Catholicism Not really original

[Semper_Fi_1]

If you knew scripture like you seem to think you do, divorce is mentioned in the Bible and there are proper grounds expressed by Paul for it. It is your church who took it upon itself to supercede scripture and then say they were ordained to do so.

Divorce per-se isn’t the problem. The problem is divorce and re-marriage while one partner is still alive. This is adultry.

Catholicism doesn’t have an instrument for divorce. Divorce is a secular thing.

 

[Sixtus]

The Anglican Church is not the original Christian Church.

HERE HERE

Just like the Roman Catholic Church isn’t either

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

HERE HERE

Just like the Roman Catholic Church isn’t either

Are you Catholic? Because it says in your profile that you are.

 

[Mannyfit75]

HERE HERE

Just like the Roman Catholic Church isn’t either

The Catholic Church is the original Christian Church.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Did you know that Pope John Paul 2 wrote a will - but it disposes of no private property, because he had no private property of his own to dispose of. Now tell me he isn’t exactly like the poor fisherman Peter. And tell me that the Queen or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or even your local pastor, are similarly bereft of private property of their own. Whereas many Catholic clergy are indeed vowed to poverty and do indeed live out that vow.

This is true. The Vatican is owned by the Church so he couldn’t really will that.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Hmmm, I have to join the group of those who are greatly confused about the first post. The calendar was changed? So what? The Church is not (and was never) defined by it’s liturgical calendar. In fact the Gregorian Calendar is only a bit older than 400 years. That’s much less than 1977 years. The Calendar (still used by many Orthodox Churches) before that was call Julian and was introduced in 46 BC by Julius Caesar. This Calendar was traditional at that time but doesn’t even have Christian origins.

Look, calendar is not a dogma. This sounds almost like saying that we can prove that Catholic Church is not THE Church because it’s using wax candles and we all know that the early church wasn’t using them.

And since you’re Anglican and you’re saying that Catholics are no longer part of the Church because of the calendar then you are not part of it as well. Am I not correct?

Most Orthodox Churches, as well as Eastern Catholic Churches, use the revised Julian Calendar which is basically a Gregorian.

The liturgical calendar is what we Catholics call a discipline, it is not an infallible rule of faith that cannot change.

 

[jmcrae]

Perhaps I’m missing a major key ingredient in your statement here… so you are saying that the way we calculate time automatically determines the doctrinal basis of our religion and it’s originality?? I find your thinking here a bit disjointed, not to mention superficially irrelevant.

Actually, he was confusing the Gregorian calendar with the Liturgical calendar, but it’s the same problem - he has no idea what he is talking about.

The Church is quite free to change the names of the Sundays on the Liturgical Calendar from “Sundays After Epiphany” to “Sundays in Ordinary Time,” or even to “Sam, George, David, Jean, Martha, and Sally,” if it pleases to do so - this is what is meant when Jesus tells Peter that what he binds is bound and what he releases is released. Peter was given authority over the disciplines of the Church, and he passed that authority on down to the present-day Pope.

The Anglicans are also free to do whatever they want with their liturgical calendar, and if they want to copy what we used to do prior to 1960, I’m sure there’s no copyright violation involved.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Did you know that the Gregorian calender that you follow along with us Anglicans was altered in the Catholic church away from its original form? What you call ordinary time was originally not that at all. We still follow the calender in its true tradition by counting the Sundays after the saesons of Epiphany and Pentecost instead of merely referring to it as ordinary time. Who changed and who remained true to original tradition?

The change in the Calendar can be justified on grounds which are stated in the Book of Common Prayer - those of us who are RC could (if we wished) say that the CC is doing no more than avail itself of the same liberty to change certain matters (such as the calendar) to which the BCP appeals. ​

No article of faith is involved - not that there is anything to be said for change purely for the sake of it. ##

 

[Margaret33]

Actually, he was confusing the Gregorian calendar with the Liturgical calendar, but it’s the same problem - he has no idea what he is talking about.

The Church is quite free to change the names of the Sundays on the Liturgical Calendar from “Sundays After Epiphany” to “Sundays in Ordinary Time,” or even to “Sam, George, David, Jean, Martha, and Sally,” if it pleases to do so - this is what is meant when Jesus tells Peter that what he binds is bound and what he releases is released. Peter was given authority over the disciplines of the Church, and he passed that authority on down to the present-day Pope.

The Anglicans are also free to do whatever they want with their liturgical calendar, and if they want to copy what we used to do prior to 1960, I’m sure there’s no copyright violation involved.

I was trying to make the point you were here:

What has this got to do with anything? That’s like saying that my mother isn’t really my mother, because when I was born, she was poor, dressed in jeans, and lived out of her car, but now she has a big house and wears fancy dresses, goes to parties, and wears jewelry.

(just in a different way, not having read yours yet)… but yours was pretty funny!

Margaret

 

[LaSalle]

I will pray for all of you who have been distorted in this Lenten season. Have a good night my Christian brothers and sisters. I was Catholic for 34 years and I got out. The longer you are out of it, the clearer you can see the distortion and the brainwashing. May God be with you all.

Guys guys … give it up.

The OP has thrown in the towel … he’s skedaddled without putting forth any facts, documents, proofs for any of his assertions.

If he was catholic for 34 years without knowing anything about his faith, it sure looks like he’s now an Anglican … who knows little about his faith.

 

[Jabronie]

Look for yourself and see what Paul says about marriage and divorce. Stop trying to questions one’s knowledge of scripture when if you knew them you would know yourself that Paul was clear about divorce. Why would the Catholic church forbid divorce period when scripture allows for it. Isn’t that church teaching that doesn’t square with scripture? No need to be complicated and distorted here.

The Catholic Church does not forbid divorce. What is does it recognize that marriage is a permanent sacrament; a bond between man and woman created by God. Civil divorce, which the Church does allow, can not break that bond. Only death can. Catholics who have received a civil divorce are not allow to re-marry for this reason.

 

[Sixtus]

The Catholic Church is the original Christian Church.

Yes, but what you are neglecting to admit is that it was a unified catholic church comprising East, West and Antioch. Not so today, it has fragmented

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, but what you are neglecting to admit is that it was a unified catholic church comprising East, West and Antioch. Not so today, it has fragmented

Yes - and Peter’s successor is still in Rome.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Did you know that the Gregorian calender that you follow along with us Anglicans was altered in the Catholic church away from its original form?

Do you suppose the original form was a Revelation from God? It was Gregorian, that is from Gregory, not from Jesus. Is this what passes as Protestant apologetics now-a-days?

 

[Gara3987]

Here is something on divorce that pertains some what to this thread. There is still information in the site given below.

catholicapologetics.net/rr1q892-905

1. Christ allowed divorce for one reason. He said, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, maketh her to commit adultery."   Matt. V., 32.

Christ allowed permanent separation if adultery be committed, but He does not allow divorce and re-marriage in the sense you intend. When He said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery, etc.,” the sense He intended was this, “Whosoever shall put away his wife (I am not speaking of mere separation without re-marriage, for that is lawful in the case of fornication), but whosoever shall put away his wife … he that marries her commits adultery.” This is the only possible interpretation in the light of parallel passages. Thus St. Mark records Christ’s words absolutely, “Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her.” X., II. In St. Luke, also, we have the words without any parenthesis: “Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery, and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery.” XVI., 18. St. Paul tells us clearly, “A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die, she is at liberty.” I. Cor. VII., 39. For a Christian, then, there is no such thing as divorce and re-marriage whilst the first partner is still living. Attempted re-marriage results in a sinful union only. You can have divorce and give up Christianity, or you can have Christianity and give up divorce You cannot have both.

1. The civil law admits divorce and re-marriage.

Civil law and divine law are not always in harmony. Politicians at times exceed their powers and make laws, which are contrary to those of God. Thus they have legislated concerning matrimony with no reference to the will of Christ who raised the marriage contract to the dignity of a Sacrament.

1. What can one do if the husband is absolutely impossible to live with, or is guilty of adultery?

Brutal cruelty and ill treatment afford lawful grounds for separation, as also does adultery if it has not been condoned. But this separation does not break the bond of marriage. Death alone can do that, and neither is free to marry again whilst the other is still living. For grave reasons a Catholic can obtain ecclesiastical permission to have the separation rendered legal by a civil decree of divorce in order to avoid legal difficulties, but this must be on the understanding that such a decree leaves neither party free to contract another marriage whilst the other party is still living.

1. Did not the Pope grant divorces to Louis XII. and Henry IV. of France, and very nearly to Henry VIII. of England, being prevented in this case by fear of Charles V.?

The two prior marriages you mention were declared to have been null and void from the beginning. Therefore no true marriage had ever existed. Louis XII. proved conclusively that he had not been a free agent, having been compelled by his father, Louis XI, to submit to the ceremony. So too, the first marriage of Henry IV. was declared null and void because Marguerite de Valois had been forced into the marriage by her mother, Queen Catherine, for political purposes. The free consent of both parties is necessary for a true and binding marriage contract. In the case of Henry VIII, the power of Charles V. was a motive why his marriage with Catherine of Aragon should not be declared null without rigid proof of its invalidity. At the same time, the enmity of Henry was to be avoided if at all possible, and theologians did all they could to see whether the first marriage were really null and void. But it was impossible, and at the risk of losing England to the Holy See a negative decision had to be given. Henry promptly declared himself head of the Church in England, and took the divorce Rome refused to grant.

1. It comes to the same thing.    We Protestants get a divorce from the state whilst Catholics get an annulment from their Church.

There is all the difference in the world between the two positions. A civil divorce claims to break the bonds of a valid marriage, bonds which the Catholic Church rigidly declares to be unbreakable. A decree of nullity does not break the bonds of a valid marriage at all. It declares that the marriage was never a true marriage and that there is no bond to break. It declares that the reputed marriage was null and void as a contract from the beginning. Had it been valid, the bond could not be broken save by the death of one of the parties.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Yes, but what you are neglecting to admit is that it was a unified catholic church comprising East, West and Antioch. Not so today, it has fragmented

Sixtus,

The original quotation is what it is: the Catholic Church was the original Christian Church.

There was no Schism until approximately 1000 years later.

There was no Protestant splintering until approximately 1500 years later.

What part of ‘original’ as in FIRST CHURCH is confusing you???

The statement REFERS to the EARLY Church BEFORE any thing you mention by vague allusion in your statement above.

I hope this clears it up for you.

Pax Christi

 

[Catholic_Mike]

Did you know that the Gregorian calender that you follow along with us Anglicans was altered in the Catholic church away from its original form?

I don’t understand your point. My understanding is that matters of doctrine can’t change, but that other things - matters of human tradition - can be changed.

 

[Lepanto]

King Henry 8 and many others.

And who might be those “many others?” Henry 8’s betrayed and decapitated wives?

 

[HailMary]

Thank God for Thomas Cranmer, Martin Luther, King Henry 8 and many others. God bless the Church of England for the preservation of Christ’s traditional church.

King Henry 8th chopped his wives heads off and believed in divorce. Are you really thankful for that or do you just forgot about your origins?

 

[nilofc]

Look for yourself and see what Paul says about marriage and divorce. Stop trying to questions one’s knowledge of scripture when if you knew them you would know yourself that Paul was clear about divorce. Why would the Catholic church forbid divorce period when scripture allows for it. Isn’t that church teaching that doesn’t square with scripture? No need to be complicated and distorted here.

**Divorce brings about devastation to a child ** and it separates what God has united.

*“But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife], and the two shall become one flesh’.” *

…try explaining divorce to a five year-old. I don’t know why you think God is for divorce.