I can tell you without a shadow of hesitation that “marriage” existed before the RCC or the Lutheran Church was ever thought of.
I’m not sure what this has to do with my post but I’ll bite. The core difficulty is the non-recognition of marriages? The core difficulty of what? And what “marriages” are not recognized that you believe should be?
Who told you that the Catholic Church does not recognize marriage outside of the Church or that Catholics believe that marriage didn’t exist prior to the RCC? The Church does not “marry” the people. This is a sacrament given from one spouse to the other and becomes valid upon consumation of the sexual act. The Church is only a witness, however, outside of the Church, the sacramental value is absent. It does not mean that there isn’t significant value and validity to the marriage. But you can’t expect to receive the sacrament if you don’t believe in it to begin with.
My parents were banned from both the RCC and the Lutheran Church because they married outside of the blessing and unction of their respective churches and so were essentially living in a state of continual sin. It seems I know more about RCC dogma than you do.
I meant in that other poster’s story of his parents.
I doubt that, but you never know. As for the specific instance of your parents I’m positive that you know more than I. As I don’t know the specifics I won’t comment. My statements were intended in a more general sense. I do know that the Catholic Church allows marriage between different faiths, though it may recommend against it for practical reasons. Not sure about the Lutherans.
I was married in a Catholic church, but no one could receive communion because I was Protestant.
I am not sure what the current status of this ruling is. I know at that time, the early 20’s, the RCC did not allow marriage outside the RCC.
I was wondering about that - The time frame I mean. Much has changed in how Catholics and Protestants view each other since then.
That is the real problem Protestants have with the RCC. Every ruling is inspired dogma until it is shown to be ridiculous, un-workable, or just downright unbiblical then it changes to some other inspired dogma.
That’s because you don’t know what you’re talking about. What the Church teaches, and what you THINK it teaches, are two very different things.
Could you please point me to the denomination/church that has perfect behavior from its clergy and members? I would love to learn more about them.
Those of other Christian faiths can be married to a Catholic in the Church (I was). But I fully understood why I was not allowed to partake in Communion, b/c I was not a member of the Church, and the Church reserves that for those who are full members in a state of grace. Just about every church and denomination has some beliefs and requirements that must be held to be considered a full member of the denomination. A good example, if a Catholic were to join the Baptist denomination, they would not be considered “baptized” b/c they had been baptized as an infant, and they had not been fully submerged. They would require you be baptized again.
only the RCC claims to have clergy that speak in the place of God in an inspired sinless way.
Not so I joined a Baptist Church in the 70’s and was not required to do so.
I “understood” too. I agreed to it. But my wife and all her family members were denied Mass, and I thought that that was unfortunate and unnecessary. If I were in charge, I would not do it that way. That was all I was saying, in response to the question asked here.
could you provide your evidence from the catechisms or canon. As per catechism 1550,
**So I would just like to ask protestants, why do you guys protest?/**QUOTE]
I don’t.
Which Baptist Church? I was a Baptist for almost 40 years and a pastor. Catholics baptism or any infant baptism was rejected. Any form other than full immersion was rejected.