Church Membership

[Verka]

The only church that I have come across that requires you be married in their church is the Catholic church. I am not saying that there aren’t others, however, if I find another, I will stay away from it.

The Greek Orthodox Church does, any marriage to a non GO outside a GO church is an automatic excommunication.

 

[Verka]

No more offensive than being told that your faith is the sole repository of absolute truth

 

[lonegreywolf20]

The Greek Orthodox Church does, any marriage to a non GO outside a GO church is an automatic excommunication.

I guess since I have stuck with non-denominational churches I haven’t seen it. I have also been in a Presbyterian church as well as a Baptist church and neither of those do it either.

 

[sdegutis]

No more offensive than being told that your faith is the sole repository of absolute truth

What will you say when an agnostic takes offense at you for any number of the exclusivity claims that almost all Protestant religions so boldly make?

 

[lonegreywolf20]

I will state it again. This is supposed to be the non-Catholic religion forum. To me that means that non-Catholics can come here and post without Catholic posters coming in and trying to get them to convert or what have you.

This is how it is done on other forums that I am part of. If something is labeled Catholic then you can not speak against Catholics, if it’s Baptist, you can not speak against Baptists and so and so forth. Yes, this is a Catholic site, but this sub-forum is labeled non-Catholic religions. Catholics should not be able to come into here and post against other religions.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Since I walked away from Catholicism in January, my wife and I attend with our eighteen month old daughter a non-denominational Independent Southern Baptist leaning church. We both enjoy the service, it is a Bible believing church and we feel that the pastor is a wonderful man.

With that said, one thing that does bother me is that in order to be considered a member you must sign a membership agreement. I will not go into the what is in the agreement as there is only one thing that I disagree with and that is in regards to tithing. That is another subject for another time and frankly really prefer not to get into a conversation regarding tithing.

I have read the Bible cover-to-cover one and on my way through once again. I do not remember anything regarding having to sign a membership agreement in order to be considered a member.

So I am not sure what to think. This is the one church that is in our area that is within reasonable driving distance (it is only 1/2 a mile away) that both my wife and I agree on. It is a smaller church and the service time that we go to is perfect size for my mother-in-law who prefers a smaller congregation. I too enjoy smaller congregations as it feels more like family to me. They also have a really good children’s program that we want our daughter to be part of.

It is just that membership agreement that doesn’t sit well with me.

Any advice?

It appears you’ve encountered your first hurdle of many many more to come in Protestantism.

Good luck, I hope you don’t waste as much time in the stormy sees of evangelicalism as I did.

You will find more and more unbiblical things every month you are there.

 

[lonegreywolf20]

It appears you’ve encountered your first hurdle of many many more to come in Protestantism.

Good luck, I hope you don’t waste as much time in the stormy sees of evangelicalism as I did.

You will find more and more unbiblical things every month you are there.

It is my belief that my family and I will be just fine in a non-Catholic church.

 

[benjohnson]

The only church that I have come across that requires you be married in their church is the Catholic church. I am not saying that there aren’t others, however, if I find another, I will stay away from it.

As for Lutherans, we recognize marriages done in other churches - but we tend to make newly-wed couples go through our preparation classes for their (hopefully) long life together.

As for signing a contract, from a Lutheran standpoint it’s considered quite odd as it seems almost too much of a human construct rather than an indwelling of the Holy Sprit as promised.

…

If I’m not mistaken, if your and your wife were baptized, then your marriage is already sacramental in the eyes of the Cahtolic church.

*Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.

Can. 1056 The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness by reason of the sacrament.*

…

Even if you do eventually leave the Catholic church and become part of another communion, I invite you to look back on your journey in the Catholic church with appreciation for how it has brought you closer to Christ despite your disagreements.

I sense a small bit of emotional frustration in your posts, and hopefully with time, you’ll appreciate all that your Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ have hoped for you.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Or has been suggested, I just do not sign the membership agreement.

The difference being, at the church where we attend it would not be considered a sin not to sign it, however, in the Catholic church, as I have been told and read, my wife and I would be committing mortal sin.

Except they will require membership for certain activities. Leading a class or bible study, going on a mission or pilgrimage, etc.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I will state it again. This is supposed to be the non-Catholic religion forum. To me that means that non-Catholics can come here and post without Catholic posters coming in and trying to get them to convert or what have you.

This is how it is done on other forums that I am part of. If something is labeled Catholic then you can not speak against Catholics, if it’s Baptist, you can not speak against Baptists and so and so forth. Yes, this is a Catholic site, but this sub-forum is labeled non-Catholic religions. Catholics should not be able to come into here and post against other religions.

No, the purpose of this forum is to discuss non catholic religions with Catholics.

So I might post in here a question about baptist theology for example.

 

[lonegreywolf20]

So in other words I am not allowed to have an opinion about the Catholic church rules unless I agree with them?

 

[lonegreywolf20]

Except they will require membership for certain activities. Leading a class or bible study, going on a mission or pilgrimage, etc.

Then it’s a good thing that I do not aspire to teach a class or Bible study and there are plenty of missions that I can undertake without going through my church (not that I plan on going on any missions trips since my wife has multiple sclerosis and I am her full-time caregiver.

 

[SteveVH]

Certainly,The 7th canon of the Council of Neocaesarea (c. 315) speaks of second marriages. They are undesirable, as the pre-schism church desires lifelong marriage, but it realized this was both impractical and at times impossible. It also recognizes a need for mercy because the couple is “worthy of penance” and should be given an indulgence to continue.

For the benefit of the readers, the 7th canon reads as follows:

*"Canon 7

A presbyter shall not be a guest at the nuptials of persons contracting a second marriage; for, since the digamist is worthy of penance, what kind of a presbyter shall he be, who, by being present at the feast, sanctioned the marriage?*

As you have acknowledged, this canon clearly speaks against the second marriage after the first ends in divorce (there has never been a prohibition against marrying after the death of the first spouse).

That “the digamist is worthy of penance” means that he is in sin which is why the presbyter cannot sanction the marriage. You have misread the canon.

The Church’s mission on earth is to administer the mercy of God. That is what penance is all about. But mercy does not mean that the Church sanctions what is unholy. It means calling the person back to fidelity with God by requiring a renunciation of one’s sin and a true intention to not continue in that sin. This is done in the sacrament of Reconciliation.

The Church has never changed its stance concerning a valid marriage. If one divorces and marries again they commit adultery. The question comes down to whether or not the marriage was valid to begin with. If it is valid then we believe that it is impossible for any human to break the sacramental and indissoluble bond of marriage: * "therefore, let no one separate what God has joined”* (Mt. 19:6). That is where the annulment process comes into play. There are certain situations where there never was a valid marriage to being with. The Church carefully weighs the evidence based upon certain factors.

The following is a good summation of the Church’s view of marriage, taken from the Archdiocese of Atlanta Metropolitan Tribunal:

*"A number of elements must come together for the sacrament of marriage to occur. The first is the “Canonical Form” of marriage: a Catholic must ordinarily be married within a Catholic church and before a priest or deacon. The requirements for the Canonical Form of marriage applies only to Catholic spouses, so we would recognize the marriage of two persons who are not Catholic, even if they did not marry in a church ceremony or religious service.

However, following the proper canonical form of marriage is not all that is necessary for a valid sacramental marriage to take place. The couple must also freely and knowingly choose to enter marriage as the Church understands marriage. This is “Marital Consent.” A number of intentions must be made by the couple at the time of marriage in order for consent to be valid, that is, in order to establish the unbreakable bond between husband and wife that is a sacramental marriage. The couple must understand what marriage is and they must intend their marriage to be a lifelong partnership which is open to children. They must intend fidelity and the mutual good of one another. They must also have the physical and psychological ability to follow through on these intentions.

When all of the above factors are brought together, a sacramental, indissoluble union is established by God. If a Catholic spouse marries with the proper Canonical Form and with at least the semblance of the necessary intentions given through the marriage vows, we recognize the enduring marriage bond which cannot be dissolved, even if the civil government, through divorce, no longer recognizes that a marriage exists."*

The point is that the Church has never changed its doctrine concerning the sacramental nature of marriage and its indissolubility. I think there has certainly been some progress made in how the Church handles individual cases but the doctrinal basis on which these decisions are made have never changed.

 

[lonegreywolf20]

My mistake then.

 

[benjohnson]

We require dispensation as well… sadly, our theology about marriage isn’t quite as robust at Catholic theology (to our detriment in my opinion.)

If you ask me, marriage and contraceptive theology are to areas where broader Christianity should look to our Catholic friends for guidance.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Then it’s a good thing that I do not aspire to teach a class or Bible study and there are plenty of missions that I can undertake without going through my church (not that I plan on going on any missions trips since my wife has multiple sclerosis and I am her full-time caregiver.

That’s fine then I am just warning you as someone whose been there, you are in for a roller coaster ride.

Wait till the pastor leaves and the church completely changes and or splits. That’s always a wonderful experience.

 

[sdegutis]

It is my belief that my family and I will be just fine in a non-Catholic church.

You asked for our advice and he gave his, which if I may add is quite valid and definitely not pushing you to try to stay. So why respond as if he’s trying to convince you to stay? He has a legitimate point, although he phrased it deceptively: when anyone is allowed to interpret the Bible (i.e. Protestantism), you will find some very, very wild interpretations. You will also find some very mild and seemingly harmless ones. (And eventually you may even wonder if there is such a thing as a “harmless” one.) This is just inherent in looking for a church-home in demoninations that let anyone interpret the Bible for themselves.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Any advice?

You know better than your new denomination… just get an online minister license and operate a Bible study, worship on Sunday in your basement or garage. Invite whoever agrees with everything you do to attend and even lead. If they disagree with one iota of your interpretation, ask him to find another church or start his or her own.

 

[lonegreywolf20]

That’s fine then I am just warning you as someone whose been there, you are in for a roller coaster ride.

Wait till the pastor leaves and the church completely changes and or splits. That’s always a wonderful experience.

I am sorry that you had that experience, however I do not believe that happens to every non-Catholic church.

 

[lonegreywolf20]

You asked for our advice and he gave his, which if I may add is quite valid and definitely not pushing you to try to stay. So why respond as if he’s trying to convince you to stay? He has a legitimate point, although he phrased it deceptively: when anyone is allowed to interpret the Bible (i.e. Protestantism), you will find some very, very wild interpretations. You will also find some very mild and seemingly harmless ones. (And eventually you may even wonder if there is such a thing as a “harmless” one.) This is just inherent in looking for a church-home in demoninations that let anyone interpret the Bible for themselves.

So am I not allowed to respond to that advice?