What are some of the main reasons that people are attracted to the Protestant faith?

[AbideWithMe]

LOL. I know many Catholics who are divorced and remarried, not for adultery either.

There’s no way around it except for mistranslation. Pornea doesn’t mean “illicit marriage”.

Exactly my point. Thank you.

They were married in *your *Protestant churches, because they couldn’t be married in my Church, unless it was determined that no first marriage took place initally.

The fact that these folks could be married in a Protestant church (“not for adultery either”–your words) PROVES MY POINT, friend.

It is satisfactory, although disheartening, to see you acknowledge that your Protestant churches do not abide by Matthew 19:9 but simply ignore it–“not for adultery either”.

My Church NEVER “re-marries” after divorce. It’s not permitted. Not our choice. Not our rules.

But we defer to the Word of God because we are creatures. Not the Creator.

You have determined that you don’t like what Matthew 19:9 says and have elected to say, “God wouldn’t want couples to not find happiness, so therefore God agrees with me and it’s ok to divorce and re-marry cause it’s NOT adultery.”

That’s creating a god in one’s own image.

Even if it is, you can see how none of the Protestant churches abide by Matthew 19:9, but have rather taken to editing its message because it is unpalatable.

Unless you can say that your churches won’t marry someone who leaves her jerky husband for reasons other than adultery?

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0ld1kpZAm1qbgytb.gif

House Harkonnen: think about this really, really hard. You have left a Church which understands that it cannot change God’s message to accommodate our sinful and disordered desires, in favor of a church which which has changed the Word of God to make it more likeable.

Where does House Harkonnen say these Catholics he knows are ex-Catholics?

I myself know Catholics who got divorced for reasons other than fornication (porneia) and who got remarried in a Catholic church.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Marriage vows irreparably broken?

That is, friend, an impossibility according to Scripture.

Only death can sever a vow.

Could you provide verses which state that divorce and remarriage is permitted for physical abuse or abandonment?

Yes, I can provide those verses, but I have to get back to work; I’ll do my best to get time tonight, but please bear with me as I’m swamped with family and work stuff, and as I said I may lose my electric power again tonight from a storm.

 

[PRmerger]

my elderly mom is sick,

Prayers for a speedy recovery.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

What you are saying, then, is that Sacred Tradition is a channel for the Word of God.

Very Catholic, this!

Of course. No Lutheran declares otherwise. We are the Evangelical Catholics.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Prayers for a speedy recovery.

Thank you very much. She’s a very sweet woman, but she has the flu and I’m experiencing “karma” for being a difficult non-eater as a child.:banghead:

 

[PRmerger]

I myself know Catholics who got divorced for reasons other than fornication (porneia) and who got remarried in a Catholic church.

Absolutely not, AWM.

There is** no way** that the Catholic Church would marry someone who was previously married and divorced.

Of this I am certain.

Perhaps you were not privy to private matters regarding their first putative marriage.

But if they were married before, they cannot be married again in the CC, if the spouse is still living.

That is what Christ said.

We cannot change that, as much as we would like.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course. No Lutheran declares otherwise. We are the Evangelical Catholics.

Source, please for your church proclaiming that Sacred Tradition is a channel for the Word of God.

My understanding is that while you acknowledge a place for Tradition, you do not view it as a channel of the Word of God.

 

[steido01]

I am shocked!

Then again, maybe you shouldn’t go by me, since I have almost completely stopped reading the conversation between you, PRmerger and others.

I’m about to do the same. Threads aren’t any fun when one’s legitimate responses to questions are ignored. Repeatedly. Again and again.

My final :twocents:: It’s downright silly to say that Roman Catholics convert to “Protestantism” simply for earthly reasons like wanting to remarry. Brilliant men and women have swam the Tiber - in both directions - for logically sound theological reasons. Dismissing this phenomena with the “If-you-actually-knew-what-we-taught-you’d-never-have-left” argument is bogus. I got involved in this thread to try to debunk that and clarify misrepresentations that had been made against Lutherans, specifically, and “Protestants” in general. I presented sources and documents. Some people simply won’t be deterred by facts.

 

[PRmerger]

We are the Evangelical Catholics.

Everyone wants to claim the name Catholic, but when a stranger comes to your town and asks, “Where is the nearest Catholic Church?” we all know to which church he will be pointed.

(Paraphrasing St. Augustine).

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Exactly my point. Thank you.

They were married in *your *Protestant churches, because they couldn’t be married in my Church, unless it was determined that no first marriage took place initally.

The fact that these folks could be married in a Protestant church (“not for adultery either”–your words) PROVES MY POINT, friend.

It is satisfactory, although disheartening, to see you acknowledge that your Protestant churches do not abide by Matthew 19:9 but simply ignore it–“not for adultery either”.

My Church NEVER “re-marries” after divorce. It’s not permitted. Not our choice. Not our rules.

But we defer to the Word of God because we are creatures. Not the Creator.

You have determined that you don’t like what Matthew 19:9 says and have elected to say, “God wouldn’t want couples to not find happiness, so therefore God agrees with me and it’s ok to divorce and re-marry cause it’s NOT adultery.”

That’s creating a god in one’s own image.

Even if it is, you can see how none of the Protestant churches abide by Matthew 19:9, but have rather taken to editing its message because it is unpalatable.

Unless you can say that your churches won’t marry someone who leaves her jerky husband for reasons other than adultery?

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0ld1kpZAm1qbgytb.gif

House Harkonnen: think about this really, really hard. You have left a Church which understands that it cannot change God’s message to accommodate our sinful and disordered desires, in favor of a church which which has changed the Word of God to make it more likeable.

They were married in your Protestant churches, because they couldn’t be married in my Church, unless it was determined that no first marriage took place initally.

No. These are Catholics on their second and third marriage. They were just able to convince a friendly tribunal that their first marriage “May or may not have existed”. They forked over a pretty penny too for such a declaration. Luckily Protestants are much more honest about the situation, we don’t fool ourselves into thinking that previous marriages didn’t exist.

It is satisfactory, although disheartening, to see you acknowledge that your Protestant churches do not abide by Matthew 19:9 but simply ignore it–“not for adultery either”.

I acknowledge no such thing.

My Church NEVER “re-marries” after divorce. It’s not permitted. Not our choice. Not our rules.

LOL, that must by why your denomination requires a couple first be legally DIVORCED before pursuing an annulment. You must think I just fell off the turnip truck.

You have determined that you don’t like what Matthew 19:9 says and have elected to say, “God wouldn’t want couples to not find happiness, so therefore God agrees with me and it’s ok to divorce and re-marry cause it’s NOT adultery.”

That’s creating a god in one’s own image.

Nonsense, I am only being honest about what the Greek word “pornea” actually means.

Even if it is, you can see how none of the Protestant churches abide by Matthew 19:9, but have rather taken to editing its message because it is unpalatable.

Unless you can say that your churches won’t marry someone who leaves her jerky husband for reasons other than adultery?

My pastor and many other pastors in my denomination have refused to perform marriages for such couples. So yes, that’s exactly what I say.

House Harkonnen: think about this really, really hard. You have left a Church which understands that it cannot change God’s message to accommodate our sinful and disordered desires, in favor of a church which which has changed the Word of God to make it more likeable.

You know nothing about why I left. Another arrogant statement. Are you trying to win an argument or win my soul back to your denomination? Maybe you need to think about that.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Source, please for your church proclaiming that Sacred Tradition is a channel for the Word of God.

My understanding is that while you acknowledge a place for Tradition, you do not view it as a channel of the Word of God.

The word of God is the scriptures, I have no problem with scripture being passed down orally through tradition.

What we don’t say is that SacredTradition is equal or higher than the word of God.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Everyone wants to claim the name Catholic, but when a stranger comes to your town and asks, “Where is the nearest Catholic Church?” we all know to which church he will be pointed.

(Paraphrasing St. Augustine).

If a stranger asked where the nearest Roman Catholic Church is I would point them towards a church of your denomination.

If they asked where the nearest Evangelical Catholic Church is I would point them towards a church of my denomination.

Even so if Augustine were a bishop in your denomination today, he would censored a disciplined by the denomination. He definitely didn’t believe much of what the denomination believes today.

 

[PRmerger]

The word of God is the scriptures, I have no problem with scripture being passed down orally through tradition.

So you have contradicted yourself.

What we don’t say is that SacredTradition is equal or higher than the word of God.

Very Catholic this.

 

[PRmerger]

No. These are Catholics on their second and third marriage. They were just able to convince a friendly tribunal that their first marriage “May or may not have existed”.

“May or may not have existed”?

Could you please cite your source for this?

Is this what their declaration of nullity said?

Really?

They forked over a pretty penny too for such a declaration.

How much?
I will go by your word on this, HH.

But I’d like to know how much your friends paid for their annulments.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

“May or may not have existed”?

Could you please cite your source for this?

Is this what their declaration of nullity said?

Really?

How much?
I will go by your word on this, HH.

But I’d like to know how much your friends paid for their annulments.

My source is the person.

The amount they paid is private but it was nice chunk of money.

Just for a Catholic approved divorce and remarriage.

 

[PRmerger]

LOL, that must by why your denomination requires a couple first be legally DIVORCED before pursuing an annulment. You must think I just fell off the turnip truck.

I’m not understanding your point about the Church’s requirement to have a legal divorce before pursing an annulment.

As far as you falling off the turnip truck, I do not think that. But I do think that your catechesis was abysmal regarding Catholicism.

You left a Church you did not know. :sad_yes:

Nonsense, I am only being honest about what the Greek word “pornea” actually means.

Even if that is what it means, then your church does not abide by it by re-marrying folks who have left because they of irreconcilable differences.

That’s still adultery.

At least, according to Christ.

My pastor and many other pastors in my denomination have refused to perform marriages for such couples. So yes, that’s exactly what I say.

I am wondering how you know this.

And if you know that adultery was the source of each initial marriage that ended in divorce and sought re-marriage in your church.

And if you only attend wedding ceremonies of someone who was cuckholded.

Are you telling me that you won’t go to a second wedding of someone who left her husband for other reasons?

You know nothing about why I left.

I am sure it was not over doctrine. If it were, your animus towards the Catholic Church would not be so palpable.

I am certain it was over matters of the heart or matters below the belt.

Another arrogant statement. Are you trying to win an argument or win my soul back to your denomination? Maybe you need to think about that.

Not my job to win your soul. That’s the job of the Holy Spirit.

Another example of your poor catechesis, friend.

QED.

 

[PRmerger]

My source is the person.

The amount they paid is private but it was nice chunk of money.

So then you really don’t know how much they paid for an annulment.

I see, then.

 

[PRmerger]

My source is the person.

So this person said that her declaration of nullity proclaimed that her marriage “may or may not have existed”.

Yes? Or no?

This is a rather simple question, so I hope you can answer it simply.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

So then you really don’t know how much they paid for an annulment.

I see, then.

No. I know exactly how much they paid for it.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

I’m not understanding your point about the Church’s requirement to have a legal divorce before pursing an annulment.

As far as you falling off the turnip truck, I do not think that. But I do think that your catechesis was abysmal regarding Catholicism.

You left a Church you did not know. :sad_yes:

Even if that is what it means, then your church does not abide by it by re-marrying folks who have left because they of irreconcilable differences.

That’s still adultery.

At least, according to Christ.

I am wondering how you know this.

And if you know that adultery was the source of each initial marriage that ended in divorce and sought re-marriage in your church.

And if you only attend wedding ceremonies of someone who was cuckholded.

Are you telling me that you won’t go to a second wedding of someone who left her husband for other reasons?

I am sure it was not over doctrine. If it were, your animus towards the Catholic Church would not be so palpable.

I am certain it was over matters of the heart or matters below the belt.

Not my job to win your soul. That’s the job of the Holy Spirit.

Another example of your poor catechesis, friend.

QED.

I’m not understanding your point about the Church’s requirement to have a legal divorce before pursing an annulment.

You don’t think its interesting that church that claims to no believe in divorce, demand that some people get divorced? The fork over a pretty penny to determine that they may or may not have been married?

As far as you falling off the turnip truck, I do not think that. But I do think that your catechesis was abysmal regarding Catholicism.

LOL, I used that same line too when I debated folks who left. I understand its a common Catholic canard.

Even if that is what it means, then your church does not abide by it by re-marrying folks who have left because they of irreconcilable differences.

I don’t know anyone in my church who were divorced for that reason.

I am wondering how you know this.

Because I talked to them.

And if you only attend wedding ceremonies of someone who was cuckholded.

Are you telling me that you won’t go to a second wedding of someone who left her husband for other reasons?

Yes. I might go to a remarriage if the divorce was because of physical or sexual or emotional abuse.

I am sure it was not over doctrine. If it were, your animus towards the Catholic Church would not be so palpable.

Where I have I declared any sort of animus? In fact I am sure I respect your denomination more than you respect mine.

I am certain it was over matters of the heart or matters below the belt.

LOL, people that leave must be emotional damaged or unable to control their sexual urges. I used that canard too as a Catholic apologist. It’s too bad you won’t actually listen to why people leave, instead of making such presumptions.

Not my job to win your soul. That’s the job of the Holy Spirit.

Then Fulton Sheen was wrong then LOL, many catholic apologists know much better than their own saints and venerable folks.