too and so much more.

Thanks for your input:)

Have a good night.


209 posted on 06/05/2012 7:42:13 PM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer; Religion Moderator

*Of course you ignore the fact that the vast majority of
annulments are really divorces by another name.*

*You argue the exception to justify the manority*

*You feel smug that they are called something else, and that’s
fine.*

If this guy was Catholic, you’d be on him like white on rice.


210 posted on 06/05/2012 7:44:42 PM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
"Catholic annulments are no different than protestant divorces for most cases."

I am not so naive so as to believe that there have not been abuses or that people, properly coached and suitably motivated cannot co-opt the process. Canon lawyers, like any of us can be duped. Those cases will ultimately be judged by God. My point is that a categorical repudiation of nullification is pretty dumb.

Peace be with you

211 posted on 06/05/2012 7:48:31 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Jvette
And to the extent that they reject Church teaching, they are actually Protestant, though they might call themselves Catholic.

Wow. Y'all are sure quick enough to disown Catholics y'all disagree with, until it comes time for a head count.

Whatever happened to *once a Catholic, always a Catholic*?

212 posted on 06/05/2012 7:53:59 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
"If this guy was Catholic, you’d be on him like white on rice."

It won't accomplish anything by pointing out the obvious except to possibly exacerbate the already existent antipathy toward Catholics.

213 posted on 06/05/2012 7:55:01 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
You feel smug

Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

214 posted on 06/05/2012 7:55:46 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
And your 7 year posting history is a supporting testimony that being Catholic believe in Jesus and are just as saved as those in the store front churches so many "individual believers" attend?

People who trust Christ alone for salvation and not their church are saved no matter what church they go to or if they even go at all.

There are going to be saved and unsaved people in every church. The only difference is going to be in the ratios, with some denominations having a higher saved to unsaved ratio than others.

People are not saved because they're Catholic, or Baptist, or Lutheran, but in spite of it.

215 posted on 06/05/2012 7:59:50 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: metmom
FWIW< there's more than enough evidence in the CCC and the canons from the council of Trent to know that disagreement with Catholic doctrine is NOT tolerated. Much of it results in anathemas

Hey, dan, this is another one Catholics disagree on. Their ability to disagree with the Church

Not only, but here there is even interpretive disagreement on whether Trent’s anathemas stand against Protestantism or entail, besides what parts of Trent, etc. are infallible.

216 posted on 06/05/2012 8:06:48 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Jvette; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; Quix; smvoice; CynicalBear

I am not interested in a cut and paste response from anyone on any topic. I never do that, I always use my own words unless I am quoting Scripture.

You may never do that, but when we post material that impugns Rome we are disparaged if it is not referenced, and or not from Rome, and it should often be both (though even that sometimes will not stop attempts to discredit such).

Many Catholics disagree with the Church on many things. So what? They do not have the authority to declare binding beliefs on anyone and must answer for their own dissent when the time comes.

But as what all the binding beliefs are, then what dissent may allowed can be unclear, while the church is not supposed to wait until the Lord's return for discipline, and in reality her overall lack of discipline, and even official approval of teachings including things which conservative Catholics rail against, effectually conveys allowance of a broad degree of liberty of liberal doctrine.

A cursory reading of “your” list was enough for me. I found it to be misleading and disingenuous at best. There are actually only seven doctrines which a Catholic is bound to hold as Truth.....

Rather, it is your unsubstantiated statement that is misleading, as in your cursory reading you must have missed that neither list is dealing with binding truths, in which case the Protestant list would also be very short. In addition, as expressed, a more meaningful comparison is between sola ecclesia churches and SS type churches.

The Nature of God, as in the Holy Trinity including the Nature of Jesus as True God and True Man
The Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus
The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
The Assumption of Mary
The Immaculate Conception of Mary
Papal Infallibility regarding matters of faith and morals.

The rest is tradition with a small “t” and disciplines and practices which are not defined.

Thank you for your opinion, but while these are “binding*,” the number of binding doctrines is open to some interpretation, as “The degree in which the infallible magisterium of the Holy See is committed must be judged from the circumstances, and from the language used in the particular case.(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm)

Thus there is is disagreement even over how many infallible papal statements have been made, from 20 or less to perhaps many more.

Recently, the Vatican official responsible for relations with the Jews, stated that,

The Catholic Church's relationship to Judaism as taught by the Second Vatican Council and the interpretations and developments of that teaching by subsequent popes, "are binding on a Catholic... "All the doctrinal decisions of the church are binding on a Catholic, including the Second Vatican Council and all its texts," Cardinal Koch said. (May 17, 2012, http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=31359&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cathnews%2FRSS+%28CathNews%29)

But just what doctrinal decisions are can see different interpretations:

The Second Vatican Council’s declarations on non-Christian religions and religious freedom do not contain “binding doctrinal content,” Cardinal Walter Brandmüller said at a press conference on May 21 [2012]...Stating that the conciliar documents have differing degrees of authority, Cardinal Brandmuller said that “there is a huge difference between a great constitution and simple declarations.”

Strangely enough, the two most controversial documents [on religious liberty and relations with non-Christian religions] do not have a binding doctrinal content, so one can dialogue about them,” he continued. “So I don’t understand why our friends in the Society of St. Pius X concentrate almost exclusively on these two texts.(http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14369)

And the SSPX (partly) and sedevacantists reject Vatican Two teaching as being binding. (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/renew2.html)

In addition, your list is shorter than what i see.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1998, provided a partial list of “those doctrines of divine and catholic faith which the Church taught as divinely and formally revealed. . ."

(http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM)

Then there is the priest:

God Himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priest, and either not to pardon or

to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution… The sentence of the priest precedes,

and God subscribes to it.” – Dignity and Duties of the Priest, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Vol. 12, p. 2. http://www.archive.org/stream/alphonsusworks12liguuoft/alphonsusworks12liguuoft_djvu.txt


* Mysterium Ecclesia says,

"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or transmitted Word of God and which are proposed by the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, to be believed as having been divinely revealed" (dogmas).

Very briefly, infallible teaching (existing in 2 categories) is binding in an absolute and irrevocable way, requiring assent “de fide” (of faith) or sacred assent. Below that is teaching which requires submission, with an obsequium religiosum, often called “a religious assent of mind and will.” or ordinary assent. Private dissent may be allowed for such, with a submissive spirit. (cf. CCC 891,92, http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/assent-dissent.htm)

A fourth category, ordinary prudential teaching on disciplinary matters, is commonly accepted by theologians and can be inferred from the text of Cardinal Ratzinger’s Donum Veritatis. (http://catholicism.org/the-three-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html)

Outside infallible decrees, other teachings are subject to the possibility of error, even on matters of faith and morals, but never to such an extent that any error, or set of errors, could lead the faithful away from the path of salvation. (http://www.catholicplanet.com/CMA/heresy-infallibility.htm)

217 posted on 06/05/2012 8:07:55 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; RFEngineer
Do you think a marriage between a man and a seven year old girl is a valid marriage or should the Church nullify it?

And just what is any priest in his right mind doing marrying a seven year old child?

No, it's not valid in any respect.

It is no excuse for an annulment because there was no marriage, it's child rape and needs to be prosecuted as the crime it is.

Do you think that a marriage against the will of either party is a valid marriage or should the Church nullify it?

Does not the couple go to pre-cana and should not the priest have determined that BEFORE marrying them? And in this day and age? Marrying against one's will?

We are past the days of arranged marriages but I simply cannot believe that all arranged marriages were entered into by willing partners and yet those marriages were considered valid and binding. Didn't amtter what the man and woman thought.

And where does God allow an exception for that anyway? Would you care to provide some Scripture to support that?

Do you think the marriage involving a seriously mentally disabled or unconscious person is invalid or should the Church nullify it?

See response to marrying a child. Do you mean to seriously assert that one of your priests is going to marry someone who is unconscious for the wedding? Really?

Or that the priest can't determine that someone is mentally deficient to the point that they ought not to marry?

So what business does he have marrying them in the first place?

Do you think that the marriage to someone who is already married to one or more other persons is a valid marriage or should the Church nullify it?

Bigamy is also a crime and the marriage is already not recognized by civil authorities. It doesn't take an annulment to admit that.


218 posted on 06/05/2012 8:11:55 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; Gamecock
Psst..... gamecock. Over here......

Then there is the priest: God Himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priest, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution… The sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it.” – Dignity and Duties of the Priest, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Vol. 12, p. 2.

http://www.archive.org/stream/alphonsusworks12liguuoft/alphonsusworks12liguuoft_djvu.txt

God is obliged to follow the whims of mere sinful, easily corruptible man.

Imagine that.

And Catholics wonder why people don't take them or their religion seriously.

1 John 1:9 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

219 posted on 06/05/2012 8:22:47 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"People who trust Christ alone for salvation and not their church are saved no matter what church they go to or if they even go at all."

Then why the constant lack of respect and the twaddle condemning Catholics because of Catholicism? Your actions don't match your rhetoric. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

"But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.”

"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." - 1 Peter 3:14-16

220 posted on 06/05/2012 8:23:30 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Then why the constant lack of respect and the twaddle condemning Catholics because of Catholicism?

And I've condemned Catholics instead of Catholicism where exactly?

It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

Physician, heal thyself.

221 posted on 06/05/2012 8:35:22 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"Bigamy is also a crime and the marriage is already not recognized by civil authorities. It doesn't take an annulment to admit that."

Catholicism is a global religion with members in every country and culture. The problems and issues are not limited to the inconveniences of your white bread community. More than a few priests and prospective spouses have been bamboozled in the premarriage counseling.

Polygamous marriages are recognized civilly in nearly fifty countries and even where illegal still occur. A civil recognition of an invalid marriage does not nullify it in the Church.

Historically there have been marriage contracts involving children. They are still common in India, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, in many parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia and often are done against the will of the women and often involve threats and coercion. Unless you are advocating the use of water-boarding and polygraphs errors are going to be made. When errant marriages have been performed the Church has an obligation and a process to recognize the error.

Peace be with you

222 posted on 06/05/2012 8:50:03 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: metmom
God is obliged to follow the whims of mere sinful, easily corruptible man. Imagine that.

Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. -John 20:23 (KJV)

This would be much easier if you didn't treat the Bible like a tray of hor' dourves.

223 posted on 06/05/2012 8:57:11 PM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
As long as a suitable excuse is provided, an annulment is a given which permits remarriage IN the church and that definitely is NOT following the stated dogmas of the Church

If a "suitable excuse is provided" who are you to invalidate it?

Cool your jets! The point is that what the Catholic Church has done in practice goes against what "she" claims in doctrine. If indeed the Catholic Church follows the same faith that the Apostles did, then it is fair to question how they actually perform in reality. The reason people bring up the "Ted Kennedy" issue is he was a well known, wealthy politician who made his Roman Catholic faith a part of his persona. When he was known as a philanderer and drunkard, among other failures of character, and he divorced his wife of 24 years with three children, he then decided he wanted to get remarried in the Catholic Church to his new honey, who was also Catholic. Canon law denies both the right to a Catholic marriage as well as receiving of the Eucharist to a divorced person who remarries - since the new marriage is seen as adultery in the eyes of the Church as the first marriage is still binding. The only option he had was to get an "official" annulment and the grounds were he did not enter the marriage with the intent to be faithful. That the Church granted an annulment as well as the new marriage on those grounds is an awful example to the world of how the Church views the marriage vows and it appears that money and fame can get you anything you want. THAT, my FRiend, is what I criticize and I have every right to. It is hardly been the exception as divorce among Catholics is no less rare than other religious groups.

224 posted on 06/05/2012 9:17:08 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
    The Nature of God, as in the Holy Trinity including the Nature of Jesus as True God and True Man

    The Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus

    The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

    The Perpetual Virginity of Mary

    The Assumption of Mary

    The Immaculate Conception of Mary

    Papal Infallibility regarding matters of faith and morals.

Interesting. Of the seven listed "MUST" be believed dogmas, I find only TWO that are proved by Holy Scripture. The others are not. Even of the ones that are Scriptural, there are differences in how they are interpreted. For example, "The Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus". It does no good to believe Jesus suffered and died on the cross and was raised again - even the demons believe that - without believing that He suffered and died for our sins and was raised for our justification. It is only by faith in the sacrifice of Christ for us that we can be saved - eternal life is the gift of God and we acquire that gift through faith. The Marian dogmas as well as Papal infallibility are NOT anywhere noted in Scripture to be believed to have eternal life nor were they Apostolic teachings. Even when they can narrow them down to seven - out of the hundreds others include - they are NOT salvific doctrines. That tells me a lot and reconfirms my decision to leave the false teachings of man-made religion for true, genuine Christianity.

225 posted on 06/05/2012 10:01:34 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; daniel1212
I believe you are just pecking at the surface here with this short list. Check out some of these links -- a lot more beliefs (dogmas, doctrines) than you would think.

And the thing is that most Christians believe them too!

Does Dogma Evolve?

Dogmas of the Catholic Church [Catholic Caucus]
[CATHOLIC CAUCUS] Our Lady and Dogmas: Pondering the Assumption (Launch of Rosary Crusade)
[CATHOLIC/FRIENDS CAUCUS] This dogmatic denunciation of dogma sponsored by a disorganized...
Preserved Sinless from the Moment of Humanity (Dogma of the Immaculate Conception) [Catholic Caucus]
The Decline of Dogma and the Decline of Church Membership
The Three D's -- Dogma, Doctrine and Discipline [Ecumenical]
Radio Replies First Volume - Dogma and reason
Radio Replies First Volume - Development of dogma
Docility (on Catholic dogma and infallibility)
Ineffabilis Deus: 8 December 1854 (Dogma of the Immaculate Conception)

226 posted on 06/05/2012 10:08:22 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: metmom
I don't think man is capable of understanding how God *sees* time. Times and seasons are mentioned in Scripture. Jesus came in the fullness of time. If time were all happening at once, there could be no fullness of time.

What could be more full than experiencing all of time at once. I do understand that what I tried to explain is a very difficult and deep concept and I only gave the "Readers Digest" version, but it is in fact the truth.

227 posted on 06/06/2012 2:34:56 AM PDT by verga (Party like it is 1773)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Jvette
Not really, having never been exposed to one before.

Seriously, you really expect someone to believe this? Every Sunday in Mass you heard The first reading from the OT, a Psalm which you were expected to respond to, The second Reading from the NT, followed by a reading from the Gospel, with a homily drawing the three readings together. During the Consecration, you heard the exact words that Jesus used at the last supper.

228 posted on 06/06/2012 2:46:24 AM PDT by verga (Party like it is 1773)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: papertyger; RFEngineer
I didn’t ask about sacraments. I didn’t ask about marriage, Catholic or otherwise. Would it make it easier for you to understand if I call it “unlife?” Are murder and natural death morally equal since they both result in unlife?

RFEngineer is going to keep dodging the question. He knows he is wrong but is to proud to admit his error.

229 posted on 06/06/2012 2:53:23 AM PDT by verga (Party like it is 1773)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer; Natural Law
Of course you ignore the fact that the vast majority of annulments are really divorces by another name.

And based on your extensive examination of every annulment case and complete understanding of the Catholic Religion you make this case.

Of course you ignore the fact that Marriage is viewed as a Sacrament in the Catholic Church and forms a covenant relationship, while the "Civil" aspect is for purposes of property rights.

You also of course realize that it is the intent of BOTH parties at the time of the marriage that determines the validity of the reception of the sacrament.

I mean seriously as such an expert on the Catholic Church you do understand all of these things. (I hope I don't have to put a /Sarc tag on this for RFEngineer)

230 posted on 06/06/2012 3:04:51 AM PDT by verga (Party like it is 1773)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: verga

“RFEngineer is going to keep dodging the question. He knows he is wrong but is to proud to admit his error.”

I don’t follow red herrings. When I’m presented with an apt analogy, I’ll be happy to address it.

Of course, I could simply whine that you’re making it personal, but I AM too proud to do that.


231 posted on 06/06/2012 3:43:38 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: verga

“You also of course realize that it is the intent of BOTH parties at the time of the marriage that determines the validity of the reception of the sacrament.”

Of course, I realize this. So does everyone. What is disingenuous is when Catholics want a divorce and remain in the church - and lie - claiming after the fact - that they were not intent on receiving the sacrament.

“I mean seriously as such an expert on the Catholic Church you do understand all of these things. (I hope I don’t have to put a /Sarc tag on this for RFEngineer)”

Apparently too many Catholics don’t take their religion seriously enough and allow this abuse of Church annulments to happen all to frequently.

How is it that this Protestant can see that and such devout and serious Catholics such as those on this thread cannot?

I guess I have more reverence for the actual intent of marriage in the Catholic church than most Catholics on this thread. Unlike those complaining about me - I actually respect the Catholic view on this subject - and the Catholic church would be much better off if so many Catholics did not make excuses for the annulments of the Kennedy-Gingrich convenience variety. Catholics might even gain converts by upholding traditional Catholic values rather than trying to accommodate Western lifestyles that too often include serial sacramental ceremonies of marriage within the Catholic church.


232 posted on 06/06/2012 3:57:12 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

So Kennedy’s wife was granted a divorce because Kennedy committed adultery and your religion gives him an annulment because he later told your religion that he knew from the get go that he couldn’t be faithful???

The Catholic wife then is in a pretty poor position...She was never legitimately married then but lived a life of sin creating a whole house full of kids...

What woman with kids would even consider getting a Catholic annulment??? And what about Kennedy...He created a herd of kids out of wedlock...

Let’s not forget, annulment means ‘never legitimately married’...

One word comes to mind...Fraud...I don’t know how you guys can discuss annulment with each other without breaking out into hilarious laughter...


233 posted on 06/06/2012 5:57:19 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Can your relgion annul a marriage when there has not been a divorce decreed???


234 posted on 06/06/2012 5:59:55 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: verga
What could be more full than experiencing all of time at once.

God is outside of time. He can look into it at anay point from which He chooses but that does not mean God *experiences* time.

And it does not mean what Jesus experienced while in time is what He is experiencing outside of time.

Scripture tells us and is quite clear that outside of time, in eternity, Jesus is seated at the right hand of God the Father, interceding for us.

He is not eternally dying because there is no value in the dying but in the death.

Suffering does not redeem or pay for sins, shedding of blood does.

Suffering teaches us but does not pay for sin.

Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Romans 5:3-5 3 Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.

Hebrews 5:8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.

235 posted on 06/06/2012 6:10:14 AM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

Ouch.....

Think any of them will get it?


236 posted on 06/06/2012 6:19:47 AM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: metmom
People who trust Christ alone for salvation and not their church are saved no matter what church they go to or if they even go at all.

That's Bible 101...Saved people were added to the church...No one did or could become a member of the Body of Christ without first being saved...As a result, there are no unsaved people in the 'church'...

And as you say, the church is not an organization...The church is an organism...

237 posted on 06/06/2012 6:25:28 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I really feel sorry for you.
You have been taught the truth and reject it.


238 posted on 06/06/2012 7:15:47 AM PDT by verga (Party like it is 1773)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: verga
God's word is the truth and I do not reject it.

John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

Ephesians 1:13-14 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

2 Timothy 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

Truth is not relative and is not subject to change. If someone changes it, it's no longer true.

Catholic doctrine has changed much over the years, often teaching contradictory things. Both CANNOT be true.

239 posted on 06/06/2012 10:36:22 AM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Interesting. Of the seven listed "MUST" be believed dogmas, I find only TWO that are proved by Holy Scripture. The others are not.

That is because it is not needful due to the last stated binding doctrine, "Papal Infallibility regarding matters of faith and morals". Which extends to ecumenical councils making universal F+M definitions in union with the pope, and by which she infallibly defined herself infallible, and thus the RC has assurance of this and all its thusly declares.

240 posted on 06/06/2012 11:34:01 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

There is also much i disagree with, but they supplement my other refs that show additional real or possible binding doctrines, and variance among Catholics as to what they all may be.


241 posted on 06/06/2012 12:30:52 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“Think any of them will get it?”

I don’t know. But the Pope agreed with me, but what does he know about Catholicism compared to those Catholics on this thread.


242 posted on 06/06/2012 12:50:59 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
But the Pope agreed with me, but what does he know about Catholicism compared to those Catholics on this thread.

Not much based on what I've been reading here.

243 posted on 06/06/2012 1:02:17 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
So Kennedy’s wife was granted a divorce because Kennedy committed adultery and your religion gives him an annulment because he later told your religion that he knew from the get go that he couldn’t be faithful???

What would you suggest be done, considering the annulment was granted ten years after the divorce and Joan didn't oppose it?

Besides, it's not like Catholics have exactly cornered the market where frauds are concerned.

244 posted on 06/06/2012 1:33:31 PM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Catholic doctrine has changed much over the years, often teaching contradictory things. Both CANNOT be true.

And if you had concrete examples of this you would have cited them.

245 posted on 06/06/2012 1:36:49 PM PDT by verga (Party like it is 1773)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
That the Church granted an annulment as well as the new marriage on those grounds is an awful example to the world of how the Church views the marriage vows and it appears that money and fame can get you anything you want.

And it only took ten years....

That money and fame will get you anything you want, but the service seems to be a little slow.

246 posted on 06/06/2012 1:41:51 PM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
"And it only took ten years...."

All an Annulment Tribunal can do is to determine the details at the time of the marriage and make a determination as to whether there were any circumstances that would have caused the marriage to be invalid. It does not have the ability to compel testimony or subpoena records. These things take time.

Peace be with you.

247 posted on 06/06/2012 2:43:35 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; Quix; smvoice
And what should be considered is that given the thousands of annulment based on the wide criteria (psychological abnormality, stubbornness, “Pauline privilege”, etc.,) and application of such, especially as understood in America, then multitudes of married Catholics may actually be not married.

And though i am hesitant to utterly disallow any extreme circumstances as possibly allowing grounds for anulment, yet in the Bible, although marriage as a commitment and social contract was generally understood, once a wife was taken — even foreign wives, or out lust, or even instead of the one contracted for, etc. — and the marriage was consummated, then such were considered to be married, and in no place are consummated marriages “annulled,” meaning they did not exist. Even concubines were wives. (Gn. 25:1; cf. 1Ch. 1:32; Gn. 30:4; cf. Gn. 35:22; 2Sam. 16:21, 22, cf. 2Sam. 20:3)

As regard the criteria for annulments:

MATRIMONIAL CONSENT

Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:

1/ those who lack the sufficient use of reason;

2/ those who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted;

3/ those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychic nature [all are judgment calls which can see varying verdicts].

List of diriment impediments to marriage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_impediment#List_of_diriment_impediments_to_marriage

Also, http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P3Z.HTM:

Catholic Diocese of Arlington

What are some possible grounds for annulment?

Among the signs that might indicate reasons to investigate for an annulment are: marriage that excluded at the time of the wedding the right to children, or to a permanent marriage, or to an exclusive commitment. In addition, there are youthful marriages; marriages of very short duration; marriages marked by serious emotional, physical, or substance abuse; deviant sexual practices; profound and consistent irresponsibility and lack of commitment; conditional consent to a marriage; fraud or deceit to elicit spousal consent; serious mental illness; or a previous bond of marriage. The determination of the ground should be made after extensive consultation with the parish priest or deacons, and based upon the proofs that are available. http://www.arlingtondiocese.org/tribunal/faq.php#Grounds

Alsp see http://www.americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac1002.asp

The annulment crisis in the Church

By Fr. Leonard Kennedy

Divorce
Church : Divorce

The annulment crisis in the Church
By Fr. Leonard Kennedy
Issue: March 1999 [excerpt]

   

Review Article:

Robert H. Vasoli, What God has joined together (Oxford University Press, 1998, 252 pages, hardcover, $40 Canadian).

Annulments booming
The United States has 6% of the world's Catholics but grants 78% percent of the world's annulments. In 1968 the Church there granted fewer than 600 annulments; from 1984 to 1994 it granted just under 59,000 annually. But more than 90% of the cases which were appealed to the highest matrimonial court, the Roman Rota, were overturned.

The author gives several reasons for the incredible growth in American annulments;

1. There is advertising in church bulletins, Catholic newspapers, and even the secular press, that annulments are available, sometimes with a suggested guarantee that they will be granted. "Some invitations practically promise an annulment to all who apply. The promotional efforts . . . may evoke responses from . . . spouses who dream of greener marital pastures but would not seriously consider separation and divorce were annulment not presented as a convenient and acceptable alternative."

One brochure said: "Usually once a request for annulment is accepted, a favorable decision is given. However, a careful review is made before a request is accepted . . . . A ëfavorable' decision is synonymous with annulment; evidently upholding the validity of marriage is ëunfavorable.'"

2. Most petitions are presented to judges without proper screening. "No fewer than 66 of the 165 diocesan and archdiocesan tribunals . . . decided to go to trial with every petition presented."

3. A high percentage of cases that are tried end in a declaration of nullity. From 1984 to 1994 it was 97% for First Instance trials. All cases however have to have a second trial. The percentage of decisions overturned in the United States is 4/10 of 1%. "What the picture reveals is that mandatory review, and appeals leading to retrials at Second Instance, have done very little to tarnish America's reputation as the annulment capital of the universe."

4. Many matrimonial judges are not well qualified for their work, lacking a doctorate or a licentiate in canon law. Sometimes judges of the First Instance are also judges (on other cases) of the Second Instance, which is not good practice. Three judges are recommended for trials, but most often there is only one (which is allowed with permission).

5. "In practice . . . many if not most tribunal experts seldom conduct a direct, face-to-face examination of either spouse." "Cases have come to my attention where the expert . . . arrived at a diagnosis of defective consent solely by means of a telephone conversation with a tribunal judge . . . . In most judicial systems, attempts to introduce into evidence expert diagnosis of that nature would be laughed out of court."

6.Sometimes the Defender of the Bond does not have a canon law degree and his opinion can be easily overruled by a highly trained judge.

7.Respondents are usually not fully informed of all their options.

8.Rather than considering the detrimental effect on respect for the sacrament of marriage which is caused by the scandal of almost automatic annulment, and the cynicism produced in some of the parties to an annulment and in Catholics generally, those handling the annulments concentrate on sympathy for their clients, or often just for the one initiating the annulment.

9.Theologians argue that in certain papal documents, such as Gaudium et spes and Casti Connubii, the Church has changed the definition of marriage. This argument is fallacious.

10.Many judges think that, if a marriage is not an ideal one, it is not a valid marriage at all, and that therefore an annulment should be granted to any marriage that has broken up.

11.68% of annulments today are granted because of "defective consent," which involves at least one of the parties not having sufficient knowledge or maturity to know what was involved in marriage. The ingenuity of judges in confidently asserting that such knowledge or maturity was lacking is amazing. Vasoli says that it is done by substituting "junk psychology" for sound psychology and psychiatry. He quotes the statement of one matrimonial judge: "There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid."

http://www.catholicinsight.com/online/church/divorce/c_annul.shtml

Also see A Canadian Respondent's experience of success with the Annulment process

http://www.saveoursacrament.org/Canada.html

It is also noteworthy that while in principal that Rome considers entering marriage with the intention of never having children to be a "grave wrong and more than likely grounds for an annulment."[25] , while praying to a women who apparently went thru with a marriage intending to do just that, according to some Roman apologetics.

In addition is the extreme views by of certain church “father's” on marriage, and problematic reasoning behind some of it, which is another topic.

248 posted on 06/06/2012 3:27:50 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: metmom

All Christians, baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are members of the Body of Christ, which is the Church, as we are told by Paul in Colossians.

One’s baptism cannot be undone.

As for Catholics who are actually Protestants, there is a misconception by them and many Protestants, that just because one attends Mass and receives the Eucharist, one is Catholic.

But, that is wrong.

One receives because one is Catholic. As Justin Martyr said in his letter to Caesar circa 150AD,

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.

He is telling us here that the Eucharist is for those who believe what “we” teach are true. If one is receiving the Eucharist, then they are not Catholic in there beliefs and lives, they are in fact, Protestant and should not be receiving the Eucharist.


249 posted on 06/06/2012 4:02:02 PM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

****Thank you for your opinion, but while these are “binding*,” the number of binding doctrines is open to some interpretation, as “The degree in which the infallible magisterium of the Holy See is committed must be judged from the circumstances, and from the language used in the particular case.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm) *****

Those listed are binding doctrines, but there are many subsets and subtexts within them which flow from them.

For instance, Pope John Paul II, infallibly declared that the Church cannot ordain women. The question of women as priests has been around for a long time though some would like to think they are the first to foment dissension with the Church over it.

JPII did not declare anything new, it has always been the teaching of the Church that women are not to be ordained to the priesthood. This declaration was made and the reasons given are directly related to the Nature of Jesus.

Now the Nature of Jesus covers many, many topics, among them our own nature as humans.

The list is a synopsis and not an exhaustive point by point relating of what a Catholic is bound to believe.

To give details on each of them, and all the different topics they cover would be extremely time consuming.

Your longer list actually contains items which can be placed under the “umbrella” of one or another of m

The articles of faith of the Creed

The various Christological dogmas and Marian dogmas

The doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace

The doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration

The foundation of the Church by the will of Christ

The doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff

All of these are directly related to the nature of God, and Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 18:18

18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


250 posted on 06/06/2012 4:17:14 PM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 1,051-1,062 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson