I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents...

[PbloPicasso]

Never mind how people try to run you into the dirt with their rhetoric. I love all of the self-appointed experts on this forum. They have their own agenda, which I believe is to reform the hearts and minds of those that don’t agree with them. This can come with grave consequences to those they proselytize. We must be on guard against their tactics, but simultaneously be charitable. Be on guard. They may mean well, but they may also not be right.

I absolutely agree with all that you’ve stated here. Others, that act like they know better, will try to convince us that we are being judgmental rather than judging. We are called to judge, but not to be condemning by sentencing. The latter is God’s prerogative. Thanks for saying this. I often get chastized for speaking the facts too.
Pax

I guess it would depend on which passage you are talking about. Take for example the passage which reads: “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” What is the spirit of that passage? Or should everything in Scripture be interpreted in a legal sense, so that you need to hire a lawyer to get a legal interpretation of it? Many people believe that religious commandments should be taken in the spirit in which they are given and that it is wrong to look for loopholes which will allow you to essentially reject the spirit of the commandment. Take for example the current situation on marriage annulments in the Catholic Church. Before Vatican II, they were running at a few hundred per year, whereas after Vatican II, all kinds of psychological reasons were allowed even after twenty years of marriage. So people could get married have two or three children, live together for many years and then one of the spouses is unfaithful to the marriage and says that he did not know what he was doing at the time he had exchanged wedding vows. And the Catholic marriage tribunal buys it and gives the annulment. Is this really in the spirit of the passage quoted? It was not thought so before Vatican II. So if a Church interprets Scripture one way before Vatican II and changes its mind and interprets Scripture a different way after Vatican II, would you say that it is interpreting Scripture rightly?

 

[Marybeloved]

Never mind how people try to run you into the dirt with their rhetoric. I love all of the self-appointed experts on this forum. They have their own agenda, which I believe is to reform the hearts and minds of those that don’t agree with them. This can come with grave consequences to those they proselytize. We must be on guard against their tactics, but simultaneously be charitable. Be on guard. They may mean well, but they may also not be right.

I absolutely agree with all that you’ve stated here. Others, that act like they know better, will try to convince us that we are being judgmental rather than judging. We are called to judge, but not to be condemning by sentencing. The latter is God’s prerogative. Thanks for saying this. I often get chastized for speaking the facts too.
Pax

Is this meant for me? I certainly am not an expert, self-appointed or otherwise. I’m merely sharing my own understanding of the issue- If I’m wrong people are free to contradict me, in fact they’re welcomed to. I wouldn’t want to misrepresent the Church or the faith. And I’m not trying to proselytize, only to defend my faith and join in the conversation. And I most certainly was not trying to chastize Louis.

Peace

 

[louis91766]

Is this meant for me? I certainly am not an expert, self-appointed or otherwise. I’m merely sharing my own understanding of the issue- If I’m wrong people are free to contradict me, in fact they’re welcomed to. I wouldn’t want to misrepresent the Church or the faith. And I’m not trying to proselytize, only to defend my faith and join in the conversation. And I most certainly was not trying to chastize Louis.

Peace

Hello Mary:
I appreciate your response on this question, even though we may have different opinions. I was only looking at the question of whether or not the current annulment practice in the USA was in the spirit of the New Testament references against divorce. I am also not an expert, just someone who has observed the incredible increase in the number of marriage annulments over the past few decades.

 

[Marybeloved]

Hello Mary:
I appreciate your response on this question, even though we may have different opinions. I was only looking at the question of whether or not the current annulment practice in the USA was in the spirit of the New Testament references against divorce. I am also not an expert, just someone who has observed the incredible increase in the number of marriage annulments over the past few decades.

Thanx, Louis,

I agree that in your country (and I read that its actually most western English-speaking countries) there is developing among Catholics, an alarming “annulment” mentality similar to the “divorce” mentality in the other Churches that accept divorce and remarriage. I’ve heard that the Pope himself has complained about it to the Vatican version of “Supreme Court” in Church Marriage Courts- So let’s hope that our Church will solve whatever problem is inherent in this new explosion.

I just wanted to show that church teaching on Marriage is the same, regardless of how it’s application can be abused by canonists and others, and that’s all infallibility protects (the church teaching). But don’t fret, a solution will be found- we dealt with the abuse of indulgences, now the church is very effectively dealing with and closing up the loop-holes that permitted the sex-abuse catastrophes to occur- This is no different. Many have noticed it, and believe me, our Church will find a way, because we have the Holy Spirit guiding her despite the ravenous wolves and genuinely mistaken individuals in her midst.

I’ve read that the Holy Father, B16, has said that the English-speaking churches have adopted an anthropology that affects how they view human freedom and free-will and consent, and therefore how they apply the Law of marriage. This anthropology, I gather, he thinks is exaggerated and even false in many ways. So you were not off in your views and observations. Although I think we must also acknowledge that the culture in the society after the sixties is a cauldron for cooking invalid marriages, as per the Christian-Catholic understanding of it, no? I also read that due to the new requirements of mandatory preparation by the Church of the couple before marriage, future annulments of couples married in the Catholic Church will be virtually impossible. I also read that even now, most annulments are of marriages that occurred outside the Church, though I can’t vouch for that with any data.

Peace!

 

[jmcrae]

I guess it would depend on which passage you are talking about. Take for example the passage which reads: “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”

There are also unions that God has not joined together, as well, though. For example, a sister and brother could “marry” and not tell any of the witnesses or the priest about their blood relationship with one another.

Such a marriage not only can, but ought to be, declared null.

What is the spirit of that passage? Or should everything in Scripture be interpreted in a legal sense, so that you need to hire a lawyer to get a legal interpretation of it? Many people believe that religious commandments should be taken in the spirit in which they are given and that it is wrong to look for loopholes which will allow you to essentially reject the spirit of the commandment.

Sadly, this sort of thing is certainly common enough.

Take for example the current situation on marriage annulments in the Catholic Church. Before Vatican II, they were running at a few hundred per year, whereas after Vatican II, all kinds of psychological reasons were allowed even after twenty years of marriage. So people could get married have two or three children, live together for many years and then one of the spouses is unfaithful to the marriage and says that he did not know what he was doing at the time he had exchanged wedding vows.

With TV programs showing all sorts of very strange arrangements and portraying them as “marriages” I actually wonder how young people today can even figure out who they should marry, and what sort of attitude they should have. It doesn’t surprise me that Declarations of Nullity are up, because our society’s idea of marriage is actually very weird, and someone entering into that kind of a relationship would not be “married” in the sense that the Church understands marriage.

And the Catholic marriage tribunal buys it and gives the annulment. Is this really in the spirit of the passage quoted? It was not thought so before Vatican II. So if a Church interprets Scripture one way before Vatican II and changes its mind and interprets Scripture a different way after Vatican II, would you say that it is interpreting Scripture rightly?

It is not Scripture that has changed, nor the meaning of marriage, but rather, the conditions under which people attempt to marry have changed, and made it all but impossible to enter into a valid union.

 

[CopticChristian]

I guess it would depend on which passage you are talking about. Take for example the passage which reads: “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” What is the spirit of that passage? Or should everything in Scripture be interpreted in a legal sense, so that you need to hire a lawyer to get a legal interpretation of it? Many people believe that religious commandments should be taken in the spirit in which they are given and that it is wrong to look for loopholes which will allow you to essentially reject the spirit of the commandment. Take for example the current situation on marriage annulments in the Catholic Church. Before Vatican II, they were running at a few hundred per year, whereas after Vatican II, all kinds of psychological reasons were allowed even after twenty years of marriage. So people could get married have two or three children, live together for many years and then one of the spouses is unfaithful to the marriage and says that he did not know what he was doing at the time he had exchanged wedding vows. And the Catholic marriage tribunal buys it and gives the annulment. Is this really in the spirit of the passage quoted? It was not thought so before Vatican II. So if a Church interprets Scripture one way before Vatican II and changes its mind and interprets Scripture a different way after Vatican II, would you say that it is interpreting Scripture rightly?

I would like to know where you get your stats and when you say “it was not thought so” what are you saying. How do you know what someone or for that matter what the Church thinks. I truly want specifics and clarification.

 

[CopticChristian]

QUOTE=louis91766;8485533]Hello Mary:
I appreciate your response on this question, even though we may have different opinions. I was only looking at the question of whether or not the current annulment practice in the USA was in the spirit of the New Testament references against divorce. I am also not an expert, just someone who has observed the incredible increase in the number of marriage annulments over the past few decades.

I respectfully ask what all this conversation about annulments has to do with the original question…

I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents:

By whose authority does any one person, (such as myself) - have the right to start a church and call his/her established church the church founded by Jesus Christ on Pentecost? Please leave the catholic church out of the discussion unless of course you can prove that the catholic church is not the church founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost!

I respectfully ask…

 

[louis91766]

QUOTE=louis91766;8485533]Hello Mary:
I appreciate your response on this question, even though we may have different opinions. I was only looking at the question of whether or not the current annulment practice in the USA was in the spirit of the New Testament references against divorce. I am also not an expert, just someone who has observed the incredible increase in the number of marriage annulments over the past few decades.

I respectfully ask what all this conversation about annulments has to do with the original question…

I respectfully ask…:thumbsup:The interpretation of Scripture. the question was which Church interprets Scripture correctly.

 

[louis91766]

It is not Scripture that has changed, nor the meaning of marriage, but rather, the conditions under which people attempt to marry have changed, and made it all but impossible to enter into a valid union.

Are you then saying that there is really no one out there who is married and everyone who thinks that they are married are actually not but are living in an unmarried state of mortal sin?

 

[CopticChristian]

I respectfully ask what all this conversation about annulments has to do with the original question…

I respectfully ask…

The interpretation of Scripture. the question was which Church interprets Scripture correctly./QUOTE]

I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents:

By whose authority does any one person, (such as myself) - have the right to start a church and call his/her established church the church founded by Jesus Christ on Pentecost? Please leave the catholic church out of the discussion unless of course you can prove that the catholic church is not the church founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost!

So the question is starting a Church and the conversation concerning the Catholic Church only if you can prove that the Catholic Church was not founded by Jesus Christ.

 

[jmcrae]

Are you then saying that there is really no one out there who is married and everyone who thinks that they are married are actually not but are living in an unmarried state of mortal sin?

This is where it gets tricky.

Some cases are obvious - a Catholic couple who got married on the beach instead of in Church - a brother and sister living as a married couple. The remedies in each of these cases are also obvious, and simple.

Most cases are not so obvious. In those cases, we assume that the marriage is valid until - and only when - a Marriage Tribunal has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that no marriage existed. Typically this process takes several months - sometimes years.

It’s neither instant, nor guaranteed. Nor is it intended to be comfortable for the people who are seeking the Declaration of Nullity, although most report that it was a time of healing.

But on that note, we really should get back to the topic of the thread. What do you think - is it okay for someone to start up a new religion based on his own brand new interpretation of the Scriptures?

 

[louis91766]

This is where it gets tricky.

Some cases are obvious - a Catholic couple who got married on the beach instead of in Church - a brother and sister living as a married couple. The remedies in each of these cases are also obvious, and simple.

Most cases are not so obvious. In those cases, we assume that the marriage is valid until - and only when - a Marriage Tribunal has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that no marriage existed. Typically this process takes several months - sometimes years.

It’s neither instant, nor guaranteed. Nor is it intended to be comfortable for the people who are seeking the Declaration of Nullity, although most report that it was a time of healing.

But on that note, we really should get back to the topic of the thread. What do you think - is it okay for someone to start up a new religion based on his own brand new interpretation of the Scriptures?

I guess it would depend on which passage of Scripture you are talking about. I mentioned already one passage. Suppose we take another: “Call no man father.” Now according to the Protestants it is wrong to call a Catholic priest father since it is a violation of this Scriptural commandment. They would say that it elevates a man to a position of authority which lends itself to possible abuse of those under his case. And they have started a number of Protestant religious organisations where they do not call their preachers “father.” Another passage is Thou shalt keep holy the Sabbath. This has started a religious group known as the Seventh Day Adventists who insist on following this commandment of God on Saturday, the traditional Sabbath day. However, there were other issues involved in starting these religious organisations and a large group of people felt that way about the situation and joined these groups.

 

[louis91766]

I would like to know where you get your stats and when you say “it was not thought so” what are you saying. How do you know what someone or for that matter what the Church thinks. I truly want specifics and clarification.

Please see the Statistical Yearbook of the Catholic Church. For example, the Statistical yearbook of the Catholic Church 1989 reports that in 1989 the Church tribunals in the USA issued 61,416 marriage annulments and that 40,879 were given for defect of consent and 17,984 were given for defect of form. Notice that in 1930, there were 9 marriages annulled in the USA. These 9 annulments were given for serious reasons such as impediments to marriage or impotence.

 

[jmcrae]

I guess it would depend on which passage of Scripture you are talking about. I mentioned already one passage. Suppose we take another: “Call no man father.” Now according to the Protestants it is wrong to call a Catholic priest father since it is a violation of this Scriptural commandment. They would say that it elevates a man to a position of authority which lends itself to possible abuse of those under his case. And they have started a number of Protestant religious organisations where they do not call their preachers “father.” Another passage is Thou shalt keep holy the Sabbath. This has started a religious group known as the Seventh Day Adventists who insist on following this commandment of God on Saturday, the traditional Sabbath day. However, there were other issues involved in starting these religious organisations and a large group of people felt that way about the situation and joined these groups.

Right, yes. They have elevated one verse or passage of Scripture above every other, made it the focal point, and simply disregard everything else in the Bible that seems to nuance or contradicts their interpretation.

 

[mwok]

I don’t think Joel Osteen claims to be infallible unlike the cc. There is a difference. I do not follow JO so what ever people do with his teachings is up to them.

So whose infallible teaching do you follow?

 

[joe370]

louis91766;8483864] Many people believe that religious commandments should be taken in the spirit in which they are given and that it is wrong to look for loopholes which will allow you to essentially reject the spirit of the commandment. Take for example the current situation on marriage annulments in the Catholic Church. Before Vatican II, they were running at a few hundred per year, whereas after Vatican II, all kinds of psychological reasons were allowed even after twenty years of marriage. So people could get married have two or three children, live together for many years and then one of the spouses is unfaithful to the marriage and says that he did not know what he was doing at the time he had exchanged wedding vows. And the Catholic marriage tribunal buys it and gives the annulment. Is this really in the spirit of the passage quoted? It was not thought so before Vatican II. So if a Church interprets Scripture one way before Vatican II and changes its mind and interprets Scripture a different way after Vatican II, would you say that it is interpreting Scripture rightly?

Well, I don’t see anything in scripture about annulments so it’s not a matter of interpreting scripture. Do I believe that the CC has the authority to make a formal declaration regarding the possible annulment of a sacramental marriage of a husband and wife who are suppose to have a true commitment to each other (till death) - and to Jesus Christ and His Church? Yup.

The authority of the Church to grant or deny the annulment of a sacramental marriage was, prior to Vatican 2 and continues to be, their rightful duty and responsibility. After all Jesus did say: "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven… At least that’s my take on the matter.

What was your response to the original post?

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by jericho777
I don’t think Joel Osteen claims to be infallible unlike the cc. There is a difference. I do not follow JO so what ever people do with his teachings is up to them.

Jericho, none of the apostles were infallible so how can you and I be sure that they taught infallibly?

I am often told that the holy spirit guided the apostles to teach infallibly and then left the church to which the apostles belonged once the last apostle passed on. Is this something you might possibly believe?

 

[joe370]

I guess it would depend on which passage of Scripture you are talking about. I mentioned already one passage. Suppose we take another: “Call no man father.” Now according to the Protestants it is wrong to call a Catholic priest father since it is a violation of this Scriptural commandment. They would say that it elevates a man to a position of authority which lends itself to possible abuse of those under his case. And they have started a number of Protestant religious organisations where they do not call their preachers “father.” Another passage is Thou shalt keep holy the Sabbath. This has started a religious group known as the Seventh Day Adventists who insist on following this commandment of God on Saturday, the traditional Sabbath day. However, there were other issues involved in starting these religious organisations and a large group of people felt that way about the situation and joined these groups.

Excellent points, and perhaps the reason why the holy spirit was sent to Jesus’ church on Pentecost and continues to guide Jesus’ church, until the end of time. What other possible way would there be to resolve the disputes that you have so aptly pointed out? As you can see, scripture doesn’t work, for scripture says different things to different folks regarding many many things including “Call no man father,” as well as the issue of the Sabbath.

The church is Jesus’ mystical Body, as you know, of which Jesus is the head and Savior, and the church is the continuation of Jesus’ presence each and everyday until He returns. We can trust His church, doctrinally speaking, if we can trust that Jesus is still guiding her, as the His bride.

Seems reasonable to me…

 

[mwok]

The Bible doesn’t teach to call no man “father”, otherwise what would we call the husband of our mothers? The Bible teaches to call no man “Abba” which is only reserved for God.

 

[louis91766]

The Bible doesn’t teach to call no man “father”, otherwise what would we call the husband of our mothers? The Bible teaches to call no man “Abba” which is only reserved for God.

here are the various translations of Matthew 23:9:

New International Version (©1984)
And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
New Living Translation (©2007)
And don’t address anyone here on earth as ‘Father,’ for only God in heaven is your spiritual Father.

English Standard Version (©2001)
And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

International Standard Version (©2008)
And don’t call anyone on earth ‘Father,’ because you have only one Father, the one in heaven.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
And you should not call yourselves “Father”, in the earth, for one is your Father who is in Heaven.

GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
And don’t call anyone on earth your father, because you have only one Father, and he is in heaven.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, who is in heaven.

American King James Version
And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

American Standard Version
And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven.

Bible in Basic English
And give no man the name of father on earth: because one is your Father, who is in heaven.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.

Darby Bible Translation
And call not any one your father upon the earth; for one is your Father, he who is in the heavens.

English Revised Version
And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Webster’s Bible Translation
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father who is in heaven.

Weymouth New Testament
And call no one on earth your Father, for One alone is your Father–the Heavenly Father.

World English Bible
Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven.

Young’s Literal Translation
and ye may not call any your father on the earth, for one is your Father, who is in the heavens,