Catholic Converts to Protestantism

[Tis_Bearself]

Why would you assume someone sincerely participating in the sacraments doesn’t have charity?

Sounds kind of like Pope Francis when he assumes people who say prayers are just insincerely saying words.

Of course we need faith, hope and charity at all times, and the Sacraments help us grow in all three.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

An annulment is a divorce, saying otherwise is playing semantics games.

This is definitely not Catholic teaching.

 

[Hodos]

This is definitely not Catholic teaching.

I agree annulment isn’t catholic, although it is a practice of the Church. Jesus didn’t allow the Pharisees to play semantics games with regard to marriage in Matthew 19. Changing the vocabulary from divorce to annulment doesn’t change the act.

 

[HopkinsReb]

An annulment is a divorce, saying otherwise is playing semantics games.

How can an unmarried person get a divorce?

By your avoidance of the question, I will accept your tacit admission that this doctrine has no scriptural basis and is an innovation, not an apostolic deposit of faith.

I have made no such admission. Just because it wasn’t written down in one of the letters they wrote to specific churches to address specific issues going on in their specific time does not mean that they did not institute it in the churches.

 

[Hodos]

How can an unmarried person get a divorce?

Annulments are granted to persons who have been married according to civil law. It is by definition a divorce, you have just played a bait and switch game with the terminology to allow for divorce in cases where you think it is morally palatable.

I have made no such admission. Just because it wasn’t written down in one of the letters they wrote to specific churches to address specific issues going on in their specific time does not mean that they did not institute it in the churches.

And yet, the doctrine contradicts what was revealed in scripture, hence it isn’t valid doctrine. The argument here isn’t just that it cannot be found in scripture (it can’t), its that it actually violates what is revealed in scripture (1 Corinthians 11).

 

[HopkinsReb]

Annulments are granted to persons who have been married according to civil law.

God’s law trumps man’s. Whether one is married in the eyes of the state has little to do with whether one is married in the eyes of God.

And yet, the doctrine contradicts what was revealed in scripture, hence it isn’t valid doctrine.

Where does scripture say that any old Joe can confect the Eucharist?

 

[Hodos]

God’s law trumps man’s. Whether one is married in the eyes of the state has little to do with whether one is married in the eyes of God.

And God considered civil marriage as legally binding in Leviticus. So again, you are playing semantics games.

Where does scripture say that any old Joe can confect the Eucharist?

Again, where does scripture say that Christ isn’t present in the Eucharist if the congregants are unworthy of receiving it? 1 Corinthians 11 demonstrates that Christ is present.

 

[HopkinsReb]

And God considered civil marriage as legally binding in Leviticus.

Do you also avoid wearing clothes of mixed fabrics? OT legalism isn’t the defining factor.

Again, where does scripture say that Christ isn’t present in the Eucharist if the congregants are unworthy of receiving it? 1 Corinthians 11 demonstrates that Christ is present.

You’re still begging the question of sola scriptura. This discussion is fruitless, because we simply come from different bases of argument. Later.

 

[Hodos]

Do you also avoid wearing clothes of mixed fabrics? OT legalism isn’t the defining factor.

This isn’t ceremonial law which has been rescinded due to the redemption of both Jew and Gentile by Christ. Are you seriously arguing that marriage no longer exists as an institution because the Holiness codes were explicitly rescinded in the NT? Not much of an exegetical position to stand on there. And again, marriage was enacted in civil contracts both in the OT and NT, and Jesus still said they were binding.

You’re still begging the question of sola scriptura. This discussion is fruitless, because we simply come from different bases of argument. Later.

I agree.

 

[rose321]

I encourage you to come to the church and give yourself totally to it.

Respectfully not to offend…written Jesus desires us to go to him and tells us where every 2 or 3 are gathered in my name I am there…right

For unity, oneness, harmony for it is not about us, but all about our Heavenly Father who made it all about us, when He came did not and he came for all walks in Life? . Peace

 

[rightness]

To take the sacraments is not an end, but a means to love God more. So are those who take the eucharistic testify to a charity better than the Protestants who do not take them? So let’s not forget that to whom God have given a lot, they will also have to give back a lot. So maybe these Protestants who do not take the Eucharist will be even more advantaged than us

To not partake in the Eucharist is to reject Jesus’s entire mission in becoming flesh with us in the first place. Jesus’s death on the cross isn’t to redeem us. His death on the cross is to complete the Eucharistic sacrifice. His sacrifice on the cross is meaningless unless we partake in the Eucharist. When we take the Eucharist, we renew our Covenant with God (or enter the Covenant if it’s the first Eucharist).

If you get a chance to read Scott Hahn’s “The Lamb Supper”, you will find how the Covenant of Israelites is a typology of Jesus’s Covenant with us. An umblemished lamb had to be killed, its blood painted on the door post, and, finally, the lamb had to be eaten. If the lamb wasn’t eaten, then the firstborn would die, and the Covenant would not be established. Jesus is the Lamb of God, and He sets up His Passion to be exactly like the Passover Supper of Exodus. If we don’t partake in the Eucharist, we don’t enter a Covenant.

And what is a Covenant? Quite simply put, it’s a marriage union for the exchange of life that God created since the beginning with Adam and Eve. The Catechism states that a marriage isn’t bonded until the man and wife consummates, becoming one flesh. So how does Jesus consummates with us most intimately? He becomes the Bread of Life for us to eat so we can become one flesh. This is the supernatural grace given to us by Him through His sacrifice.

God didn’t create this Covenant expecting something back. God will give endlessly without asking, and we should be giving endlessly without asking, and this is a true Covenantal marriage union.

 

[rightness]

An annulment is a divorce, saying otherwise is playing semantics games.

That’s not what annulment means. I suggest reading the Catechism on marriage, and the definition of annulment in CCC 1629.

The Church will need to investigate the case of annulment to see if the marriage never took place. The four marriage requirements are to be free to marry, to be able to consent freely, to intend to marry for life, and to be fruitful.

Example, if a man had put a gun to the woman to force her to marry, then an annulment will acknowledge the marriage never took place.

Second example, if a man married a woman and hid the fact that he is not equipped to perform the conjugal act, which violates the fourth requirement, then the marriage can be annulled. Consummation is a requirement for the marriage.

Third example is an extension of the second one. When Catherine of Aragon, first wife of King Henry VIII, had first married Arthur, Prince of Wales, they had never consummated. After Arthur died of illness, she testified that she never consummated with Arthur in order to get a dispensation of the canon law forbidding marrying the brother’s widow and annulling the marriage.

When King Henry VIII infamously wanted the annulment from Catherine of Aragon, the Pope refused it because they had already consummated and had children. King Henry VIII took matters into his own hands and thus Anglicanism was born. Of course, God’s laws are above any nations, so what King Henry VIII did was a grave offense to God. This applies to your argument about civil unions.

Since civil unions are not calling God’s name to make it sacramental, the Church considers it dissoluble, but valid since the man and woman could become Christian, making it sacramental. In fact, the Pauline and Petrine Privileges allow a non-sacramental marriage to be dissoluble to allow either members to enter a sacramental union for the sake of becoming a Christian or in a Christian marriage.

Keep in mind that the sacredness of a sacramental Covenant union is defined and carried out by God. Our Father had shown us that He had never given up on us or divorced us since the beginning, even when we blaspheme Him and commit adultery against Him (by worshiping other Gods), and that is the model the Catholic Church recognizes and practices: a marriage union that can never be broken to imitate Our Father’s Covenantal union with us.

 

[Hodos]

I agree with points one and two, I disagree with points three and four. There is nowhere in the Bible that states that marriage must produce children, and in fact, there are many examples where people were validly married but were unable to conceive. Jesus in Matthew 19 does not give license for divorce for this reason. This is a clear departure from scripture with regard to divorce. Also, to try to determine someone’s intentions is speculation at best, at again, is contradictory to what Christ says in Matthew 19. This is why I say that the issue of annulment is essentially a semantics game. Read any forum post here where someone is asking whether they can get an annulment for XX reason, and you will see what I mean.

Since civil unions are not calling God’s name to make it sacramental, the Church considers it dissoluble, but valid since the man and woman could become Christian, making it sacramental.

Again, marriage in both the Old and New Testament were civil acts, engaged between two parties, not involving the Church or temple authorities. “Considering” it dissoluble because it was enacted by the civil authorities is another example of Church defining something ahistorically making this a semantics game. We would disagree on the definition of a sacrament, so I won’t really address that portion of your argument.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Consummation is a requirement for the marriage.

I recently heard, from Fradd, I think, that this is not the case. After all, the priest declares them husband and wife, not “husband and wife conditional on doing the do.”

 

[vsedriver]

Can I be a sort of loyal opposition from within the Church?

what is it that you oppose in the Church?

 

[rightness]

Again, marriage in both the Old and New Testament were civil acts, engaged between two parties, not involving the Church or temple authorities. “Considering” it dissoluble because it was enacted by the civil authorities is another example of Church defining something ahistorically making this a semantics game. We would disagree on the definition of a sacrament, so I won’t really address that portion of your argument.

Civil acts are not calling upon God’s name for the marriage union.

If you don’t understand that, then read Mathew 19:1-12, then read Genesis 2 because that’s where Jesus is pointing to in that Gospel passage.

I recently heard, from Fradd, I think, that this is not the case. After all, the priest declares them husband and wife, not “husband and wife conditional on doing the do.”

It is the case because of Genesis 2:24. Here’s an answer that points to Canon Law 1084:

https://www.catholic.com/index.php/qa/marriage-and-consummation

Now, I didn’t talk about it because my reply was already so long, but wanted to, that Josephite marriage in which the man and woman consecrate themselves to God and remain celibate. Josephite marriages are valid because they are able to consummate, but freely choose not to. If they remain unconsummated, their marriage is dissoluble for the sake that one member does want to have children, which is a good thing along with celibacy. If they do consummate, then the two becomes one flesh and can never be parted again. Jimmy Akin writes about it here:

http://jimmyakin.com/2005/07/marys_marriage-2.html

“Consummation thus changes the status of certain marriages (sacramental ones) but it is not necessary for marriage to be valid. Consequently, it was not necessary for Mary and Joseph’s marriage to be valid.”

 

[rose321]

“There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved.” - Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215

“We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” - Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302

“The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her… No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” - Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, 1441

Let others do as thy will. This teaching is what keeps me in the Catholic Church.

Respectfully never read this before thanks for posting,
Peace

 

[Hodos]

Civil acts are not calling upon God’s name for the marriage union.

If you don’t understand that, then read Mathew 19:1-12, then read Genesis 2 because that’s where Jesus is pointing to in that Gospel passage.

I have been referring to Matthew 19 the entire time in refuting the idea that annulment is not divorce. And again, going back to all the Old and New Testament passages that speak about marriage, and given the historical way in which marriage was conducted in Israel and 1st Century Judea, marriage was conducted by the civil authorities and God honored that. Any other stance is ahistorical and isn’t supported by scripture.

Now, I didn’t talk about it because my reply was already so long, but wanted to, that Josephite marriage in which the man and woman consecrate themselves to God and remain celibate.

This is supported nowhere in history or scripture. This is an anachronistic category of marriage created to justify the perpetual virginity. So I don’t accept this as a valid argument.

 

[rightness]

Respectfully never read this before thanks for posting…

Sorry, had to cut your quote to fit my reply.

I think you should reflect on what Jesus said in John 17:21: “that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”

Then in Matthew 16:18-19: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Further explained by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:12-31, which I won’t quote because that’s quite long.

Essentially, all baptized are a part of the Body of Christ. His body is the Church, the true Church which he had founded on Peter, the Roman Catholic Church. Jesus wishes all of us to be united in the Church he founded.

Now for all those who had separated from the Roman Catholic Church, it is essentially separating from the Body of Christ. Salvation is understood to be how unified we are with Christ at the time of our deaths. For example, when protestant churches were formed, they still contain partial truths of the Catholic Church that keeps protestants still bound with the Body of Christ, but not completely. In order to completely be completely unified with the Body of Christ, each person must profess faith to the Church Jesus had founded on Peter, the Roman Catholic Church and all her teachings.

In correlation to the Cantate Domino, Pope Pius X did elaborate on it in the catechism in regards to having Full Knowledge to be a sin.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.HTM#Preliminary

Q . But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?

A . If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation

1 Timothy 3:15, Paul says that the Catholic Church is the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth”. Those that knowingly reject it, like Martin Luther had, will have their salvation compromised, but none of us will know Martin Luther’s judgement except God and those with the beatific vision. So if any protestants remain in the dark about the Catholic faith, their salvation may be in good standing, but if they do know and openly oppose it, then their salvation will be compromised.

 

[rightness]

I have been referring to Matthew 19 the entire time in refuting the idea that annulment is not divorce. And again, going back to all the Old and New Testament passages that speak about marriage, and given the historical way in which marriage was conducted in Israel and 1st Century Judea, marriage was conducted by the civil authorities and God honored that. Any other stance is ahistorical and isn’t supported by scripture.

This is supported nowhere in history or scripture. This is an anachronistic category of marriage created to justify the perpetual virginity. So I don’t accept this as a valid argument.

Well, if you openly oppose Jesus’s teachings in Matthew 19, and God’s commandment in Genesis 2, I don’t know what else to say.

The entire foundation of the Church and Faith in God is based on Sacramental Marriage. You’re arguing for certain time of history, but as Jesus put it, since the very beginning, God created marriage, and no man can put asunder to what God has made.

I sincerely hope you ponder upon it and pray for clarity because you are not seeing the truth.