Quick! (Take 2)

[AlanFromWichita]

It doesn’t ‘settle’ anything - there is no winner in theological debate - you either respect another person’s right to disagree with you, or start your own church.

Now you’re talking. When we argue about rules, dogma, and the literal sense of scripture, be tend to be legalistic and as with everything even modestly academic, it has to be dualistically determined what is right/wrong. Better or worse.

But if you move beyond a dualistic mindset – then you can start to move beyond the “law of sin and death” as Paul talks about, into the second half of spiritual life, the kingdom, where you, having been born of the spirit, are no longer bound by the law of sin and death, but the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus. Ref Rom 8.

Jesus always thwarted questions that tried to trap him in a lose-lose situation, by giving Him a question that has two choices as answers. Jesus thwarted them by rising to a higher level of logic, with total disregard they tried to capture him in their thought boxes with these questions.

For example the adulteress, they asked, should we a) kill her, or b) disobey the law. Jesus chose neither, but rose to a non-dualistic answer, “whoever is without sin throw the first stone.” Basically He got them to fail to enforce the law, which He could do because He planned to pay for her sin with His own body.

It isn’t about who is right, but who is loving. So yes as you say we may be respectful of each other enough to even be joking. But I’m OK that we have different ideas of the scripture, because I think that “being right” on a literal basis is not where the real Good News is. Many places I understand the Church does not teach what the literal meaning of much of the bible is. It reminds me of Jesus saying, in Luke 12:14, "He replied to him, “‘Friend, who appointed me as your judge and arbitrator?’” So yeah, we sheep like to romp around and nip at each others’ ears a bit, and the Church just smiles and continues to point the way toward the Lord. We challenge each other like bear cubs, learning to fight within a context that we still want what’s best for each other regardless of our disagreements.

Alan

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

I guessed that you did hold to the tritrian beleif.
To which you replied that their path was equal to yours as a means to God.

However as i posted later that holding this beleif ( non tritrian) as an equal to ours is not what Jesus wanted. St.John 17:20.

I have a problem with this. It seems like you’re saying that you know what Jesus wanted and anyone that does not agree with you is, by definition wrong (implied: is wrong and a heathen and doomed to burn for eternity).

I see Jesus as a unifier, not a separatist. It is my opinion (and I could be wrong) that some people like rules and strict definitions and use them as a way of making the world more ‘black and white’. God gave 10 commandments to Moses, and somehow we end up with over 600 rules about what it is to be good. Christ came to simplify and bring us together with two simple rules: love God, and love your neighbor. Just do those 2 things and everything will be alright.

 

[fbl9]

It doesn’t ‘settle’ anything - there is no winner in theological debate - you either respect another person’s right to disagree with you, or start your own church.

in certain theological debates there was a winner and it was the pope that settled the matter. monothesim,is one that comes to mind
at the same time there is truth in what you say about respecting each others postion. the debate between Monlinism and Thomism, comes to mind. Since neither goes beyond what the Church teaches they are both allowed trains of thought.

 

[fbl9]

I have a problem with this. It seems like you’re saying that you know what Jesus wanted and anyone that does not agree with you is, by definition wrong (implied: is wrong and a heathen and doomed to burn for eternity).

I see Jesus as a unifier, not a separatist. It is my opinion (and I could be wrong) that some people like rules and strict definitions and use them as a way of making the world more ‘black and white’. God gave 10 commandments to Moses, and somehow we end up with over 600 rules about what it is to be good. Christ came to simplify and bring us together with two simple rules: love God, and love your neighbor. Just do those 2 things and everything will be alright.

in loving your neighbour one ought to want them to be union with God. For that is what Christ’s mission was, for us to be in union with God.Did not Christ correct those that were using the temple for gain? Did not Christ chastise those that were wrong,but self rightous.
Is it truly loving your neighbour by letting them beleive error?

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

It isn’t about who is right, but who is loving. So yes as you say we may be respectful of each other enough to even be joking. But I’m OK that we have different ideas of the scripture, because I think that “being right” on a literal basis is not where the real Good News is. Many places I understand the Church does not teach what the literal meaning of much of the bible is. It reminds me of Jesus saying, in Luke 12:14, "He replied to him, “‘Friend, who appointed me as your judge and arbitrator?’” So yeah, we sheep like to romp around and nip at each others’ ears a bit, and the Church just smiles and continues to point the way toward the Lord. We challenge each other like bear cubs, learning to fight within a context that we still want what’s best for each other regardless of our disagreements.

Alan

Now this, I can understand. There may be hope for me yet.

There are a lot of things I love about the Church - like the feeling I have when attending a midnight Christmas eve mass. There is really nothing like it to compare. I think what I get hung up in is more about the history of the church. If I can let go a little about the dogma I disagree with, and focus more on my destination, I might be ok.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

in loving your neighbour one ought to want them to be union with God. For that is what Christ’s mission was, for us to be in union with God.Did not Christ correct those that were using the temple for gain? Did not Christ chastise those that were wrong,but self rightous.
Is it truly loving your neighbour by letting them beleive error?

I see a difference in praying for everyone to find their way to God, while respecting their right to make their own decisions without condemnation.

 

[fbl9]

Offdoodykcrn:
I see a difference in praying for everyone to find their way to God, while respecting their right to make their own decisions without condemnation.

Why do people need to find their way to God?
Is it because they need to find the Way to God?
What of those that don’t, won’t by their choice find God.?
Just who is the Way?
What is he?

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

Why do people need to find their way to God?
Is it because they need to find the Way to God?
What of those that don’t, won’t by their choice find God.?
Just who is the Way?
What is he?

You’re making me dizzy. :whacky:

 

[fbl9]

You’re making me dizzy. :whacky:

look into my eyes, you are getting catholic, err sleepy now.
Jesus Christ is our Savior.
What did Christ save us from?
Being outside of the Kingdom.
Being outside of the Kingdom of heaven is where? the place of condemnation.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

look into my eyes, you are getting catholic, err sleepy now.
Jesus Christ is our Savior.
What did Christ save us from?
Being outside of the Kingdom.
Being outside of the Kingdom of heaven is where? the place of condemnation.

Oooh, I’ve been in the non-kingdom. But Lord repented and reeled me into the kingdom with pure grace!

Here’s the story of my life. Entry into kingdom was coincident with the ending of the Dark Night…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

On June 8, 2001, I was in the place of condemnation – geographically in St. Mary’s Cathedral – aka was verbally assaulted by the rector of the cathedral, who didn’t know I was there on business. I was taking a lunch break from my volunteer work on the Synod in the chancery office. It scared me so badly that I literally ran out tripping and screaming; I was plunged into severe psychosis, was locked up against my will in a psychiatric unit, and lost my job. That would be the end of my previously lucrative 20 year engineering career. (I had a master’s degree and worked for Bell Labs at the time.) On July 11, 2001 I saw an SD for the first time ever. On Oct 3, 2012 my egoic false self was sufficiently mortified that basically gravity reversed and now that I’m definitely in the kingdom – it just keeps getting better! :heaven:

The Lord has now let me realize that even though I lost an estimated 1.5 million in salary and benefits, and raised my six kids in sudden-poverty, that He was just helping me get rid of my riches (I was the rich man who walked away from Jesus) and purchase the field where the Real Treasure lay.

Matt 6:19-21
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and decay destroy, and thieves break in and steal. But store up treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor decay destroys, nor thieves break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be."

[BIBLEDRB]matt 13:10-17[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

look into my eyes, you are getting catholic, err sleepy now

:hypno:
Lol, I can imagine that phone call to my mom… “Yup, all that arguing when I was 12? All you had to do is hypnotize me.” She will be sooo happy :yup:

OK, at the risk of disturbing the goodwill we’ve established… Please help me to reconcile the Catholic puzzle of my life:

My husbands first marriage (which was held in a Catholic Church, shouldn’t have been allowed because he was a paraplegic at the time, but Alan had not come up with a test for that because nobody told him to) - would most certainly have been annulled because she had an affair and left him.

My first marriage may or may not have needed an annulment - I’ve heard conflicting arguments because my first husband wasn’t baptized, but probably would have been annulled on the basis of abuse.

My marriage to Doug may or may not have been allowed - depending on how invasive Alan’s test would be. The whole issue of how married people express themselves romantically, as long as its consensual shouldn’t be an issue, if the church acknowledges there is more to marriage than just raising a family, right?

 

[fbl9]

:hypno:
Lol, I can imagine that phone call to my mom… “Yup, all that arguing when I was 12? All you had to do is hypnotize me.” She will be sooo happy :yup:

OK, at the risk of disturbing the goodwill we’ve established… Please help me to reconcile the Catholic puzzle of my life:

My husbands first marriage (which was held in a Catholic Church, shouldn’t have been allowed because he was a paraplegic at the time, but Alan had not come up with a test for that because nobody told him to) - would most certainly have been annulled because she had an affair and left him.

My first marriage may or may not have needed an annulment - I’ve heard conflicting arguments because my first husband wasn’t baptized, but probably would have been annulled on the basis of abuse.

My marriage to Doug may or may not have been allowed - depending on how invasive Alan’s test would be. The whole issue of how married people express themselves romantically, as long as its consensual shouldn’t be an issue, if the church acknowledges there is more to marriage than just raising a family, right?

thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife
thou shalt not commit adultry.
who so ever lusts after a woman in his heart commits adultry.
We do both agree that these are sins as God told us they are.
In the Gospel written by St Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus says …who ever puts away his wife , save on the account of immorality, causes her to commit adultry. and he who marries a woman put away commits adultry.
What is adultry? married persons having sex outside of the marital bond.
While Christ said it was lawful to put away on immortallity he did not dislove the bond because He said marriage of a put away woman is adultry.
You are making the judgement of whether or not a true marital bond existed. Were as the Church says it must be the one to make that judgment because this being a moral issue, the Church has final say on the matter, not the individual.
If your judgement in this matter was at error you may have been causing the man you love to commit a mortal sin.
Yes the Church acknowledges the marital bond as Christ said the two shall be one.
the primary purpose of the union is children.
the ediifaction of the husband and wife is secondary to the union.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife
thou shalt not commit adultry.
who so ever lusts after a woman in his heart commits adultry.
We do both agree that these are sins as God told us they are.
In the Gospel written by St Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus says …who ever puts away his wife , save on the account of immorality, causes her to commit adultry. and he who marries a woman put away commits adultry.
What is adultry? married persons having sex outside of the marital bond.
While Christ said it was lawful to put away on immortallity he did not dislove the bond because He said marriage of a put away woman is adultry.
You are making the judgement of whether or not a true marital bond existed. Were as the Church says it must be the one to make that judgment because this being a moral issue, the Church has final say on the matter, not the individual.
If your judgement in this matter was at error you may have been causing the man you love to commit a mortal sin.
Yes the Church acknowledges the marital bond as Christ said the two shall be one.
the primary purpose of the union is children.
the ediifaction of the husband and wife is secondary to the union.

So the immorality issue was covered because his first wife cheated and left. It doesn’t really matter because ‘the church’ would not have allowed him to marry anyone, except they did. Furthermore, neither his first nor second marriage (mine) was consummated - in the traditional sense, so no sin was committed in the first place.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

So the immorality issue was covered because his first wife cheated and left. It doesn’t really matter because ‘the church’ would not have allowed him to marry anyone, except they did. Furthermore, neither his first nor second marriage (mine) was consummated - in the traditional sense, so no sin was committed in the first place.

This may make sense, but if there is one thing I don’t depend on my understanding of it making sense, it’s Church laws on marriage. If this is something you need to know for making future plans, I highly recommend you ask a priest – starting with the one that would be your pastor if you joined. My own pastor begs people to come to him to get their marriages set right in case there are problems, because he considers that one of the most important things he does as a pastor. Some priests even specialize in canon law, and spend a lot of effort dealing with marriages and annulments.

Seriously if this is something that is important for you to have the right answer, it sounds like enough complexity involved you probably should check; there might be some process to go through before it can all be “cleared up” or whatever it is they call it.

Normally I would shoot for the hip and give you my own opinion, but in this case I have none because I am baffled by a lot of the whole issue of annulments.

Alan

 

[aemcpa]

I missed way too much on this thread, but I am not going to risk going down the rabbit hole and trying to chime in on it all. As far as the marriage issue goes, I happen to have several priest friends who are canon lawyers, and a friend going through the annulment process right now, and I can tell you that no online forum will sort everything out - it is very complex. The reason it is very complex is because what the Church is trying to do in most cases is to determine the psychological and mental state of the couple on the day of the marriage in question, which was usually many years ago. Most marriages are annulled due to defect of intention, meaning that the couple did not understand the nature and requirements of Christian marriage, or did understand but didn’t intend to uphold it. As far as your husband’s marriages, it is clear from canon law that the Church sees impotence as an impediment to marriage for reasons we discussed before. Your first marriage is a more complicated issue, but since you are not currently in any civil marriage, you are free to be in communion with the Church even with a civil divorce. I imagine that as long as your first husband is alive, or until you are granted an annulment of your first marriage, you would not be free to marry in the Church.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

Normally I would shoot for the hip and give you my own opinion, but in this case I have none because I am baffled by a lot of the whole issue of annulments.

Alan

I agree - it’s a puzzler. It makes me think about how
(1) Christ’s teachings and attitudes appear to differ from the church today
(2) The irony behind the church’s decision to take a group of men (priests) whom they don’t allow to marry, to be the group that councils people thinking of marriage, people having trouble with their current marriage, or wanting to end their marriage and almost all of that centers around sex, which priests are supposed to abstain from and yet has been a big source of controversy, and at times - criminal activity among the very people we look to guidance for our marriages!

Issue # 1 - remember the scene in which church scholars are trying to trap Jesus: a woman accused of adultery, do we kill her or disobey the law, and Jesus says if anyone here is free of sin, throw the first stone. This is a good example how I see that Christ was here to unify his people and bring each other together with love, instead of what the church had been doing: dividing people through different interpretations of scripture and the condemnation of those judged (by the church) to be sinners. When fbl9 started talking about how my marriage might have caused Doug to have committed a mortal sin, it hurt my feelings at first. My marriage to Doug restored my faith in his gender, made me stronger and brought me closer to God. I can honestly say, if I had not married Doug - I would not be here on this forum trying to find my place in the church, if there is one. The idea that the church could take a physical assessment of Doug, decide that because his body was injured in a particular way, he should not be allowed to marry - it is repellent to me. Anyone who has been married for more than 5 years will tell you there is a LOT more to marriage than sex (and there is a lot more to sex than the act of intercourse). Fbl9’s statements made me feel like my marriage was some kind of abomination. Then I remembered that its not up to fbl9 or the church if Doug and I were loved by God or allowed into the kingdom of heaven. It does reflect on how the church views me personally, and how I view it.

 

[RoseMary131]

On your questions of annulment: Annulments are based on the situations at the time of the marriage to see if the information given to the marriage tribunal points to the Church’s understanding of marriage, meaning God will united as one - the husband and wife.

If the tribunal looks at the case, as presented by the person, and see it fits the criteria of not being a valid marriage, then the annulment is given. The marriage is declared as null - never having been conveyed on the couple by God.

If a couple enters into marriage having met all the valid requirements the Church understands as necessary for marriage - there will be no annulment . We, “people”, can not “take apart” what God has bound. God binds the couple as “one” - no longer “two”.

After the marriage has taken place, after the binding as one by God - lots of bad things can happen within that marriage. People can bring very damaging sins into their marriage. It is still a valid marriage.

The Church never ask that people must remain in a damaging or dangerous situation. Couples are allowed to separate. Couples are allowed to legally separate their marriage by divorce. However, they are still united as one. (Remember I am speaking in the case of a “valid beginning” of the marriage, a marriage when God united them as one.)

A really bad example: Think of recipes that can be separated after mixing… trail mix… after you mix it together you can still separate the “nuts and raisins” from each other. A marriage might begin as “nuts and raisins”. Everything “appears” in place. The couple is in love, they follow all the Church requirements before the marriage ceremony, the priest/deacon is present, the ceremony follows the rules of the Church, the vows are exchanged. It appears the couple is now married by God to be one. (Mixed together, we see “Trail Mix.”)

Then after a legal divorce, one of the spouses ask the marriage tribunal to look at “all the facts” at the time of the marriage and ask if their marriage was valid. Based on the information presented regarding the time the marriage took place, it may be seen that what appears as a marriage is actually two people not united as one. Everyone saw a marriage - (Trail Mix) but its really still “nuts and raisins”. The couple legally were married, but not united by God as one. The raisins are still raisins and the nuts are still nuts - nothing changed.

The key is “Did God united the couple as one, which can only be separated by death.” The answer is either “Yes, God united them as one” or “No, God did not unite them as one.”

Once God unites a couple, they can’t be separated. In your kitchen you can’t “uncook” scrambled eggs. There is a change to the substance. You can’t separate the egg back to its original state before the heat was added. You can do things to it that damage it, makes no one want to eat it, but it can not be separated back to how it appears before the heat combined it together. You can damage a valid marriage, but you can not seperate the union of one, back to two.

If you would like to seek an annulment from your first husband (if he is still living), please meet with the parish priest and begin the process. You were baptized Catholic (if I remember correctly). A baptized Catholic not married within the Church probably would be granted an annulment.

At this time, I know you aren’t sure if you want to come back to the Catholic Church. You might find a healing in the annulment process. Simply hearing the Church state they see God never united you to your first husband might be spiritually healing for you.

Keep praying as you walk this long journey of faith. God offers us graces that allow us to understand Him and His Church. Grace and faith can allow us to feel and know peace even when we can not explain it so well.

We believe in the communion of Saints. We can ask those in heaven to pray for us, that means not just the Saints that the Church has declared as Saints but those in heaven who are not declared saints. Ask Doug to pray to God that you find the peace you are searching for.

Peace.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

At this time, I know you aren’t sure if you want to come back to the Catholic Church. You might find a healing in the annulment process. Simply hearing the Church state they see God never united you to your first husband might be spiritually healing for you.

Keep praying as you walk this long journey of faith. God offers us graces that allow us to understand Him and His Church. Grace and faith can allow us to feel and know peace even when we can not explain it so well.

I really like these ideas. It might be good for the OP to consider this possibility.

Alan

 

[fbl9]

I agree - it’s a puzzler. It makes me think about how
(1) Christ’s teachings and attitudes appear to differ from the church today
(2) The irony behind the church’s decision to take a group of men (priests) whom they don’t allow to marry, to be the group that councils people thinking of marriage, people having trouble with their current marriage, or wanting to end their marriage and almost all of that centers around sex, which priests are supposed to abstain from and yet has been a big source of controversy, and at times - criminal activity among the very people we look to guidance for our marriages!

Issue # 1 - remember the scene in which church scholars are trying to trap Jesus: a woman accused of adultery, do we kill her or disobey the law, and Jesus says if anyone here is free of sin, throw the first stone. This is a good example how I see that Christ was here to unify his people and bring each other together with love, instead of what the church had been doing: dividing people through different interpretations of scripture and the condemnation of those judged (by the church) to be sinners. When fbl9 started talking about how my marriage might have caused Doug to have committed a mortal sin, it hurt my feelings at first. My marriage to Doug restored my faith in his gender, made me stronger and brought me closer to God. I can honestly say, if I had not married Doug - I would not be here on this forum trying to find my place in the church, if there is one. The idea that the church could take a physical assessment of Doug, decide that because his body was injured in a particular way, he should not be allowed to marry - it is repellent to me. Anyone who has been married for more than 5 years will tell you there is a LOT more to marriage than sex (and there is a lot more to sex than the act of intercourse). Fbl9’s statements made me feel like my marriage was some kind of abomination. Then I remembered that its not up to fbl9 or the church if Doug and I were loved by God or allowed into the kingdom of heaven. It does reflect on how the church views me personally, and how I view it.

it was not intended to hurt. merely representing what the Church teaches. And where the Church bases it’s teaching from.

I married a divorcee. When we came back to the Church instead of being hurt by the knowledge of the sin i caused my wife, i was sorrowful for it.

Just beacuse one is loved by God does not mean one will be granted into the Kingdom. God’s love for us is not based on what we do. God’s judgement is based on what we do, and beleive.

Something for you to ponder Offdoodkycm: You claim that beacuse of the sins of the leaders of the Church you refuse to follow them as leaders, Yet you are not without sin but you still follow yourself in regards to what you beleive. How can you do that?

 

[RoseMary131]

When fbl9 started talking about how my marriage might have caused Doug to have committed a mortal sin, it hurt my feelings at first. My marriage to Doug restored my faith in his gender, made me stronger and brought me closer to God. I can honestly say, if I had not married Doug - I would not be here on this forum trying to find my place in the church, if there is one. The idea that the church could take a physical assessment of Doug, decide that because his body was injured in a particular way, he should not be allowed to marry - it is repellent to me. Anyone who has been married for more than 5 years will tell you there is a LOT more to marriage than sex (and there is a lot more to sex than the act of intercourse). Fbl9’s statements made me feel like my marriage was some kind of abomination. Then I remembered that its not up to fbl9 or the church if Doug and I were loved by God or allowed into the kingdom of heaven. It does reflect on how the church views me personally, and how I view it.

I haven’t read fbl9 statement.

You are on a special journey in your faith. God made a beautiful person in Doug and you saw part of God’s love through your wonderful husband.

I am sorry that Doug is not alive today to continue on this wonderful journey with you. I do feel Doug is still traveling with you in your faith journey.

You know how much Doug loved you. You know how important it was for him to receive the Sacraments of Reconciliation, Holy Eucharist, and Anointing of the Sick.

He now has an even stronger love for all that is true. He can see without our earthly lives which are a bit shaded.

You have so many questions of faith, which is wonderful. It says you want to know and understand. Sometimes what we hear is upsetting. Pray that God allows you to hear His truth.

“Then I remembered that its not up to fbl9 or the church if Doug and I were loved by God or allowed into the kingdom of heaven. It does reflect on how the church views me personally, and how I view it.”

Please know that the Church says God loves you and Doug. God loves everyone. The Church never makes judgment on who God allows into the Kingdom of Heaven. The Church views you with love, the same as She views everyone.

(The Church does make a declaration of those She canonizes as Saints to be in Heaven. To be declared a Saint, means the Church through a specific process has seen that this person is without question in Heaven. For everyone else, the Church does not say who is in Heaven and who is not.)