J
JRKH
Guest
No Problem
Knowing me you’ll probably have the opportunity to return the favor soon.
Peace
James
- Status
Knowing me you’ll probably have the opportunity to return the favor soon.
Peace
James
I
Ignatius
Guest
That is not permitted. Please forward the messages to the moderators and, if your assertions are corroborated, those individuals canl be suspended. The rules are the same for everyone here.
K
kage_ar
Guest
As a convert, I have a question for those who remember being taught things that are clearly not and never were teaching of the Catholic Church.
From my reading, the Baltimore Catechism was the standard book for Catholic education for quite some time, during the time period we are discussing here. I believe our OP made reference to it.
There are many who remember they were told not to read the Bible.
If you were instructed using the Baltimore Catechism, did the instructors remove question 23 (I did not post all the questions under 23, you can find them here catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/)?
23g. Are Catholics encouraged by the Church to read the Bible?
Yes; Catholics are encouraged by the Church to read the Bible, especially the Gospels, which tell about the earthly life of Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man.
From my reading, the Baltimore Catechism was the standard book for Catholic education for quite some time, during the time period we are discussing here. I believe our OP made reference to it.
There are many who remember they were told not to read the Bible.
If you were instructed using the Baltimore Catechism, did the instructors remove question 23 (I did not post all the questions under 23, you can find them here catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/)?
23g. Are Catholics encouraged by the Church to read the Bible?
Yes; Catholics are encouraged by the Church to read the Bible, especially the Gospels, which tell about the earthly life of Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man.
C
crm114
Guest
I was taught the Baltimore Catechism in CCD, and my CCD classes also included Bible lessons. I remember clearly the Exodus, the Ten Commandments, Daniel in the Lion’s Den, Kings and Prophets, the Life of Christ and the Epistles of St. Paul. These things were known to all second graders, as were the catechism, the Mass, the sacraments and so forth. We also learned hymns and the order of the Mass. This was a typical experience for a Catholic child in the late 50s/early 60s.
I am amzed that anyone can claim to have grown up in the Church and not to have known something of Sacred Scripture. Did we stand during the Gospel reading because the Gospels are of no significance and are to be suppressed?
In 1965, the Council gave us Dei Verbum which states in part “22. Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. That is why the Church from the very beginning accepted as her own that very ancient Greek translation; of the Old Testament which is called the septuagint; and she has always given a place of honor to other Eastern translations and Latin ones especially the Latin translation known as the vulgate. But since the word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books…” This was not exactly a revolutionary pronouncement at the time, but clearly it precludes anyone asserting that the Church suppressed Scripture after 1965.
I am amzed that anyone can claim to have grown up in the Church and not to have known something of Sacred Scripture. Did we stand during the Gospel reading because the Gospels are of no significance and are to be suppressed?
In 1965, the Council gave us Dei Verbum which states in part “22. Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. That is why the Church from the very beginning accepted as her own that very ancient Greek translation; of the Old Testament which is called the septuagint; and she has always given a place of honor to other Eastern translations and Latin ones especially the Latin translation known as the vulgate. But since the word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books…” This was not exactly a revolutionary pronouncement at the time, but clearly it precludes anyone asserting that the Church suppressed Scripture after 1965.
D
daughteroftruth
Guest
Accepting Christ means to obey Him and follow Him, not your own will. He condemns divorce. If your first marriage was in fact valid, according to Christ, you’re committing adultery. If your first husband turned out to be a jerk and this is the only issue, divorce may have been necessary, but remarrying is not permissable.
You posted this for one of two reasons: to start a fight and bash the Church, or you’re looking for justification for your actions. I’m thinking it was to start a fight and bash the Church, since the original thread was locked and you started this whole thing again.
Christ told us in numerous ways that life is hard, and that the path to Him is the difficult route, and that if we wanted union with Him and the Father we would have to carry our cross. We have the choice of throwing it down, saying we *will not *carry it because it’s too heavy, or undeserved, or whatever, but in walking from the cross He gave us (or permitted, if you will) we are walking away from Him. He led by example, and if we want to be united with Him we have to imitate Him to the best of our ability, *not *when it’s convenient.
J
JRKH
Guest
Daughter of Truth,
I don’t know if you actually read all of the posts on this thread, but if you did then you know that this subject has already been dealt with.
Yes Christ condemns divorce, but in Matthew there is also an excpetion made for lewd conduct. Starfish’s first husband certainly would fit in this catagory.
The Church has also allowd for persons found in her situation through the annulment process. So obviously Christ, through His Church has recognized that there are circumstances that must be considered on a case by case basis.
Now, recognizing these things I believe that your comments above are a bit heavy handed and are not productive to helping Starfish resolve any issues she may have with Holy Mother Church.
Yes God sometimes gives heave crosses to bear, and we must do the best we can. Starfish apparently did not get a lot of good support from the Church early on. But instead of turning her back on God, as some do, she found another faith community where she is being nurtured.
Our best course now is to gently help her untangle some of the difficult issues so that she can forgive past hurts and perhaps one day even come home to The Church.
I hope you will accept my comments as they are intended. A gentle reminder of Christian Love.
Peace
James
D
daughteroftruth
Guest
She’s here looking for people to justify her poor choices, or just to rant about the Church. Her comments have been a slap in the face to, not only Christ, but to all the Saints who put Him before their personal comfort. She’s recanted nothing, and patting her hand isn’t going to bring one with her expressed mentality any closer to accepting the truth.
I understand how your comment was meant, but I don’t believe your sympathy is in the right place. There are people who *can’t *accept the Church because they *can’t *believe, and there are people who refuse to accept the truth because it interferes with their prefered lifestyle. The latter people don’t need pity-parties. She exchanged the truth for a lie and doesn’t care to be told different. My sympathy rests with those who are lost, not those who refuse to look for the path because it requires effort they’re not willing to give. Just my personal thoughts.
J
JRKH
Guest
Perhaps you are right. I don’t know.
However, based on what I have read of her posts, and the reactions of folks here, and her reactions to those reactions, I get the feeling that your approach will be less than fruitful.
In any event it will not be what we say, but the working of the Holy Spirit that will make the difference.
Peace
James
D
daughteroftruth
Guest
Based on her postings, I think that neither the nice approach nor the harsher one will make any difference whatsoever. She doesn’t seem to be looking for assistance, only the opportunity to bash and justify. But you’re right, her conversion will be the working of the Holy Spirit.Perhaps you are right. I don’t know.
However, based on what I have read of her posts, and the reactions of folks here, and her reactions to those reactions, I get the feeling that your approach will be less than fruitful.
In any event it will not be what we say, but the working of the Holy Spirit that will make the difference.
Peace
James
T
theistgal
Guest
I notice a lot of the people who are the most zealous to “enforce” Catholic laws and disciplines around here are also the youngest.
Interesting that when Jesus told the mob, “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone,” the Scripture explicitly states that the first ones to drop their stones and leave were the eldest.
Perhaps it’s because the older you get, the more aware you become of your own sins, and your own very great need of forgiveness.
Interesting that when Jesus told the mob, “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone,” the Scripture explicitly states that the first ones to drop their stones and leave were the eldest.
Perhaps it’s because the older you get, the more aware you become of your own sins, and your own very great need of forgiveness.
D
Des
Guest
Those are not exceptions for a perfectly valid marriage. As a matter of fact, I have read where the translation of that actually was talking about it meaning ‘invalid’ marriages as the only case for divorce. Not cheating or abuse or anything like that unless this happened prior to the marriage and was unknown etc of which it would again mean, it was never a valid marriage to begin with.
daughteroftruth is very correct in saying “He condemns divorce. If your first marriage was in fact valid, according to Christ, you’re committing adultery. If your first husband turned out to be a jerk and this is the only issue, divorce may have been necessary, but remarrying is not permissable.”
D
Des
Guest
I agree as well. Just that an annulment is really saying that there was no marriage in the first place. That’s what I was getting at when the previous statement seemed a bit misleading is all. Implying that a valid marriage can be unjoined by certain reasons.
But for instance, if cheating or abuse happened after a valid marriage has taken place, they couldn’t be used. Nothing could be used.
When they are used for annulments, it would be to show that the couple in question was perhaps not in the correct state of mind, and married because of either fear, lust or mental problems or all of the above to prove it void. The vows would not have been performed with full and proper consent of which God intended.
J
JRKH
Guest
I agree with this and this is why we should refrain from making too restrictive of blanket statements about how Jesus decried divorce. There is a lot to it. Too much for brief “sound bite” type statements that might do more harm than good.
I can tell you that, when I applied of an annulment, the questionaire contained about 45 essay type questions. No multiple choice here buddy. All essay answers. It really gets you to thinking and praying and contemplating on your answers since your future life and soul can depend on them.
Peace
James
L
lizaanne
Guest
I’m not sure why you keep saying this? Didn’t I (and I’m sure others) tell you that the Church never requires anyone to stay in a situation that is harmful or dangerous. So you don’t have to say this ANY MORE, because it’s not true.
You are, however, living in an adulterous relationship. How YOU feel about it is totally irrelevant. The Catholic Church does not have exclusive rights to “what God has brought together let no man put assunder” you know. This applies to ALL Christians. You are Catholic - there is an indelible mark on your soul at baptism. Again, not open for your opinion. It is a fact. Given this fact you are required to ensure that your marriage to your husband is not valid until marrying again.
This is not mean, it is not hateful, it is not saying you have lied about anything. It is telling you that you are fooling yourself if you think that you can just go and marry again without ensuring that you are in fact free to marry first.
Yes - I do. And the Bible tells me to eat His body and drink His blood. And the ONLY place you can do that is in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. If you truly were living by your Bible and what Christ had commanded us to do, you would fix your situation and return to the ONLY Church Christ left us here on earth so that you CAN live according to the Bible.
~Liza
N
nmoerbeek
Guest
The problem isn’t that we don’t know we are sinners.
The problem is others forget he also said go forth and sin no more.
D
daughteroftruth
Guest
Well put. Now, what’s your defense for Stalin?
D
daughteroftruth
Guest
If I were publicly humiliated by a young man, I’d be the first to leave as well. You really shouldn’t bash on the youth who happen to have more love, respect, and enthusiasm for the Lord than some of the older generation. “From the mouth of babes…” If I recall correctly, the most beloved disciple was the *youngest *of the 12.
Or maybe the hope that if you let everyone else do as they please without saying anything, maybe Christ will do the same for you? We’re called to rebuke the sinner, it’s an act of mercy. Justifying the sinner equates us with the sin, so says the Holy Ghost through St. Paul…but what does He know?
B
BayernAnhaenger
Guest
Top score!If I were publicly humiliated by a young man, I’d be the first to leave as well. You really shouldn’t bash on the youth who happen to have more love, respect, and enthusiasm for the Lord than some of the older generation. “From the mouth of babes…” If I recall correctly, the most beloved disciple was the *youngest *of the 12.
Or maybe the hope that if you let everyone else do as they please without saying anything, maybe Christ will do the same for you? We’re called to rebuke the sinner, it’s an act of mercy. Justifying the sinner equates us with the sin, so says the Holy Ghost through St. Paul…but what does He know?
J
JRKH
Guest
Very nicely put.If I were publicly humiliated by a young man, I’d be the first to leave as well. You really shouldn’t bash on the youth who happen to have more love, respect, and enthusiasm for the Lord than some of the older generation. “From the mouth of babes…” If I recall correctly, the most beloved disciple was the *youngest *of the 12.
Or maybe the hope that if you let everyone else do as they please without saying anything, maybe Christ will do the same for you? We’re called to rebuke the sinner, it’s an act of mercy. Justifying the sinner equates us with the sin, so says the Holy Ghost through St. Paul…but what does He know?
You are right. We are called to rebuke the sinner.
Let us examine the incident of the adulterous woman that was brought up.
The Crowd brought the Woman to Jesus for two purposes, one was to Cahllenge Jesus and second to Stone her to death - To kill her.
What was Jesus Response here? Did he join in with the crowd who were clearly in the right under Mosaic Law? Did He join in with them since He clearly said that Adultery was a sin?
He did not. First He forced the crowd to examine their own concience. Thereby leading them to see their own sins and causing them shame. That is why they could not stone her.
Then - After obviously saving her life, a fact she could hardly have missed, what did Jesus do? Did He judge her? Did He punish her? No He did not.
His words were - Then neither do I judge you. Go and sin no more.
I hope that by examining the scene in this way we are able ot see that there is a balance between admonishment and mercy.
This is not pointed at any one person but just an observation on the Gospel passage.
Peace
James
- Status