Protestant Pastors Who Marry and Divorce (And Remarry!)

  • Thread starter Thread starter suburbanzombie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dokimas said:
If this practice of yours bothers people, why do you continue using it? Wouldn’t it be nicer to say, “as a catholic, I believe this too”? Do you always have to be making your point that you think all Bible truths come from the CC (or through the CC)? According to John, it comes directly to each believer (surely with limitations of learning and sin).
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the Catholic Church, who with the guidance of the Spirit wrote the NT, formed the Bible, and preserved and protected it down through the centuries, doesn’t know what it means? Even though she copied it letter-by-letter, word-for-word, by hand for fifteen centuries? Hmmmm.

The Apostle John, when there was no Bible, wrote that Bible truths come directly to each believer? All those conflicting and competing Protestant interpretations are true? Oh, except, perhaps, those that are the result of learning limitations and sin? That leaves only the ‘true’ interpretations – which ones are those? Yours? :)::p:)

Couldn’t resist.

Jim Dandy

EDIT to add a couple of commas.
 
Jim Dandy,
Have you ever heard of Black Oak Arkansas? What about Bill Godley?
 
Jim_Dandy said:
Are you saying that the Catholic Church, who with the guidance of the Spirit wrote the NT, formed the Bible, and preserved and protected it down through the centuries, doesn’t know what it means? Even though she copied it letter-by-letter, word-for-word, by hand for fifteen centuries? Hmmmm.

The Apostle John, when there was no Bible, wrote that Bible truths come directly to each believer? All those conflicting and competing Protestant interpretations are true? Oh, except perhaps those that are the result of learning limitations and sin? That leaves only the ‘true’ interpretations – which ones are those? Yours? :)::p:)

Couldn’t resist.

Jim Dandy
Click to expand...
I’m sure you think you got a good jab in there. Nice try. 🙂
 
Dokimas said:
I know I’m not going to persuade you that we’re looking at a ‘rose’. If those seminarians have to pledge celebacy to be a priest, it’s a rose, which for those that believe they are called to be a priest, it’s a gun.
Click to expand...
if they see it as a gun they their calling to be a priest is false.
 
vsedriver said:
if they see it as a gun they their calling to be a priest is false.
Click to expand...
true. But its not likely they see it this way. If they feel the pain of feeling married and ordained, then maybe they feel they have to make a choice. This is probably the “gun” mentioned. A man seeking the priesthood and then marriage is not ordered. It’s disordered. You seek one or the other. If married, then it depends on the bishop of Rome, not just the local ordinary. A man may feel called, but unless the Church acknowledges he has a vocation he simply moves on. He may want to consider the diaconate because that is what I feel drawn to most. It only makes sense to me now. But I’ve often wished I was eastern Catholic or even Eastern Orthodox so that I could discern without the rejection based on the fact I’m married.

Either way, it’s not nice to say that they do not have a vocation, because they may feel called and are called, but God is not saying yes now. It may be that a wife will pass before him and then the door opens. You never really know. So, nicely I ask that we be a bit more careful until we know for sure. But I agree with what you stated.
 
PbloPicasso said:
Jim Dandy,
Have you ever heard of Black Oak Arkansas? What about Bill Godley?
Click to expand...
I’ve been asked that once before on the Forum, but I’d never heard of 'em. I got the name from my ole Oklahoma Granddaddy, who used to say “That’s Jim Dandy” when he was pleased about something. He went to meet the Lord long before the now famous “Jim Dandy” appeared on the scene. Maybe ***THAT ***Jim Dandy took his name from the colloquial expression that was common with farmers in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and environs back in the day? 'Spose?

:DJim
 
PbloPicasso said:
Actually, as scandalous as this is to say, I am a former Catholic Seminarian from 1979 to 1980. I dated a girl for almost 4 years after the seminary trying to prove to myself and other that I was straight after a priest and a seminarian tried to make passes on me. The priest invited me over one weekend and being the naive young man I was I went and didn’t think twice about the arrangements until … In 1985, after joining the military and turning to scandalous living in my anger at God for allowing all of this sin to happen to me I finally submitted and repented. From there I struggled with what God wanted from me and finally in 1987 I submitted that God wanted me to become a priest and vowed to become a priest unless He led me to a Godly woman, Catholic. I moved stateside and looked for an order to join trying to see if it fit. I then realized I’d probably become a diocesan priest and then I met my now wife, then fundamentalist in the Church of Christ, the faith I always believed to be true. I was a bible on Catholic and never really understood Sacred Tradition. I thought it was mans tradition until I began to understand. The Holy Spirit shut me up several times which taught me to be more humble in my faith walk. In 1996, God finally called my bluff and pulled me back into the Catholic Church, but He also answered my stubborn prayer that if he wanted me to be Catholic He had to first prove it by converting my wife first without my doing.
Click to expand...
:blessyou:
 
Jim_Dandy said:
I’ve been asked that once before on the Forum, but I’d never heard of 'em. I got the name from my ole Oklahoma Granddaddy, who used to say “That’s Jim Dandy” when he was pleased about something. He went to meet the Lord long before the now famous “Jim Dandy” appeared on the scene. Maybe ***THAT ***Jim Dandy took his name from the colloquial expression that was common with farmers in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and environs back in the day? 'Spose?

:DJim
Click to expand...
Bill Godley played with them. They sang a song, on MTV, “Jim Dandy”. Bill is a frat bro of mine that now lives in Lake Charles and is an attorney, but he’s in another band now. Old guys trying to find their grove I guess.
 
Dokimas said:
I’m sure you think you got a good jab in there. Nice try. 🙂
Click to expand...
My post was written so as not to offend, but it poses a very serious question – the Bible is a Catholic book, Dokimas. The Church is the author of the NT and the only God-given interpreter.

Peace, Jim Dandy
 
PbloPicasso said:
Bill Godley played with them. They sang a song, on MTV, “Jim Dandy”. Bill is a frat bro of mine that now lives in Lake Charles and is an attorney, but he’s in another band now. Old guys trying to find their grove I guess.
Click to expand...
Oops. And I thought Jim Dandy was a singer with the band! :ouch: Thanks for setting me straight!

A name like “Godley” makes me envious. That’s what I wanna be. :signofcross:
 
pnewton said:
And he didn’t, from a Catholic point of view. Divorce does not dissolve a marriage. That is why he was clear that a writ of divorce was an accommodation for sin. Again, I am speaking from a Catholic understanding of this passage. So for me, a dissolved marriage is a hypothetical, while divorce is not.
Click to expand...
The thing that continues to bother me is that Jesus made an exception (indicated by the word “except”) wherein certain actually-married people should divorce (in the “writ of divorce” sense of the word, I presume?) when the grounds have to do with “porneia.” What you seem to be suggesting is a situation in which these people are (and always will be) married in the eyes of God, and yet Jesus makes an exception for when they should get divorced. Why would God tell people to behave as if they were not married when in God’s eyes, they are? What I conclude is that Jesus makes this exception because sometimes, a divorce is consistent with the condition of the marriage in God’s eyes- ie., people would obtain a writ of divorce indicating that the marriage is dissolved because it is actually dissolved. I don’t think God would tell people to do something if it were inconsistent with what the marriage is in His eyes.
Well the Pharisees from Mark 10 sure thought that marriage could be dissolved, so yes, I am sure it was believed my many. Even today the civil nature of divorce is confused with the spiritual reality, again from a Catholic POV, and I am referring to Cathlics that do not understand it.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t really asking about a casual-opinion-on-the-street kind of thing. I was trying to get at the Jewish tradition as espoused by their God-appointed priesthood. I’m pretty sure God’s chosen people had an understanding (not just casual opinion, but official recognition at the highest levels) of marriage and divorce wherein divorce could actually dissolve an actual marriage…correct?

The way I tend to operate is that I usually want to go back to where it all began. And as you well know, the Catholic Church did not invent marriage. It predates the CC by quite a bit. So if I take it back to the beginning and find that God’s people have always looked at divorce as something that could actually end an actual marriage, I’m sure you won’t take it personally if I view your “dissolution-of-marriage-is-impossible” POV as something that’s inconsistent with what marriage (and divorce) have always been.
 
PRmerger said:
No need to apologize, cooterhein.

It is the culture on the CAFs that when you post in public, all member are allowed to respond.
Click to expand...
You’re certainly allowed to, but I’m asking you not to. It’s best if you don’t ask why.
If you were only posting to one member, and reading only their responses, it’s a good idea to PM them.
Click to expand...
I don’t mind if other people jump in. It’s you I have a problem with.

Remember the last time I told you to take a hint? This would be a really, really good time to do that.

Don’t ask why. Just stop responding to my posts, please. I am not interested in talking to you.
 
cooterhein said:
I wasn’t really asking about a casual-opinion-on-the-street kind of thing. I was trying to get at the Jewish tradition as espoused by their God-appointed priesthood. I’m pretty sure God’s chosen people had an understanding (not just casual opinion, but official recognition at the highest levels) of marriage and divorce wherein divorce could actually dissolve an actual marriage…correct?
Click to expand...
The Pharisees were scarcely the man on the street. They were the strict Fundamentalists of the day. Yes, the Jews were God’s chosen people. However, they were also a rebellous and stiff-necked people that often went awry.
 
PRmerger said:
This is adding to Scripture, PLee. There is nothing that says that remarriage is allowed for the “innocent victim.”

Either it means that divorce is allowed for adultery, and both are free to marry subsequently. And any man or woman seeking to divorce one’s spouse “legitimately” only need cheat on the spouse in order to have the divorce sanctioned. :whacky:

Or it doesn’t mean divorce is allowed for adultery, but for porneia, which is illicit familial or incestual relationships.
Click to expand...
From the catechism:

2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.179

There are times where one partner to a marriage is innocent of the dissolution of the marriage. Jesus allows for an exception. Jesus doesn’t say anything about annulments, he says a man can divorce his wife if the circumstance is her having commited “porneia”. I think you have no solid basis to say that adultery is not included under the heading of “porneia”.
 
cooterhein said:
The thing that continues to bother me is that Jesus made an exception (indicated by the word “except”) wherein certain actually-married people should divorce (in the “writ of divorce” sense of the word, I presume?)
Click to expand...
No. The “exception clause” is for those who were not truly married, but rather in illicit relationships (indicated by the word porneia.) If Jesus had meant an exception for “adultery” he would have used the Greek word for “adultery”, which is moichatai. (Noted: Jesus spoke Aramaic. Read above to mean “the inspired writer would have written moichatai.”)

Not to mention that giving an “exception clause” for adultery seems absurd–all a spouse needs to do in order to convince himself he can divorce his wife “validly” is to cheat on her.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top