Catholic Converts to Protestantism

[Hodos]

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.

I don’t oppose it. I am openly upholding it and arguing that the Catholic Church is actually taking the Pharisaic view of divorce by essentially creating loopholes as the Pharisees did. That being said, I also believe that Matthew didn’t end at Chapter 19, it ended with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and I am pleased to see Pope Francis entertaining the thought that those who have sinned through divorce and remarriage can repent and be readmitted to the communion rail.

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.

Again, I am not arguing against marriage, and in fact, my argument is based upon God’s intent in creation and is taking a higher view of marriage than you are taking by accepting the current view of annulment by the Catholic Church. With regard to marriage as a sacrament, we have different definitions of sacrament so I am not taking a stance on that because we would be talking past one another without an agreed upon definition.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Pope Francis entertaining the thought that those who have sinned through divorce and remarriage can repent and be readmitted to the communion rail.

Hasn’t this always been the position, that one can repent and be readmitted? Operative word being “repent,” as evidenced by no longer living with the second “spouse.”

 

[Hodos]

Hasn’t this always been the position, that one can repent and be readmitted? Operative word being “repent,” as evidenced by no longer living with the second “spouse.”

I would agree, perhaps the wording I should use is that some have taught otherwise in contradiction to the correct teaching of the Church, and Francis is possibly willing to correct that. It is always hard to tell with Francis. He is notorious for his choice in wording and unwillingness to clarify.

 

[HopkinsReb]

HopkinsReb:

Hasn’t this always been the position, that one can repent and be readmitted? Operative word being “repent,” as evidenced by no longer living with the second “spouse.”

I would agree, perhaps the wording I should use is that some have taught otherwise in contradiction to the correct teaching of the Church.

Yeah, the fear with Pope Francis, as I understand it, has been that he’ll kill the need to repent.

 

[Hodos]

Yeah, the fear with Pope Francis, as I understand it, has been that he’ll kill the need to repent.

Yeah, that would be falling off the other side of the tightrope.

 

[rightness]

I don’t oppose it. I am openly upholding it and arguing that the Catholic Church is actually taking the Pharisaic view of divorce by essentially creating loopholes as the Pharisees did. That being said, I also believe that Matthew didn’t end at Chapter 19, it ended with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and I am pleased to see Pope Francis entertaining the thought that those who have sinned through divorce and remarriage can repent and be readmitted to the communion rail.

Again, I am not arguing against marriage, and in fact, my argument is based upon God’s intent in creation. With regard to marriage as a sacrament, we have different definitions of sacrament so I am not taking a stance on that because we would be talking past one another without an agreed upon definition.

I think you should read about what Pope Francis really is saying. It is not a blanket statement to allow any divorced and remarried person to partake in the Eucharist. Only in certain circumstances as Jimmy Akin points out here: Divorce, Remarriage, and Communion | Catholic Answers. God is merciful, even to those who are in a perpetual state of the sin of adultery through divorce and remarriage.

And the definition of annulment is binding Church teaching and Canon Law. It isn’t a “Pharisee loophole”. And isn’t a different definition between you and I, it’s the definition of the Catholic Church and all her people and your definition. I do sense there is a reason you’re fighting this definition. I suggest you talk to your priest about it for further clarity.

 

[GKMotley]

Man, a lot of huffing and puffing on decree of nullity here.

This is in reply to nothing in particular.

A decree of nullity, in the RCC, declares that no marriage had been made, ab initio, due to a variety of reasons referred to as impediments. Undispensed impediments meant that the sacrament of marriage had never taken place. Like attempting to consecrate tea and rice cakes, in the Eucharist. No confection of the sacrament.

Impediments to the sacrament of marriage generally fall into categories of affinity, consanguinity, or justice of the public honesty, plus a hodgepodge of other things, like force or mental incapacity.

NB: Impediments change, over time. Trent (Session XXIV) started some needed reform.

If a civil marriage has a discoverable impediment (undispensed, if diriment), the Church would declare that marriage invalid, ab initio. A brother /sister civil marriage (if one imagines such) would receive a decree of nullity, in the Church’s eyes, whatever its legality in the civil realm, due to an impediment of consanguinity. A decree of nullity does not break a valid marriage, but declares no valid marriage to have taken place .

Someone prove me wrong.

 

[HopkinsReb]

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

Counterpoint: a man and a man can have a civil marriage in the US. Does that mean that the Church must recognize that as a valid marriage?

 

[Wannano]

Hodos:

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

Counterpoint: a man and a man can have a civil marriage in the US. Does that mean that the Church must recognize that as a valid marriage?

See the link in post 37. Don’t know if the daddies got married in the CC but the CC is baptizing their baby!

 

[HopkinsReb]

HopkinsReb:

Hodos:

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

Counterpoint: a man and a man can have a civil marriage in the US. Does that mean that the Church must recognize that as a valid marriage?

See the link in post 37. Don’t know if the daddies got married in the CC but the CC is baptizing their baby!

YIKES!

That’s quite terrible. But I’m not getting so much at the question of whether the RCC is perfect in practice as at the question of whether the Church is actually obligated to recognize the validity of civil marriages.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

HopkinsReb:

Hodos:

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

Counterpoint: a man and a man can have a civil marriage in the US. Does that mean that the Church must recognize that as a valid marriage?

See the link in post 37. Don’t know if the daddies got married in the CC but the CC is baptizing their baby!

YIKES!

That’s quite terrible. But I’m not getting so much at the question of whether the RCC is perfect in practice as at the question of whether the Church is actually obligated to recognize the validity of civil marriages.

If they do not recognize the validity of civil marriages how can they demand a civil divorce before they consider an annulment?

 

[rightness]

See the link in post 37. Don’t know if the daddies got married in the CC but the CC is baptizing their baby!

That actually has no relation to HopkinsReb’s point.

Baptism is available for all, and whatever the parents’ sin may be has no bearing on the child’s baptism.
In fact, no one knows if the child will grow up rejecting the parents’ teachings on same-sex marriage and embraces the Catholic teaching instead, and that can only be achieved by at least baptizing the child.

God will work in supernatural ways if the child grows up and cooperates with Him.

 

[HopkinsReb]

HopkinsReb:

Wannano:

HopkinsReb:

Hodos:

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

Counterpoint: a man and a man can have a civil marriage in the US. Does that mean that the Church must recognize that as a valid marriage?

See the link in post 37. Don’t know if the daddies got married in the CC but the CC is baptizing their baby!

YIKES!

That’s quite terrible. But I’m not getting so much at the question of whether the RCC is perfect in practice as at the question of whether the Church is actually obligated to recognize the validity of civil marriages.

If they do not recognize the validity of civil marriages how can they demand a civil divorce before they consider an annulment?

Doesn’t answer my question. Answer my question, then ask yours.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

See the link in post 37. Don’t know if the daddies got married in the CC but the CC is baptizing their baby!

That actually has no relation to HopkinsReb’s point.

Baptism is available for all, and whatever the parents’ sin may be has no bearing on the child’s baptism.
In fact, no one knows if the child will grow up rejecting the parents’ teachings on same-sex marriage and embraces the Catholic teaching instead, and that can only be achieved by at least baptizing the child.

God will work in supernatural ways if the child grows up and cooperates with Him.

I thought it would apply because I would expect that the CC would expect the parents askin for a child’s baptism to be married.

 

[HopkinsReb]

rightness:

Wannano:

See the link in post 37. Don’t know if the daddies got married in the CC but the CC is baptizing their baby!

That actually has no relation to HopkinsReb’s point.

Baptism is available for all, and whatever the parents’ sin may be has no bearing on the child’s baptism.
In fact, no one knows if the child will grow up rejecting the parents’ teachings on same-sex marriage and embraces the Catholic teaching instead, and that can only be achieved by at least baptizing the child.

God will work in supernatural ways if the child grows up and cooperates with Him.

I thought it would apply because I would expect that the CC would expect the parents askin for a child’s baptism to be married.

I’m pretty sure the rule in the CC is that you’re only supposed to baptize a child if you have a reasonable hope that he’ll be raised in the faith. This baptism, while valid, would be considered illicit, as I understand it.

 

[GKMotley]

they do not recognize the validity of civil marriages how can they demand a civil divorce before they consider an annulment?

I think that a civil marriage, not invalid for reasons the Church declares to be impediments
is itself an impediment to a sacramental marriage.

Willing to learn. The point was not one to be considered in Henry’s time, which where my interest in the subject lies.

 

[HopkinsReb]

I think that a civil marriage, not invalid for reasons the Church declares to be impediments
is itself an impediment to a sacramental marriage.

I had to read this about five times to parse it out in my noggin. Doesn’t happen often with a properly-constructed sentence.

 

[GKMotley]

I left out a comma. Probably that was the problem.

 

[HopkinsReb]

I left out a comma. Probably that was the problem.

Ah, that is true. Good, I’m not losing my ability to read.

 

[GKMotley]

Here’s a couple of more you might need, if I left more than one out.

, ,