B
bisco
Guest
right, because there’s no suffering in this world. i believe the deliverance comes in the next life. but you would know better than Jesus and His church.
- Status
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
What do you mean by vatican view?
Why are you choosing to word it that way, instead of “Catholic Teaching”
And to what do you attribute the way it was done for well over a thousand years of the Church being the sole decider of this “Vatican Way” Did God love those people less?
T
thewanderer
Guest
I’m not talking about the Vatican’s point of view. I’m being perfectly sincere, taking religion out of the picture altogether I really don’t see the point of making permanent vows if your going to say that they are actually not permanent. Long before Catholicism people have recognized the importance and value of keeping ones word. It is noble to do so and base to go back on it. Giving your word means something. And giving it through a solemn vow means even more. Thats why marriage is so amazing. Two people give each other permanent vows, no matter what, until death do them part. It is a truly complete giving of self to the other. Marriage loses the vast majority of its value if you then claim that people are allowed to go back on these vows if they decide its “too hard” to keep them.
I admit that my past experiences have helped shape my view on this matter. My father cheated on my mother, and emotionally abused her. It was a bad situation. She took us kids and crossed an ocean to get us out of it, and rightly so, but she always kept her marriage vows, despite all the pain our father put her through, despite the fact that she was left to raise us by herself, with a disability that prevented her from working or driving. Her word meant something. When she gave her vow she meant it, and so it truly had value. If a vow can be gone back on just because it gets difficult it loses its meaning and power. I honestly don’t see how marriage is really different from just living together if the marriage vows can just be taken back when things get hard. So to me, if you try and say God should be merciful and let people renege on their vows it destroys what marriage is. How is a vow worth anything if your allowed to break it just because its hard?
B
bisco
Guest
i do agree with cali lobo on this point though, without God, marriage means little or nothing. why marry at all?
U
UbiCaritas15
Guest
“That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become **one **body.” Gen 2:24
“As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,
that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.” Eph 5:24-27
"The Father and I are one.” John 10:30
“I have told you this so that you might have peace in me. In the world you will have trouble, but take courage, I have conquered the world.” John 16:33
From the beginning marriage is eternal. In the same way that the Church cannot, and would not be merciful to, change the rules of God because the Church must be faithful to Christ, spouses sanctify each other. Because (as the Jesus’ unity with the Father is His witness to the Father) marriage is a witness to the Trinity. While this is a difficult task, peace comes from within, not without.
Which is why:
The spiritual works of MERCY are:
•To **instruct the ignorant; **
•To counsel the doubtful;
•To **admonish sinners; **
•To **bear wrongs patiently; **
•To **forgive offences willingly; **
•To comfort the afflicted;
•To pray for the living and the dead.
Anything less is a disservice and entirely unmerciful, because:
“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers” 1 Cor 6:9
“As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,
that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.” Eph 5:24-27
"The Father and I are one.” John 10:30
“I have told you this so that you might have peace in me. In the world you will have trouble, but take courage, I have conquered the world.” John 16:33
From the beginning marriage is eternal. In the same way that the Church cannot, and would not be merciful to, change the rules of God because the Church must be faithful to Christ, spouses sanctify each other. Because (as the Jesus’ unity with the Father is His witness to the Father) marriage is a witness to the Trinity. While this is a difficult task, peace comes from within, not without.
Which is why:
The spiritual works of MERCY are:
•To **instruct the ignorant; **
•To counsel the doubtful;
•To **admonish sinners; **
•To **bear wrongs patiently; **
•To **forgive offences willingly; **
•To comfort the afflicted;
•To pray for the living and the dead.
Anything less is a disservice and entirely unmerciful, because:
“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers” 1 Cor 6:9
B
bisco
Guest
the same goes for so called ‘homosexual marriage’. why bother? just to spit in the face of the church, that’s why.
S
sw85
Guest
No one disputes that.
That is true but only in a very limited sense. He delivers people from their suffering into heavenly glory. There is no particularly compelling evidence that he “delivers people from their suffering” as a matter of course on earth, and he makes no promises in that regard. Indeed he promised pretty explicitly that his faithful would suffer extensively, and of course God the Father did not intervene to relieve his Son of his own suffering.
Of course.
Nope. A sin does not absolve one of one’s duties. And one can be absolved of one’s sins without enabling them to renege on their duties.
Here again, marriage is a type of the union of the Church and Christ – if marriage is dissoluble on the basis of one partner’s sins, then on what grounds do we claim the New and Eternal Covenant is “eternal”?
You list your religion as “??”. Is it safe to assume you are not Catholic? Perhaps not even Christian?
The Vatican (i.e., the Catholic Church) has been around for 2000 years – what in the world possesses you to think you know something it doesn’t about its own faith?
M
Mackus
Guest
Apologies if my wording was poor. We are not abstaining from the Eucharist, quite the contrary; we abstain from all sexual activity. Complete continence. Paragraph 1650 of the Catechism.
B
bisco
Guest
congrats and well done, that is not an easy road!
God bless.
C
CaliLobo
Guest
Let me clarify. Although man cannot destroy what God united, it does not eliminate the possibility that God can destroy and rebuild. And God does destroy and rebuild.
Also, where is the basis that you conclude that a divorced couple continues to have a duty?
Not even Catholics would recommend a husband and wife stay together in an abusive, destructive situation simply because they gave each other their permanent word. It is unreasonable to continue to fulfill a promise when circumstances have completely changed such that it is now destructive to you to fulfill them.
J
JimG
Guest
It’s true, some situations are so dangerous that separation or civil divorce may become necessary. A civil divorce in itself cannot break a marriage bond. But given the state to which marriage has now fallen, there is often the question of whether a marriage bond was ever contracted. That’s a matter for a tribunal to examine.
I suspect that if engaged couples were taught the true Catholic doctrine on marriage in its fullness, which is nothing less than the doctrine of Jesus, many of them might elect not to marry in the Catholic Church.
That would be a shame, because that in itself would indicate that they have some doubts about their or their fiancee’s ability to enter into a lifelong commitment. But at least they should know what they are committing to.
If both parties are willing to make a permanent, lifelong, unbreakable commitment to each other with openness to life, and a spirit of self sacrifice, their marriage cannot help but bring joy. To quote from the “exhortation before marriage,” which used to be read by the priest to the couple just before vows were exchanged,
“May, then, this love with which you join your hands and hearts today never fail, but grow deeper and stronger as the years go on. And if true love and the unselfish spirit of perfect sacrifice guide your every action, you can expect the greatest measure of earthly happiness that may be allotted to man in this vale of tears. The rest is in the hands of God.”
B
bisco
Guest
bringing up abusive marriages is a straw man. there are millions of non abusive marriages ending in divorce simply because people feel no need to try to make them work.
J
JimG
Guest
Yes, of course there are non-abusive marriages that require more love, more sacrifice. But it is undeniable that there are abusive marriages–marriages in which one party is being abused physically, psychologically, morally, and those may require that a person get out before further damage occurs.
S
sw85
Guest
God has said, personally and through the unanimous witness of the Church over two millennia, that in the New and Eternal Covenant marriage is indissoluble by any means short of death. On what grounds then is there any basis to claim that God “destroys” the marriages of living persons?
Having sworn a marriage vow of chastity, they are obliged to honor that vow until they are released from it. And as I said above, God has spoken pretty definitively that the marriage bond ends only in the death of one of the partners. Hence there is the duty to remain continent, even if this is the only duty which circumstances require.
T
thewanderer
Guest
If you look back at what I wrote about my mother you would see that I am not advocating for that either. She, as I said, rightly, moved us to the other side of the Atlantic from our father, but she still kept the vows she made to him. It is possible to keep your marriage vows even if completely separated from your spouse.
B
bisco
Guest
absolutely.
R
RosslynV
Guest
Yes God loves you. But you will commit sacrilage by receiving Communion in your state.Thank you so much…i know god loves me and i love him and i thank you for making me feel so much better…god bless!!!
B
bisco
Guest
of course, but anyone can get out at anytime for any reason. it’s remarrying that can be problematic and requires annulment of the first marriage. you cannot decide that on your own.
J
JimG
Guest
That’s true. I think that the problem must be addressed before the couples marry. Most couples used to understand quite well that they were entering a lifelong unbreakable covenant. Now, it seems, if they give it any thought at all, they believe that they are entering a conditional union which can be broken by either party, and of course, the civil law agrees with them. They don’t know what they are doing. They need to know. Our society is worse off now because marriage has fallen to such a state.
B
bisco
Guest
agreed. when i was in rcia recently, the priest told us that many marriages in the church are to keep parents happy, and he discouraged non practicing Catholics from marrying without serious consideration and counseling.
- Status