Articles on "Separated Brethren"

[dronald]

God can forgive the sin yes, but by marrying the couple makes a covenant between them and God. So, when the couple breaks that covenant without any purposeful reason they are actively denying God. So God can only forgive the sins of those who desire the means of repentance (i.e. confession and annulment).

it also comes down to Authority but that continues on in a different thread. The priest asks the couple many questions before being married which concern willingness to marry and so on. So, when the couple makes this agreement with the Church to whom God trusted all power to, they have to follow the guidelines.

So then someone who marries a second woman before becoming Catholic, even if he has spent years with her must then leave her because he was married before? God will consider the remarriage a continuous sin and thereby not forgive; even if one seeks forgiveness for the past and wants to start new.

 

[dronald]

.

Cute thou but you really should change your thinking if you think that kind of reasoning is going to fly with Catholics. …

2 tim 4:2preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.

Is more what I’m about to be honest.

 

[7_Sorrows]

So then someone who marries a second woman before becoming Catholic, even if he has spent years with her must then leave her because he was married before? God will consider the remarriage a continuous sin and thereby not forgive; even if one seeks forgiveness for the past and wants to start new.

No. He would not need to leave the second wife. He would have to get his first marriage annulled and if the second wife had also been married before she would have to do the same thing. As long as the Catholic church recognized earlier marriages as valid, there would have to be annullments.

 

[SyroMalankara]

So then someone who marries a second woman before becoming Catholic, even if he has spent years with her must then leave her because he was married before? God will consider the remarriage a continuous sin and thereby not forgive; even if one seeks forgiveness for the past and wants to start new.

Why would he or she have to leave? Until the recognition of nullity of the first marriage attempted, one is expected to live as any other celibate man or woman.

 

[dronald]

Why would he or she have to leave? Until the recognition of nullity of the first marriage attempted, one is expected to live as any other celibate man or woman.

Sure, that’s reasonable. But could the man pretty much be guaranteed annulment on the basis that his previous marriage was long ago, and before being a Catholic, therefore they’ve moved well on?

 

[Abu]

spedteacherita #63
It took the Reformation for the CC to see the problems and corruption that had been happening at the time.

False.

The Church is ‘held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy’ [Vatican II,* Lumen Gentium, art 39]. It is impossible for Christ’s Church to be otherwise than holy. Therefore Popes have apologised for the sins of Catholics, never for ‘the Church’.

December 19, 2012
What the Reformation has Wrought
by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap
Contemporary Problems Developed Over Centuries
Brad Gregory, the Notre Dame historian, seeks to show how we got this way in his recent book The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society.
Extracts:
“Late medieval clergy too often preached one thing and did another. Greed, simony, nepotism, luxury, sexual license, and schism in the hierarchy created an intolerable gap between Christian preaching and practice.

"Many Catholics worked for reform from within. Some had success. Franciscans, Dominicans, and Cistercians owe their origins to medieval reform. Humanists such as Erasmus and Thomas More were part of an international community of letters determined to renew Christian life from the inside. Saints such as Catherine of Siena and Bernard of Clairvaux spoke truth to ecclesiastical power.

“But one key difference separated these Catholic voices from the Protestant Reformers: The Catholics believed that the Church had her teachings right. She just needed to actually live them. The Catholics believed that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and other sacraments, in the Scriptures, in the saints, and in the Church’s historic doctrines offered an authentic, all-encompassing Christian way of life sufficient to sanctify human existence—if it was actually embraced and shorn of its abuses.
“The Protestants, preaching sola scriptura, threw much of it away.

“Competing interpretations of Scripture actually intensified the confusion. Lutherans read Scripture one way, Calvinists another, with varieties of Anglicans, Anabaptists, Baptists, Puritans, Pietists, Methodists, and Quakers veering off into options beyond counting.”

 

[eightydeuce82]

Sure, that’s reasonable. But could the man pretty much be guaranteed annulment on the basis that his previous marriage was long ago, and before being a Catholic, therefore they’ve moved well on?

No one is guaranteed an annulment. This is all very simple Jesus said not to divorce. So don’t divorce. If you do you have violated a command of Jesus. There is ZERO ways to explain your way out of this. Marriage is a covenant with God if you break it that’s on you.

Yes there are things that prevent a valid marriage say you were forced or pressured or a few others BUT that’s up to the church to decide as it has been for 2000 years.

So we can end the argument and questions here. Jesus said not to do it. Its even in the bible. If you do it your violating a command of Jesus and the Bible…not to mention 2000 years of Christian history and practice. The End

 

[dronald]

No one is guaranteed an annulment. This is all very simple Jesus said not to divorce. So don’t divorce. If you do you have violated a command of Jesus. There is ZERO ways to explain your way out of this. Marriage is a covenant with God if you break it that’s on you.

Yes there are things that prevent a valid marriage say you were forced or pressured or a few others BUT that’s up to the church to decide as it has been for 2000 years.

So we can end the argument and questions here. Jesus said not to do it. Its even in the bible. If you do it your violating a command of Jesus and the Bible…not to mention 2000 years of Christian history and practice. The End

My point is that someone may divorce and remarry (and I’m sure it’s happened numerous times) before knowing what Jesus had to say. So to ask that person to stop being married to their second wife is irrational; and I believe when someone comes to know Christ, their divorce/remarriage can be forgiven.

 

[eightydeuce82]

I always find this line of questioning very ironic…and were the ones who don’t take the bible literally? LOL!

Your not going to see a Catholic say “well this is what Jesus really meant” We take Christ’s words exactly for what they are. He said don’t divorce so we don’t. He said “this IS my body” and “truly truly I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the son of man you will have no life”…and we take Jesus at his word exactly as he said it. None of this well he was being symbolic nonsense. So this ALL Christians for 16 centuries. It took less than 300 years after the reformation to integrate divorce by twisting the scriptures and letting society taint the faith.

S tell us why so many questions about divorce. Your a bible believing Christian right? Why don’t you follow it?

 

[eightydeuce82]

My point is that someone may divorce and remarry (and I’m sure it’s happened numerous times) before knowing what Jesus had to say. So to ask that person to stop being married to their second wife is irrational; and I believe when someone comes to know Christ, their divorce/remarriage can be forgiven.

Where does it teach that in the bible?

 

[eightydeuce82]

So I guess were just inventing stuff that suits your sensibilities. I see how that works.

 

[dronald]

Cute thou but you really should change your thinking…

I always find this line of questioning very ironic…and were the ones who don’t take the bible literally? LOL!

.

S tell us why so many questions about divorce. Your a bible believing Christian right? Why don’t you follow it?

So I guess were just inventing stuff that suits your sensibilities. I see how that works.

Before we move on and I address some of your concerns, may I first ask why you are being so condescending to me? You speak of irony, and yet while telling me I’m ignoring the Bible you’re speaking in a way that the Apostles strictly rebuked; including a passage in Timothy I added.

I’ll gladly discuss some of our differences, as you say “Why so many questions.” My answer being that I’m curious and I disagree, so I like to read both sides and come to a potential conclusion as to what makes more sense. Who knows, I may end up agreeing with you; but I can’t speak to you when you’re acting this way.

 

[Bballer32]

Sure, that’s reasonable. But could the man pretty much be guaranteed annulment on the basis that his previous marriage was long ago, and before being a Catholic, therefore they’ve moved well on?

No. Long ago does make the marriage null. Here are just SOME of the examples that make a marriage invalid.

1. At least one partner didn’t fully & freely consent.
2. Someone wasn’t mature enough to understand the full extent of what they were doing.
3. There was never intent to be faithful.
4. One or both partners did not intend to be open to children.

Now of course someone could lie and say “#3 is what happened” and the marriage may be annulled. But if someone does lie about that they are more subject to God’s wrath and Judgment for bearing false witness and for never really wanting forgiveness.

 

[Bballer32]

My point is that someone may divorce and remarry (and I’m sure it’s happened numerous times) before knowing what Jesus had to say. So to ask that person to stop being married to their second wife is irrational.

No, I never said they should stop remarrying. They cannot be received fully into Christ or the Church until the previous marriage (or marriages) are resolved and found invalid (if that be the case).

and I believe when someone comes to know Christ, their divorce/remarriage can be forgiven.

I refer again back to the covenant argument that I made earlier. Christ strictly taught on the evils of divorce, thereby emphasizing the importance of the covenant of marriage. Sure Christ will pour out His mercy upon them, but full forgiveness cannot be resolved just by finding Christ. Christ still sees the previous marriage as a covenant and sees the person constantly in the state of sin by committing adultery (with the new marriage) because they are cheating on the original spouse.

So, yes their first sin is forgiven, but they continue to sin after that on the same matter until the marriage is found invalid.

 

[SyroMalankara]

My point is that someone may divorce and remarry (and I’m sure it’s happened numerous times) before knowing what Jesus had to say. So to ask that person to stop being married to their second wife is irrational; and I believe when someone comes to know Christ, their divorce/remarriage can be forgiven.

I see what you are asking. The point is, once an individual comes to know Christ and His Church, they will realize that they may not be really (spritually/sacramentally) married to their civilly married spouse. They are not asked to stop being married, they are asked to behave in a way that is appropriate considering the reality of their being a question regarding that there is really any marriage. A failed marriage can be forgiven, sure. Once it is recognized as a failure, repentance sought, forgiveness given, and an attempt to correct this made (declaration of nullity) if attempting to really properly marry.

One cannot tie forgiveness for a failed divorce with acknowledgment of a second attempt. They are two separate acts.

 

[dronald]

I see what you are asking. The point is, once an individual comes to know Christ and His Church, they will realize that they may not be really (spritually/sacramentally) married to their civilly married spouse. They are not asked to stop being married, they are asked to behave in a way that is appropriate considering the reality of their being a question regarding that there is really any marriage. A failed marriage can be forgiven, sure. Once it is recognized as a failure, repentance sought, forgiveness given, and an attempt to correct this made (declaration of nullity) if attempting to really properly marry.

One cannot tie forgiveness for a failed divorce with acknowledgment of a second attempt. They are two separate acts.

This makes absolute sense.

That’s basically what I’m getting at. A person gets married and divorces his wife. He later marries another and then even later comes to know Christ and becomes a member of the Catholic Church. I cannot imagine that this can not be resolved by the person recognizing the rules of Catholicism, recognizing their past mistakes with their new found life, and still being allowed to be with the woman he married the second time.

It doesn’t even sound rational to me that the man would have to leave his second wife and could only be bound to the first if that marriage had long ended, he had since had a second wife for a while, and had become a Catholic later in life. I can understand annulment being granted on the basis that his new found love for Christ came well after the second marriage. Does this make sense?

 

[benhur]

From CCC 2089:

"though in keeping with the pastoral *charity *of the Council "

Many Protestants hold views which are objectively heretical, but they are not formal heretics because of *invincible ignorance. *

Colin Donovan:
Heresy, Schism and Apostasy

.

So we go from being heretics to objective heretics while being separated brethren thru invincible ignorance ? Excuse me but where is the charity ?

 

[benhur]

Yes, I had a Lutheran friend that “hated” the term Protestant. I am NOT Protestant.
I am Lutheran he’d say. Then he seemed sad to realize that in my eyes he was protestant and certainly as a Lutheran Confessional with Luther protesting the Catholic Church every step of the way.

My own theory is that all protestants want to be thought of as “different” as those other “protestants” thus they prefer their denomination as their identification.

I am thinking some non Catholics don’t realize it would be impossible to track even the Lutherans and current beliefs given the varying synods and other Protestant denoms liberal and conservative and keep up to speed. No possible way.

That said I’m happy to oblige; after all I’d rater be called Catholic than a “Papist” which to me has a negative connotation.

Just my opinion,

Mary.

Hi Mary,

Do you like the label of Roman Catholic ?

Actually "Protestant’ is of Catholic Church coinage for "malcontents’’ . It is also came not from protesting any magisterium or church teaching but from a government restriction or recanting of previously given religious freedom.

Protestant to me is simple label to differentiate from being Catholic, useful for simple matters.

Blessings

 

[Bballer32]

So we go from being heretics to objective heretics while being separated brethren thru invincible ignorance ? Excuse me but where is the charity ?

Um…For starters, you are still heretics, whether or not you are now seen as separated brethren.

Secondly, our charity comes from evangelizing to you about the Truth that is in Jesus Christ and his Church. It’s sort of a tough love so to say because it challenges your beliefs in your religion and makes you question what you have grown up with.

Parents are great examples of tough love. For instance, a kid imagines in his mind that Storks bring babies, and he grows up with that idea. Eventually his parents will tell him the truth and how his idea of storks is false. The kid may cry or have issues with this for some time before realizing the Truth about where babies come from.

 

[benhur]

Um…For starters, you are still heretics, whether or not you are now seen as separated brethren.

Secondly, our charity comes from evangelizing to you about the Truth that is in Jesus Christ and his Church. It’s sort of a tough love so to say because it challenges your beliefs in your religion and makes you question what you have grown up with.

Parents are great examples of tough love. For instance, a kid imagines in his mind that Storks bring babies, and he grows up with that idea. Eventually his parents will tell him the truth and how his idea of storks is false. The kid may cry or have issues with this for some time before realizing the Truth about where babies come from.

Hi B

The thread poses a good question because rarely do you find the entire "package’’ of the theological standing of those outside of Rome. You find bits and pieces here and there, sometimes used for political (church) posturing.

I, like you I think, prefer to call an ace an ace , tell it like it is, don’t sugarcoat it etc.( like they did in the old days). I am not asking for charitable posturing or false ecumenicalism.

As an example does Vat 2 say we are heretics, even objective heretics ? I do not doubt the CC says it some where.

Finally, were there heretics in the early church who were still “brethren” ?