I'm not a Catholic because

[PRmerger]

While I’m not sure why you would need to worry everyday, PR, if your marriage has not been put away via a divorce, it appears to me you are saying the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition is incorrectly translated since that’s the version I quoted Jesus’ own words from. Which Catholic version then has the correct translation in your view?

There is no perfect translation, Matt, of the Bible. Each one is good/bad on its own merits.

 

[Michael19682]

Because the church does not welcome my husband and I of 22 years because we were not married in the church. And our first marriages were in the church. Annulments are out of the question as we have lost touch with our first spouses and we do not plan to live as brother and sister.

While working as an evening receptionist in a parish many years ago I often read the publication Catholic New York. It gets distributed free in parishes throughout New York and contains a lot of what journalists would call “puff pieces” – articles to boost morale, and stories of the great work of Catholic Layman in the arts and sciences. In other words, interesting reading, but not really theological food. Nevertheless, the late John Cardinal O’Connor wrote a letter to Catholic divorcees. He said that the Church wants [you] back.

While the name catholic means “universal”, and while the central authority of the Church resides with the Bishop of Rome, you will find that “where” you practice your faith can and often does make a big difference. I have seen and heard it said that there are catholic parishes who are more protestant than, say, some catholic leaning protestant churches. Seriously.

I would just assume that you feel not welcomed at the Eucharistic table, and that this is why you do not attend mass?

I have on occasion practiced in NYC, which is so large and crowded that it is famous for it. Big cities are often more inviting and liberal because they see so much more deviance and human misery that they are more in line with the true spirit of Christ, who rejected no one. You are not at fault for the rejection of would be fellow Parishioners.

I am not implying that this or that parish breaks rules, but that there is such a thing as a progressive movement within the Church.

As Catholics we have lots of rules and prescriptions. But recall the words of Jesus: “the Sabbath is for man, not man for the Sabbath.”

 

[Whadyamean]

There is no perfect translation, Matt, of the Bible. Each one is good/bad on its own merits.

This is a very astute and correct statement. Even a casual glance at the factors involved in translation, let alone interpretation, and the obscure flied of comparative meaning, (what does this literal word mean to me in my context vs what it means in the time, culture, circumstances, usage, intonation, body language, etc, of the original speaker/writer) all these and many more, including epistemology, phenomenology, and the one most and vastly neglected of all, basic self knowledge, all these are blithely dismissed by the flip assumption that the current English rendering of whatever version one reads is a one/one exact representation of the original. Really???!!! the Latin saw that “Translators are liars” is exactly true.

I remember poring over some seven translations of a contemporary poem by Pablo Naruda. That was in a living language with living speakers and competent translators. The various versions hardly resembled one another. Yet we presume that all the hashings of a language that was written LKTHSWTHTCPSRPNCTTNMRKSWTHNBRKS is easily decipherable and readily open to interpretation, even though it was written in a culture of whose everyday realities we have little or no experiential clue. Never mind the three levels of language used then both in parables and interpretive history. We also know, eg that Paul didn’t write all of “Paul,” and that there have been many amendments and alterations through the years of the Book. If I am not mistaken, an entire vers was recently dropped due to its being found to be unoriginal, at least.

It is regarded by those who study language that we can even communicate with each other in a "common"tongue! Do we really think that ordinary piety is an adequate compensation for all that and more? Obviously, that is done in huge droves. If there is a vast resource on here in terms of Faith, sincerity, devotion, and other virtues, it is heavily counterbalanced by an immense dearth of critical thinking and even beginning scholarly awareness. God bless us all!

 

[PRmerger]

I am not implying that this or that parish breaks rules, but that there is such a thing as a progressive movement within the Church.

As Catholics we have lots of rules and prescriptions. But recall the words of Jesus: “the Sabbath is for man, not man for the Sabbath.”

Michael, if you’re in a church which doesn’t cause you to feel a bit uncomfortable, which doesn’t cause you to change some of your beliefs…then you are, I daresay, in a church which you have designed to fit your own image, rather than conforming yourself to God’s.

It stands to reason that all things which God commands are not going to be to our liking.

A humble Christian will say, “Lord, I do not like that you said , but as you said I will change my point of view.”

Is there any viewpoint that this progressive Catholic Church espouses which makes you uncomfortable, but to which you conform because, well, God has declared it?

 

[fbl9]

PR, I have no idea the details of Struggling’s and her current husband’s divorces. Neither are the details any of my business. But I do know Jesus specifically said** if fornication was a reason and another marriage occurs, adultery is not committed. ** Matt 19:9 “And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery”. Of course even the sin of adultery can be forgiven. In any case I can’t help but wonder if Struggling and her 2nd husband can not find their first spouses, WWJD?

I guess St.Paul missed that point. For St. Paul clearly writes let no man put away his wife 1cor.7-11, he has no cavets allowing it.
I ask where are the words in scripture that i have bolded. no wheres, you are putting words in the mouth of Christ that He did not speak.

 

[CopticChristian]

This is a very astute and correct statement. Even a casual glance at the factors involved in translation, let alone interpretation, and the obscure flied of comparative meaning, (what does this literal word mean to me in my context vs what it means in the time, culture, circumstances, usage, intonation, body language, etc, of the original speaker/writer) all these and many more, including epistemology, phenomenology, and the one most and vastly neglected of all, basic self knowledge, all these are blithely dismissed by the flip assumption that the current English rendering of whatever version one reads is a one/one exact representation of the original. Really???!!! the Latin saw that “Translators are liars” is exactly true.

I remember poring over some seven translations of a contemporary poem by Pablo Naruda. That was in a living language with living speakers and competent translators. The various versions hardly resembled one another. Yet we presume that all the hashings of a language that was written LKTHSWTHTCPSRPNCTTNMRKSWTHNBRKS is easily decipherable and readily open to interpretation, even though it was written in a culture of whose everyday realities we have little or no experiential clue. Never mind the three levels of language used then both in parables and interpretive history. We also know, eg that Paul didn’t write all of “Paul,” and that there have been many amendments and alterations through the years of the Book. If I am not mistaken, an entire vers was recently dropped due to its being found to be unoriginal, at least.

It is regarded by those who study language that we can even communicate with each other in a "common"tongue! Do we really think that ordinary piety is an adequate compensation for all that and more? Obviously, that is done in huge droves. If there is a vast resource on here in terms of Faith, sincerity, devotion, and other virtues, it is** heavily counterbalanced by an immense dearth of critical thinking and even beginning scholarly awareness.** God bless us all!

Considering Translations, you are correct and as you know the OHCAC is not based on the Bible alone, rather the Bible, Tradition and the Magesterium. You know how you all sat around and talked at Christmas what you did in years past. Well the guys at the Church have been sitting down regularly yearly, if not more often talking about what was done in generations past for about 2000 years…so we got that covered.

As for Pablo Naruda we read from the OT, Epistles, Gospels and the liturgy and the missal have been revised however Pablo Naruda is not Scripture.

Now you have insulted me and many on this thread. I am part of that counterbalance. You don’t know me. You have no idea how brilliant I am. You do not know the size of my head that cannot fit through doors and I am a pip squeak compared to many others on this thread and you say that I and they are a “dearth” of not only critical thinking you then add scholarly awareness. You then add a blessing.

I forgive you knowing that you ride a horse of a different color unless one is color blind and in that case the horse may be lame and if lame shot…they shoot horses don’t they…I never really liked Jane Fonda and considering “na-na-na-na-na-I-can’t-hear-you-na na-na!” I was confused…now was this Bowser and sha na na or were you considering that listening and hearing are different…as you recall in white men can’t jump Wesley Snipes pointed out that you can listen to Jimmy but you can’t hear him. As for Salvador Munichin, I rather favor Virginia Sater, as you know she was the example that Richard Bandler used for the commencement of NLP and then I wasn’t sure if you were considering Baron Von Munchkin who you may be familiar with…now conerning my ego, I never know what to do with that let alone defend it as you ego, you go, he go…whatever happened to the Yugo…probably wasn’t a very good car…anyway…Bless you for insulting me and others on this post.

 

[PJM]

=PRmerger;8742888]Michael, if you’re in a church which doesn’t cause you to feel a bit uncomfortable, which doesn’t cause you to change some of your beliefs…then you are, I daresay, in a church which you have designed to fit your own image, rather than conforming yourself to God’s.

It stands to reason that all things which God commands are not going to be to our liking.

A humble Christian will say, “Lord, I do not like that you said , but as you said I will change my point of view.”

Is there any viewpoint that this progressive Catholic Church espouses which makes you uncomfortable, but to which you conform because, well, God has declared it?

EXCELLENT; Asute response:thumbsup:

Thank you,

Pat

 

[Michael19682]

Michael, if you’re in a church which doesn’t cause you to feel a bit uncomfortable, which doesn’t cause you to change some of your beliefs…then you are, I daresay, in a church which you have designed to fit your own image, rather than conforming yourself to God’s.

It stands to reason that all things which God commands are not going to be to our liking.

A humble Christian will say, “Lord, I do not like that you said , but as you said I will change my point of view.”

Is there any viewpoint that this progressive Catholic Church espouses which makes you uncomfortable, but to which you conform because, well, God has declared it?

Thank you for your thought inducing reply. I guess I had never thought much about people feeling uncomfortable in Church. I was taken to Church from a very young age with my grandmother, who helped raise me and my sister. (I came from the Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children, even though I was only an infant when adopted. My parents got me after my baptism had already taken place.) I made first communion and that was it as far as the sacraments of initiation were concerned. Still, my parents took us to our Parish frequently. I recall now, though I was too young to understand the significance of it then, our family being stopped in the parking lot by someone who reprimanded my parents for taking me to communion. I often stayed home from Church because I knew I was guilty and wasn’t sure how to go about reconciling with God other than through saying the Our Father. I knew all the rules if not because everyone knows them, then because I felt them in my heart.

The Church is a group of sinners trying to get through life without hell breaking loose on them? Christ himself said it: “I came to call sinners, not the righteous.” I know very well that I am a sinner; and I think I understand what Jesus meant when he said “the righteous”. In my view, the righteous are the worst sinners of them all because they cause the truly childlike to sin. It is the Church’s sacrifice that saves the righteous - and they are incapable of gratitude because they are already righteous.

People who want to go to Church but are disabled by the righteous, they are the sacrificial lambs of the modern day Church. They know Christ most intimately. The post of mine which you quoted was made the way it was because I could not quite reach that sentiment when I wrote it. I thank you dearly for helping me clarify my position and thoughts.

Luke 7:22-23

 

[Whadyamean]

Considering Translations, you are correct and as you know the OHCAC is not based on the Bible alone, rather the Bible, Tradition and the Magesterium. You know how you all sat around and talked at Christmas what you did in years past. Well the guys at the Church have been sitting down regularly yearly, if not more often talking about what was done in generations past for about 2000 years…so we got that covered.

I guess it has become habit forming to the point that important factors are missed, in the same way that the Inquisition just about burned all of St Catherine’s work.

As for Pablo Naruda we read from the OT, Epistles, Gospels and the liturgy and the missal have been revised however Pablo Naruda is not Scripture.

And as far as the principles inherent in translation, the difference is???

Now you have insulted me and many on this thread. I am part of that counterbalance. You don’t know me. You have no idea how brilliant I am. You do not know the size of my head that cannot fit through doors and I am a pip squeak compared to many others on this thread and you say that I and they are a “dearth” of not only critical thinking you then add scholarly awareness. You then add a blessing.

I was asked, as implied by the thread title, why I am not a Catholic. I have answered from thought and experience. You have harangued through habitual beliefs that I am betting have not been examined from any other than a self verifying position. You, CC, have insulted me. I have been in your position, but was graced to move.

I forgive you knowing that you ride a horse of a different color unless one is color blind and in that case the horse may be lame and if lame shot…they shoot horses don’t they…I never really liked Jane Fonda and considering “na-na-na-na-na-I-can’t-hear-you-na na-na!” I was confused…now was this Bowser and sha na na or were you considering that listening and hearing are different…as you recall in white men can’t jump Wesley Snipes pointed out that you can listen to Jimmy but you can’t hear him.

more na na. You’re good at this!

As for Salvador Munichin, I rather favor Virginia Sater, as you know she was the example that Richard Bandler used for the commencement of NLP and then I wasn’t sure if you were considering Baron Von Munchkin who you may be familiar with…now conerning my ego, I never know what to do with that let alone defend it as you ego, you go, he go…whatever happened to the Yugo…probably wasn’t a very good car…anyway…Bless you for insulting me and others on this post.

Well, you apparently have a glimmer of hope going for you if you admire Satire and Bandler. Now if you only used their ideas for other than satire…

 

[Whadyamean]

***Yes my friend;

But you’re speaking of “Spiritual presence” while I as a Catholic am speaking of Jesus in His Now Glorified Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. REALLY Jesus in Person. And that y friend is thee single most im portant reason to NOT be a wondering "catholic:

If you’d like a fuller explaination send me a private message.

God Bless you,
Pat***

Thanks. Pat. I do appreciate your efforts. But once again, as I have said, and even repeated a few times, and mentioned in other places, (been taking lessons from CC) I have come from a very staunch and devoted Catholic practice. I have experiential and theoretical knowledge both of what you are talking about. I am, I assure you, no stranger to your beliefs. But thanks for the reiteration.

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you for your thought inducing reply. I guess I had never thought much about people feeling uncomfortable in Church.

Oh, just to be clear, Michael. I’m not proclaiming that anyone should feel “uncomfortable in Church.”

I am saying that if you haven’t been challenged to change your point of view by the Church, then you are designing a church in your own image. If you are resting in a “comfortable” moral code–that is, saying, for example, “I really don’t like it that non-Catholics can’t take communion, therefore I believe that God has said that non-Catholics CAN take communion”…

then you have designed a god in your own image.

Reality speaks to a God who would command that YOU change your point of view. Not find a church that conforms to all of your likes/dislikes.

 

[PRmerger]

I was taken to Church from a very young age with my grandmother, who helped raise me and my sister. (I came from the Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children, even though I was only an infant when adopted. My parents got me after my baptism had already taken place.) I made first communion and that was it as far as the sacraments of initiation were concerned. Still, my parents took us to our Parish frequently. I recall now, though I was too young to understand the significance of it then, our family being stopped in the parking lot by someone who reprimanded my parents for taking me to communion.

Why weren’t your parents supposed to take you to communion?

I often stayed home from Church because I knew I was guilty and wasn’t sure how to go about reconciling with God other than through saying the Our Father. I knew all the rules if not because everyone knows them, then because I felt them in my heart.

What teaching in the Church tells you that you’re supposed to “stay home” because of guilt or sin? I have NEVER heard of that teaching before.

The Church is a group of sinners trying to get through life without hell breaking loose on them? Christ himself said it: “I came to call sinners, not the righteous.” I know very well that I am a sinner; and I think I understand what Jesus meant when he said “the righteous”.

Amen!

In my view, the righteous are the worst sinners of them all because they cause the truly childlike to sin.

How do the righteous cause the truly childlike to sin?

People who want to go to Church but are disabled by the righteous, they are the sacrificial lambs of the modern day Church.

Huh?

They know Christ most intimately

How can anyone know Christ most intimately without the Eucharist, the most intimate of unions possible this side of heaven?

 

[alison37]

Just a word of kind sympathy for “struggling3”…my situation is very similar to yours and I feel very sorry for you. I attend Mass, pray the Divine Office and the Rosary even though I cannot become a Catholic. It is very painful, I understand, but I also believe that Jesus is very loving and forgiving. After all, He responded to the Gentile woman who reminded Him that “even the little dogs eat of the crumbs from their master’s table”. I often feel like that woman but even the “crumbs” from the Master’s table are better than a feast elsewhere. Please don’t give up on the Church just because you can’t see a way to become a fully participating member…there are others just like you. Peace.

 

[escambuit]

Its not so much that I’m not Catholic, as it is I am Lutheran. But to answer your question, I’ll point to 2 things:

1. I still find the Augsburg Confession to be a confession of faith that is both catholic and evangelical, and one I can still confess without any serious question of conscience.
2. I continue to find the current claims of universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the pope to be outside the teachings of the early councils and Church. This is for me the overriding factor in remaining outside of communion with the Bishop of Rome, something I would be happy to resolve.

Jon

Hello Jon

Just a thought I’d like to share with you…Catholicism has it’s foundation in Christ and traces it’s history to Him and the apostles. Luther was an Augustinian Catholic priest who quit Catholicism and started his own religion. He became a priest out of fear not love. He quit out of anger and frustration at a corrupt Rome.
He eliminated some of the sacraments and edited the bible to suit his will.
As to your concerns about universal jurisdiction …St. Paul defers to St. Peter ( the first Pope ) in a theological difference of opinion. This documentation may not be in the King James version of your bible which was rewritten and heavily edited from earlier tranlations eg. Douey Reims. How heavily edited? King James totally eliminated an entire book of the Old Testament …Second Machabees. I’ll tell you why this was done if you respond to this send.
Hope to hear from you

escambuit

 

[PRmerger]

Just a word of kind sympathy for “struggling3”…my situation is very similar to yours and I feel very sorry for you. I attend Mass, pray the Divine Office and the Rosary even though I cannot become a Catholic

Of course you can become Catholic, alison! Jesus is calling you to this, I am certain.

However, just like a person who is living with her boyfriend can become a Catholic, but must remain chaste, so must you.

It is very painful, I understand, but I also believe that Jesus is very loving and forgiving.

Indeed.

 

[escambuit]

Just a word of kind sympathy for “struggling3”…my situation is very similar to yours and I feel very sorry for you. I attend Mass, pray the Divine Office and the Rosary even though I cannot become a Catholic. It is very painful, I understand, but I also believe that Jesus is very loving and forgiving. After all, He responded to the Gentile woman who reminded Him that “even the little dogs eat of the crumbs from their master’s table”. I often feel like that woman but even the “crumbs” from the Master’s table are better than a feast elsewhere. Please don’t give up on the Church just because you can’t see a way to become a fully participating member…there are others just like you. Peace.

May I share a few thoughts with you? Please continue to go to Mass for 1 Mass is spiritually more valuable than all the rosaries and devine office prayers combined in all of history.
You can become a Catholic, it just might mean loving God more than your family, job friends, money , inheritance or anything else the world has to offer

In the Love of God
escambuit

 

[Michael19682]

Oh, just to be clear, Michael. I’m not proclaiming that anyone should feel “uncomfortable in Church.”

I am saying that if you haven’t been challenged to change your point of view by the Church, then you are designing a church in your own image. If you are resting in a “comfortable” moral code–that is, saying, for example, “I really don’t like it that non-Catholics can’t take communion, therefore I believe that God has said that non-Catholics CAN take communion”…

then you have designed a god in your own image.

Reality speaks to a God who would command that YOU change your point of view. Not find a church that conforms to all of your likes/dislikes.

Again, you induce further thought and I am very greatful to you for it. Your example is also very interesting to me. I believe that non-Catholics should convert to Catholicism if they want to receive Catholic communion. Else they can take their communion elsewhere. The poster I replied to originally was married in a Catholic Church, and therefore has been initiated fully into the mystery of Christ. I cited a well known person’s own words (which I now realize that I did in a regretted possible violation of the rules, though I am not sure because his words appeared in a public journal of the Archdiocese of New York and were an open letter, and thus are verifiable) in an attempt to encourage this person’s discernment of calling to receive the sacrament of Eucharist. In no wise did I intend to interpret anyone’s words as promoting a bending of the rules.

However. as I said, the poster has been fully initiated and is a Catholic, estranged or not. Romans chapter 8 makes clear that no power can ever separate us from his love. By definition God is Love, and no where is that love more present than in holy communion. What was never offered can not be said to have been lost. But the Church has offered communion to this person and it seems to me that your reasoning implies She is a power which can separate a person from God’s love. The poster stated that she is not about to live with her spouse as brother and sister, and that that is the chief reason she is no longer Catholic.

2 Cor 19-20

It is a conundrum for the poster to live with. Rules with regard to communion have been changed before - the fasting prohibition lifted and communion in the hand.

Taken together, this would imply that a person can choose a Church according to his/her tastes, so long as the gospel preached is not misconstrued. Some Churches have no communion at all. I see the latter as an error, of course. But whether it should be received standing, seated, in the hand, after a fast, one day per week only, do not seem to be relevant to the ‘worthiness’ described in 1 Cor 27?

I have come to believe that many Churches offer no communion because they cannot agree on ‘worthiness’. The end result is that they have no communion at all. How does that serve anyone?

 

[Roy5]

A few points

(1) **There is considerable debate over whether the Roman Catholic Church is the oldest within Christianity. **Certainly the Orthodox churches as well as certain Churches of the East (e.g., Coptics) would argue with that. Protestants generally would say that Roman Catholicism took on many aspects of Greek and Roman culture (and religion) that were not part of the message of Christ, and eventually this required a reformation. 

(2) **As for divorce, Christ made fornication an exception**. He was actually disputing Jewish law which permitted men to divorce their wives quite easily. However, he said nothing about divorce being an unforgivable sin. I have never understood why murderers can be forgiven their crime and able to receive communion without going through some church procedure other than confession but good people who are incompatible husbands and wives who divorce cannot do the same, but have to go through an extensive process known as annulment. Clearly, it would seem to be a church divorce based on the judgement of others. Different dioceses also seem to impose different standards. I was shocked to find that Gingrich seems to have forgiven his two divorces and is now viewed by many as a 'good Catholic' because he converted. Miserabile dictu!

** One question along this line.** I know a woman, a baptized Catholic, who fell in love with a minister. They were married, she became a Protestant, taught Sunday School, and in every other way became involved in her husband’s ministry. She happened to be chatting with a Catholic priest one day at an ecumenical gathering, and the priest kindly but specifically told her that in the eyes of the Catholic Church she was living in sin, that her marriage was not valid because she had been baptized Catholic - despite the fact that she had become a Protestant. She was furious at the priest’s comment. Let me ask: was the priest right or wrong?

 (3) **As for the presence of Christ, he said he was with us even to the end of time**. To my knowledge, he never said that he was going to be less or more with us in the Eucharist. Frankly - and forgive me if this is offensive - the idea that Christ is to be identified physically as bread and wine can seem bizarre to many Catholics and non-Catholics alike. I saw a survey in the *US Catholic* magazine a couple years ago that over half of Catholics don't believe this. I presume, then, that these are not genuine Catholics and should not be counted when Catholics are counted. Transubstantiation is, if I'm not mistaken, an absolute must belief when it comes to Catholic authenticity. 

  **Various pagan religions had a 'sacred meal' **when they consumed of some food, believing that such an act was consuming God that would make them more like God.

** I have stated several times that I have a mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage**. I have drawn away from both the traditional Catholic belief system as well as that of evangelical Protestantism (also part of my heritage - maternal side). Instead I find myself attracted to mainline Protestantism which permits a wide range of belief. Such groups as the Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians and UCC (Congregationalists) offer Bible study groups which are predicated on the idea that reasonable people can interpret different passages differently. If you refuse to go to war, you can quote the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:38-44). Ditto if you are a Quaker and refuse to swear on the Bible in court (matt.5:34). Etc.

** I love much about Catholicism**. The Church certainly has produced some remarkable cathedrals, music, saints, hospitals, schools and much more. She does excellent work among the poor. It grieves me that she is so authoritarian when it comes to doctrine and permits so little freedom of thought on questions where the faithful should be allowed to hold diverse views. I also would like to see the church permit priests to marry and allow women to serve as deacons. I personally believe this will happen in time, but the papal leadership since Paul VI has moved in the opposite direction on such issues. This is sad.

  **But if you can go along with all this, fine.**  Different strokes for different folks. The thread wants to know why we're not Catholic and I've tried to provide one partial and (to me) reasonable response.

  God bless everybody, of every creed, color, culture and country. Let us make religion  a bridge rather than a barrier. Christ must be saddened by the intolerance of so many people who claim to be his followers.

 

[Carlan]

**
(2) As for divorce, Christ made fornication an exception**. He was actually disputing Jewish law which permitted men to divorce their wives quite easily. However, he said nothing about divorce being an unforgivable sin. I have never understood why murderers can be forgiven their crime and able to receive communion without going through some church procedure other than confession but good people who are incompatible husbands and wives who divorce cannot do the same, but have to go through an extensive process known as annulment. Clearly, it would seem to be a church divorce based on the judgement of others. Different dioceses also seem to impose different standards. I was shocked to find that Gingrich seems to have forgiven his two divorces and is now viewed by many as a ‘good Catholic’ because he converted. Miserabile dictu!.

I will take #2 Roy.When a couple marry, it is said “Let no man put asunder”. If you marry each other in the Apostolic Church and later become legally divorced it does not mean you are free to remarry. The Church and God still considers your marriage valid. If you remarry you commit adultery. Hard yes, but that is how it is. Like it or not!
PS, Annulment is granted only if the marriage was not valid in the first place.
Peace, Carlan

 

[Michael19682]

Why weren’t your parents supposed to take you to communion?

What teaching in the Church tells you that you’re supposed to “stay home” because of guilt or sin? I have NEVER heard of that teaching before.

None. But we are not supposed to approach communion if not in a state of grace. I was never given the opportunity by my parents to go to confession. I was not given any religious education because I was threatened with violence if I should go (to CCD). At college I attempted to go to a mass with some friends but as I neared the campus parish a crazed female student turned around and said she would have me killed if I went in! It was noted by my friends, who in good samiratan style left me to return to the dorms in wonder.

Threats of violence aside, I think is rather embarrassing and degrading to sit in the pews while everyone else (all sinless?) approaches the altar and receives communion. Why bother? The communion is the central focus of the mass.

Amen!

How do the righteous cause the truly childlike to sin?

The righteous, who make the places we worship inhospitable to the poor in spirit, leave people without recourse to communion. Communion strengthens us and improves our resolve to not sin. With that resolve lost - unless you wish to martyr yourself for it - to say that the righteous cause the childlike to sin is a true statement.

Huh?

My sentiments exactly.

How can anyone know Christ most intimately without the Eucharist, the most intimate of unions possible this side of heaven?

By being persecuted by the righteous. His passion and death are experienced everyday by those the righteous reject and slander. Some may receive communion as a sign of heaven, for others as the scriptures point out it brings responsibility for the Lord’s death.