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

[PRmerger]

Has this grievous error in the DR been brought to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

Why should it be?

The Catholic teaching is intact, even if folks decide that they don’t like what it means and create a new god that blesses divorce and re-marriage.

Surely you can see how wrong that is, HH?

This paradigm, “God wouldn’t care if I did [A] (because I want to continue doing [A]), therefore, I’m going to find a church that says that [A] is perfectly fine!” is a very, very treacherous paradigm indeed!

 

[PRmerger]

That’s a weird interpretation of the verse.

Isn’t it the Protestant paradigm that we are all permitted to read the Scriptures and come to our own conclusions without any mean old magisterium telling us what it means?

How is it, then, that you are telling someone that her interpretation is “weird”?

At any rate, the point is that the Scriptures say NOWHERE that it’s only the victim of adultery who has permission to divorce and re-marry.

You can search from Genesis through Revelation and you’ll never find that in a single page.

As such, you have been duped into believing a man-made tradition (that’s actually contrary to Scripture).

And I think, pretty obvious that’s not what Jesus meant.

Well, it’s the logical conclusion of Matthew 19:9, eh?

“The Bible says that divorce and re-marriage is unlawful except if adultery is involved. I hate my wife! Yay! Now all I have to do is sleep with her hot friend and Jesus gives me the to divorce and re-marry!”

Its clear that pornea means sexual immorality, not unlawful marriage.

Except that you don’t even abide by that, HH. Of that I am certain.

Unless your pastor refuses to permit wedding ceremonies of divorced folks who divorced for “irreconcilable differences”?

I don’t think so.

 

[AbideWithMe]

No, HH.

Whoever. It says: whoever.

So let’s put the husband as the referent in that verse. Let’s say he sleeps with his servant.

“And I say to you that the husband shall put away his wife, except if he cheats on her, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.”

So it is giving him permission to commit adultery, and then divorce his wife.

Or we can use the wife as the referent. Let’s say she sleeps with her servant.

“And I say to you that the wife shall put away her husband, except if she cheats on him, and shall marry another, commits adultery.”

That’s just :whacky:

It was implicitly understood by Jesus’ hearers that Jewish religious practice never condoned sexual immorality. He didn’t need to state the obvious. His audience understood this as a question about the differing views of the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel—could a man unilaterally divorce his wife for any reason (Hillel) or only for sexual immorality (Shammai)? Jesus seems to have endorsed Shammai’s restriction.

I’ll provide a link after my workday if I’m home, but the Jewish Encyclopedia entry on divorce should help clear things up.

 

[PRmerger]

After reading the entire exchanged you had with HH and Sy, I can only say that the patience you have is admirable.

:curtsey:

Bottom line is that they don’t know what else to invent to attack. Sad…

I simply ask HH and Sy, and all the others on this thread: is there some teaching that is in your church that you don’t personally agree with, but to which you conform because God declared it to be so?

If so, what is it?

If you can’t say that you have conformed to what God has revealed, but rather left a church and shopped for one that conforms to your own theology, then you have created a god after your own image.

 

[PRmerger]

It was implicitly understood by Jesus’ hearers that Jewish religious practice never condoned sexual immorality. He didn’t need to state the obvious.

Interesting, AWM.

This sounds like you are embracing Sacred Tradition, then? Scripture isn’t the complete Word of God, but there were some things which were “implicitly understood”?

Not everything that Jesus taught and that we profess has to be found in the Bible?

 

[AbideWithMe]

Interesting, AWM.

This sounds like you are embracing Sacred Tradition, then? Scripture isn’t the complete Word of God, but there were some things which were “implicitly understood”?

Not everything that Jesus taught and that we profess has to be found in the Bible?

Certainly I embrace the need to be informed by tradition–my Evangelical, Methodist-based church has never been Bible Alone. And clearly, any church needs to understand cultural context; I believe the entire Christian Church’s ability to do so has increased over time–even more than what some of the non-Jewish ECF’s understood–as we’ve learned more about Jewish practices during various periods.

 

[PRmerger]

Certainly I embrace the need to be informed by tradition–my Evangelical, Methodist-based church has never been Bible Alone. And clearly, any church needs to understand cultural context; I believe the entire Christian Church’s ability to do so has increased over time–even more than what some of the non-Jewish ECF’s understood–as we’ve learned more about Jewish practices during various periods.

Then you are not opposed to Mary’s assumption, purgatory, the Immaculate Conxeption?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Isn’t it the Protestant paradigm that we are all permitted to read the Scriptures and come to our own conclusions without any mean old magisterium telling us what it means?

How is it, then, that you are telling someone that her interpretation is “weird”?

At any rate, the point is that the Scriptures say NOWHERE that it’s only the victim of adultery who has permission to divorce and re-marry.

You can search from Genesis through Revelation and you’ll never find that in a single page.

As such, you have been duped into believing a man-made tradition (that’s actually contrary to Scripture).

Well, it’s the logical conclusion of Matthew 19:9, eh?

“The Bible says that divorce and re-marriage is unlawful except if adultery is involved. I hate my wife! Yay! Now all I have to do is sleep with her hot friend and Jesus gives me the to divorce and re-marry!”

Except that you don’t even abide by that, HH. Of that I am certain.

Unless your pastor refuses to permit wedding ceremonies of divorced folks who divorced for “irreconcilable differences”?

I don’t think so.

http://media.tumblr.com/720115e79f48aae19bc1b61e230491c3/tumblr_inline_mvvkfg7c8E1r79k32.gif

Isn’t it the Protestant paradigm that we are all permitted to read the Scriptures and come to our own conclusions without any mean old magisterium telling us what it means?

No. Not at all. Sola Scriptura is a practice of the church, not of individuals. That’s what the first reformers taught and their subsequent communions today.

Well, it’s the logical conclusion of Matthew 19:9, eh?

“The Bible says that divorce and re-marriage is unlawful except if adultery is involved. I hate my wife! Yay! Now all I have to do is sleep with her hot friend and Jesus gives me the to divorce and re-marry!”

No. Because Jesus elsewhere condemns adultery and he doesn’t contradict himself.

Except that you don’t even abide by that, HH. Of that I am certain.

Who are you to tell me what you’re “certain of” about me? Get off your high horse and repent of such arrogant behavior. Do you think you’re going to be winning many souls over with such an arrogant and triumphal attitude?

Unless your pastor refuses to permit wedding ceremonies of divorced folks who divorced for “irreconcilable differences”?

LOL, that’s why prominent Catholics like old Newt Gingrich had three wives right? Ted Kennedy? How many wife’s did he have?

 

[steido01]

Well, it’s the logical conclusion of Matthew 19:9, eh?

“The Bible says that divorce and re-marriage is unlawful except if adultery is involved. I hate my wife! Yay! Now all I have to do is sleep with her hot friend and Jesus gives me the to divorce and re-marry!”

Except that you don’t even abide by that, HH. Of that I am certain.

Unless your pastor refuses to permit wedding ceremonies of divorced folks who divorced for “irreconcilable differences”?

I don’t think so.

The lack of integrity in this line of questioning is depressing. You can disagree with House, but there’s no way you possibly know what he’s thinking. Presuming to know what he believes is bad enough, and presuming to know why he believes it is even worse – but proclaiming yourself ‘certain’ of it is just wrong, not to mention horrendously offensive.

As an aside, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that, as a Lutheran, I probably know a few more Lutheran pastors than you, and if not, then I certainly know them better than you (my father is one, my brother-in-law is one, and I could go down the list of former classmates and extended family). ALL of them - all - mind you, have refused to marry couples after examination. Many times, it is because one or both persons who desire marriage have been divorced and have not repented. But all that is anecdotal. So here’s an authoritative Lutheran source. From a report by the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (an authoritative report statement for LCMS Lutherans):

Divorce for unscriptural reasons, and remarriage involving such persons, are plainly contrary to God’s will. The Christian pastor, for the sake of the spiritual welfare of those whom he serves, must confront persons involved in such situations with the gravity of their sin…
In cases of the remarriage of persons divorced for reasons not Biblically sanctioned, true repentance would presuppose a genuine desire to reconcile with one’s estranged spouse. It is difficult to imagine, for example, how genuine contrition can exist or how absolution can be announced when there is present a refusal to seek healing. Where the refusal to reconcile and to seek healing is judged to be absent insofar as such a judgment is possible the pastor will be constrained to deny a request for remarriage.

I don’t think so.

The practice in House’s synod regarding divorce and remarriage is essentially identical that of the LCMS. So, I do think so. We’ll await your apology. No hard feelings. We all make mistakes when we assume.

 

[camillebru]

My name is Camille bruno Valdez my partner and I have been trying for a baby for over two years now, We were going to a fertility clinic for about 5 months before somebody told us to contact this spell caster who is so powerful, We contacted him at this email; arewaspecialisttemple@yahoo.com, for him to help us, then we told him our problem, he told us that we will either conceive in February 2014 or March 2014,but after two years of trying we were at a point where we were willing to try anything. And I’m glad we came to Dr Dahiru, Because his pregnancy spell cast put us at ease, and I honestly believe him, and his gods really helped us as well, I am thankful for all he has done. contact him via email: arewaspecialisttemple@yahoo.com if you are trying to get a baby or want your lover back. he has powers to do it, he has done mine

 

[SyroMalankara]

reported

 

[SyroMalankara]

The lack of integrity in this line of questioning is depressing. You can disagree with House, but there’s no way you possibly know what he’s thinking. Presuming to know what he believes is bad enough, and presuming to know why he believes it is even worse – but proclaiming yourself ‘certain’ of it is just wrong, not to mention horrendously offensive.

As an aside, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that, as a Lutheran, I probably know a few more Lutheran pastors than you, and if not, then I certainly know them better than you (my father is one, my brother-in-law is one, and I could go down the list of former classmates and extended family). ALL of them - all - mind you, have refused to marry couples after examination. Many times, it is because one or both persons who desire marriage have been divorced and have not repented. But all that is anecdotal. So here’s an authoritative Lutheran source. From a report by the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (an authoritative report statement for LCMS Lutherans):

The practice in House’s synod regarding divorce and remarriage is essentially identical that of the LCMS. So, I do think so. We’ll await your apology. No hard feelings. We all make mistakes when we assume.

How does LCMS or WELS view marriages of divorced and remarried, both within and outside your jurisdiction? What if the now remarried couple wants to join - any type of annulment process or refusal, etc?

 

[steido01]

How does LCMS or WELS view marriages of divorced and remarried, both within and outside your jurisdiction? What if the now remarried couple wants to join - any type of annulment process or refusal, etc?

Within the church, marriage is expected to be upheld. We also recognize that marriage takes place outside of our communion and even outside of the church (just as Roman Catholics do) - marriage was part of God’s original design, after all, and is integral to the continuance of the created order. That said, we live in a sinful world, so we should not be surprised when non-Christians (and Christians) sin and cause divorce. The response of the church and Christians should be (and always has been) to work toward reconciliation. The Roman Catholic Church formalizes this through annulment proceedings, etc. before permitting the remarried to full communion - ultimately determining that a marriage never “actually” took place. Lutherans don’t pretend that a marriage never existed, instead we acknowledge the sin that took place and call all parties involved to repentance before admitting the remarried to full communion. This is typically done during the catechesis of the couple/individual that wants to join. Lutheran churches tend to be smaller and more intimate, so our pastors can afford to take time to get to know couples/individuals who desire membership.

So in short - yes. In the red-tape, tribunal-hearing sense - no.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Within the church, marriage is expected to be upheld. We also recognize that marriage takes place outside of our communion and even outside of the church (just as Roman Catholics do) - marriage was part of God’s original design, after all, and is integral to the continuance of the created order. That said, we live in a sinful world, so we should not be surprised when non-Christians (and Christians) sin and cause divorce. The response of the church and Christians should be (and always has been) to work toward reconciliation. The Roman Catholic Church formalizes this through annulment proceedings, etc. before permitting the remarried to full communion - ultimately determining that a marriage never “actually” took place. Lutherans don’t pretend that a marriage never existed, instead we acknowledge the sin that took place and call all parties involved to repentance before admitting the remarried to full communion. This is typically done during the catechesis of the couple/individual that wants to join. Lutheran churches tend to be smaller and more intimate, so our pastors can afford to take time to get to know couples/individuals who desire membership.

So in short - yes. In the red-tape, tribunal-hearing sense - no.

So, in practice, it’s similar to the Byzantine Orthodox praxis; is this universal to all Lutherans or only LCMS? Could one theoretically “hop around” to find a more-“friendly” pastor? Does the District President/Bishop get involved, or a Synod?

 

[steido01]

So, in practice, it’s similar to the Byzantine Orthodox praxis; is this universal to all Lutherans or only LCMS?

I am unfamiliar with the Orthodox practice on divorce and remarriage, but this is the standard practice in all Confessional Lutheran synods. Some may have particular rubrics that they follow, but the understanding is the same. Non-Confessional bodies that call themselves Lutheran… well, I can’t speak for them.

Could one theoretically “hop around” to find a more-“friendly” pastor? Does the District President/Bishop get involved, or a Synod?

I suppose, hypothetically, that it wouldn’t be impossible to “hop around” in search of a more-favorable pastor, but how different is that from hopping from one Roman Catholic diocese to another for a more-favorable tribunal? At least in the Lutheran case, the person making the call is 1) an educated and ordained individual who, presumably, 2) has gotten to know his parishioners through catechesis and has intimate knowledge of their situation and 3) can consult with his District President/Bishop and surrounding pastors, rather than local laypersons. That point about the Roman view has always perplexed me.

 

[SyroMalankara]

but how different is that from hopping from one Roman Catholic diocese to another for a more-favorable tribunal? At least in the Lutheran case, the person making the call is 1) an educated and ordained individual who, presumably, 2) has gotten to know his parishioners through catechesis and has intimate knowledge of their situation and 3) can consult with his District President/Bishop and surrounding pastors, rather than local laypersons. That point about the Roman view has always perplexed me.

You seem to be missing the point about the Roman tribunal model. Those making the call are all educated in Canon Law, many are also secular lawyers and clerics; in addition, for the annulment to be recognized, 2 out of 3 tribunals must weigh the case and approve favorably. It’s not an easy standard, but as you’ve stated, has been unusually easier in some jurisdictions rather than others. Because of this, the entire process was reviewed by Pope Benedict and made more stringent.

 

[steido01]

Those making the call are all educated in Canon Law, many are also secular lawyers and clerics; in addition, for the annulment to be recognized, 2 out of 3 tribunals must weigh the case and approve favorably. It’s not an easy standard, but as you’ve stated, has been unusually easier in some jurisdictions rather than others. Because of this, the entire process was reviewed by Pope Benedict and made more stringent.

Exactly; it seems as though lawyers and wordsmiths are being involved to unnecessarily complicate an already-complex situation – why bother with “expertise” in human customs and canon laws and bylaws and legalese when it is expertise in sin, repentance and forgiveness that are needed? I’m not saying that the Roman approach is inherently wrong, just that it seems rather counter-intuitive for a denomination which views the priesthood so highly and grants such power to bishops to effectively give this decision, at least in a significant part, to laypersons.

Yes, Benedict’s efforts to address those issues are absolutely commendable.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Exactly; it seems as though lawyers and wordsmiths are being involved to unnecessarily complicate an already-complex situation – why bother with “expertise” in human customs and canon laws and bylaws and legalese when it is expertise in sin, repentance and forgiveness that are needed?

Sure, these are necessary. But if a marriage was invalid for various reasons from the get go, why pretend that it wasn’t? That isn’t any more truthful.

Not saying I like the Roman system, but it has it’s good and bad. As to human customs and canon laws and bylaws - most of our secular laws, it’s bare bones anyhow, evolved out of ecclesial structures - not the other way around.

I’m not saying that the Roman approach is inherently wrong, just that it seems rather counter-intuitive for a denomination which views the priesthood so highly and grants such power to bishops to effectively give this decision, at least in a significant part, to laypersons.

If this is was all on the bishop, we’d need a bishop per diocese just for declarations of nullity investigations.

 

[Sy_Noe]

:curtsey:

I simply ask HH and Sy, and all the others on this thread: is there some teaching that is in your church that you don’t personally agree with, but to which you conform because God declared it to be so?

If so, what is it?

If you can’t say that you have conformed to what God has revealed, but rather left a church and shopped for one that conforms to your own theology, then you have created a god after your own image.

Yes for instance a church I’m currently considering teaches not just a spiritual presence but the actual physical RP and I struggle with that concept. Fortunately they have open communon while I struggle and wouldn’t turn me away if I felt called to receive.

Although I don’t know why you think a person has to disagree with something if they believe they have found a church representing as best as humans on earth can, what Christ meant His to be.

 

[Peter_J]

I’ve mostly been a fly on the wall of this thread, but I feel I should “butt in” a bit here.

I don’t make any absolute claims that, in every single case that an annulment has been granted, there was never a valid marriage; I only claim that on the invalid-marriage-basis, the respective persons can remarry in good conscience.