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

[PRmerger]

PRmerger–I’m just stopping in briefly and trying to stay up with reading this thread. I haven’t yet backtracked over my reading elsewhere on divorce and the Bible in Jewish context to gather up links for you.

But, I want to ask you about something since it’s come up again. You keep saying, “Not our words. But His.” Okay, well, His words in regard to divorce (in Matthew 19, Matthew 5, Mark and Luke, and then through Paul in 1 Corinthians 7) say, to men, that they may not divorce their wives, except for marital infidelity*.

Could you show me the adultery exception in Matthew 5, Mark, Luke and 1 Corinthians?

 

[SteveVH]

Hi Steve–Thanks for the reply.

I’m puzzled— it seems that you’re just looking at one verse, not the whole description of this exchange with the Pharisees? In Matthew, for example, please go back to 19:3 to start and then continue on. The Pharisees saw Jesus was gaining crowds, and so they wondered where he stood in regards to the two rival “Houses” of the time–Hillel or Shammai?–specifically regarding the interpretation of Deut. 24:1-4 about what constituted grounds for divorce. The whole discussion centers around divorce itself, with remarriage only coming up later.

Very well, for the benefit of the reader here are the verses you reference:

*3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’**? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”** (Mathew 19: 3-8)

No one has said that divorce, in and of itself, is not a sin, unless one is the innocent victim of a civil divorce (i.e. they did not wish to divorce). Here is what the Church has to say:

*2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery: (1650)

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.178

2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.* (CCC)

But as with all sin, it can be forgiven. In the case of a second marriage, one is persisting in the sin of adultery and cannot be forgiven until sexual relations stop.*

 

[PRmerger]

Only if they live as brother and sister.

Yes.

It’s a difficult choice one in these situations must make. I don’t know that there is a right or wrong answer to this. One can have marital continence, and then receive Him. That seems to be a good trade-off, but I don’t think one is obliged to have that.

Or one can engage in the one flesh union and then refrain from the One Flesh Union with Him.

 

[PRmerger]

The issue is that a remarriage is treated as an unforgivable sins until other factors are met.

This is incorrect, Isaiah. There are no unforgivable sins (save for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit).

Only sins that are unrepented of cannot be forgiven.

When one is in a 2nd marriage, and continues with marital relations, when he can certainly choose to remain continent, he is unrepentant of his adultery.

That’s what’s “unforgivable.”

Where did Christ said that adultery is not a forgivable sin?

I charitably ask you: if someone is an unrepentant [fill in the blank with any sin], should he be forgiven if he has no intention of stopping this particular sin?

Is the child abuser forced to go and get an annulment on his desire to abuse children again?

You are mixing your analogies.

If a child abuser continues to abuse children, then he cannot receive communion.

Is the wife beater forced to go and get an annulment on his impulse to beat his wife?

Again, you are mixing your analogies.

If the wife beater repents, goes to confession, and then continues to beat his wife once a week, should he receive communion?

It is also the only sin that doesn’t fall into the “no fault of their own”. It doesn’t matter that the person is not Catholic or that the person entered into the marriage in Civil Court. The person is held under the same accountability as a Catholic marriage.

I don’t understand what this means.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure. So there are non Catholics even here on CAF who you know who understand Catholic teaching maybe they are Lutherans in the MO synod or conservative Anglicans unhappy with TEC, I have no idea who you know. But perhaps whom you deem closer to your views. The point is they have not entered even though they understand. They must have their reasons just as Catholics who have “left” and self describe themselves as “ex” have their reasons. So I’m not going to presume no Catholic would leave if only they understood. Any more than I’m going to say those non Catholics you know of who understand but don’t enter don’t have their reasons.

I see what you’re saying. I guess I would just say that it’s usually just 1 or 2 issues that this knowledgeable non-Catholic can’t get his head over that keeps him from crossing the Tiber. (That’s a reference to joining the Church of Rome–the Tiber is a river in Rome.)

Anyway, I just haven’t found a single person who has left the CC who knows what his Church taught.

And I would like to ask you this: I am assuming that you disagree with the Church’s position on birth control.

Firstly, can you articulate, on your own, why the Church teaches this, in 1 paragraph? Can you provide some apologia for what it is that we profess regarding birth control?

Because it would be a shame to say, “I disagree with the Church’s teaching on birth control” if one can’t really even say what it is that the Church teaches, and why she teaches what she teaches.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

This is incorrect, Isaiah. There are no unforgivable sins (save for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit).

Only sins that are unrepented of cannot be forgiven.

When one is in a 2nd marriage, and continues with marital relations, when he can certainly choose to remain continent, he is unrepentant of his adultery.

That’s what’s “unforgivable.”

That’s why I said that it is treated as if…
Here’s the conundrum:
“Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
If this is the case of a civil union. Then no marriage should be able to be divorced or separated – or annulled for that matter, regardless of the venue and the conditions.
Also, is the act of marriage not the adultery condition on what Christ is saying? Where does the sex clause come in place? What difference does it make if I have intercourse with my wife, if by just a thought I desire her? (Matthew 5:28). If we are to take Jesus words – there is no middle ground. It’s all or nothing.

I charitably ask you: if someone is an unrepentant [fill in the blank with any sin], should he be forgiven if he has no intention of stopping this particular sin?

Should I repent for loving my wife? Is my sin to have love for her and to help and protect her under marriage? Should I also repent for my son?

I am deeply remorseful for my divorce, not only the divorce but that marriage should not have been in the first place. I am deeply remorseful for that as well.

My flesh is too weak and I hate it for it…

Let me ask you some questions in like charity:
How many times have you confessed the same sin?
Do you not repent every time you confess it?
Does that mean that you won’t do it again?
If you do it again, does it mean you didn’t repent when you confessed it?

You are mixing your analogies.

Negative on both counts. In both analogies the sinner is forgiven and restored at face value. None of these sinners have to obtain a certificate (read annulment) with regards of their prior condition to the sin. When they engage in the sin again, of course they are withheld from partaking. Not before or in the in between.

I don’t understand what this means.

Take the case of a Protestant who through no fault of their own stays away from the Catholic Church. In like manner, if someone marries outside the Catholic Church no having knowledge of what marriage truly is and entails – this person is held accountable in like manner as those who marry within the Church and enter a marriage with full awareness of it.

It is much more legalistic than this, but that is as simple as I can type it.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I thought the same after reading it which is why I deleted it, apparently not fast enough.
Apologies.

Thank you. I have been guilty of that as well.

God bless you.

And you too, bro.

You have obviously been hurt very deeply and for that I am sorry. You are in my prayers.

God bless.

Thank you.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s why I said that it is treated as if…

No, Jose. It is not treated as if it’s an unforgiveable sin.

It *is *an unforgiveable sin if one isn’t repentant.

(Here, “It” means: adultery. Not divorce).

Here’s the conundrum:
“Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
If this is the case of a civil union. Then no marriage should be able to be divorced or separated – or annulled for that matter, regardless of the venue and the conditions.

Firstly, you are correct: no marriage can be annulled. An annulment (or declaration of nullity) states that there was no marriage. IOW: If it was a marriage, it cannot be annulled.

Secondly, while the Church recognizes the legitimacy of a civil divorce for legal reasons (protection of the children, legal inheritance issues, financial concerns), the point is, as you say, “What God has joined no man can separate”, and that means** they are still actually married.**

Also, is the act of marriage not the adultery condition on what Christ is saying?

I don’t understand what you mean here.

Where does the sex clause come in place? What difference does it make if I have intercourse with my wife, if by just a thought I desire her? (Matthew 5:28). If we are to take Jesus words – there is no middle ground. It’s all or nothing.

And I don’t understand this either.

Respectfully, dearest Jose, I tell you as my friend here, I believe that you are too engrossed in the heart of what you’re feeling to be able to rationally argue against the Church’s teaching here with your head.

Should I repent for loving my wife? Is my sin to have love for her and to help and protect her under marriage? Should I also repent for my son?

This, too, is too emotional to be a rational presentation, I gently say.

No one is ever obligated to “repent for my son”. I don’t even know what this actually means except that you think the Church says you have to regret having your son.

And, of course, in your head you already know the answer to that.

As far as repent for loving your current wife, the answer is the same for any man who loves someone he ought not be with.

I am deeply remorseful for my divorce, not only the divorce but that marriage should not have been in the first place. I am deeply remorseful for that as well.

I feel for you and your remorse is pleasing to God, for certain, friend. For certain.

Let me ask you some questions in like charity:

How many times have you confessed the same sin?

Too many to count.

Do you not repent every time you confess it?

Yes. I fully intend to never do it again.

Is that your intention after you confess your sins (and this is a personal question not meant for you to answer here on the CAFs) to never engage in this particular sin again?

Does that mean that you won’t do it again?

Not necessarily.

If you do it again, does it mean you didn’t repent when you confessed it?

Jose, again, I ask: is it really your intention to live continently with your current wife?
And you simply fail on occasion?

Negative on both counts. In both analogies the sinner is forgiven and restored at face value.

As are you, Jose. As are you.

None of these sinners have to obtain a certificate (read annulment) with regards of their prior condition to the sin. When they engage in the sin again, of course they are withheld from partaking. Not before or in the in between.

You, too, are not withheld from partaking if you haven’t committed a mortal sin.

Take the case of a Protestant who through no fault of their own stays away from the Catholic Church. In like manner, if someone marries outside the Catholic Church no having knowledge of what marriage truly is and entails – this person is held accountable in like manner as those who marry within the Church and enter a marriage with full awareness of it.

It is much more legalistic than this, but that is as simple as I can type it.

I don’t know what this means.

Friend, dearest Jose, I think you are hurting too much to present any rational argument against the Church’s teaching here right now.

I pray for peace and resolution to this difficult cross.

 

[Sy_Noe]

One of the wonderful things that came out of Vatican II was a focus on the participation of the laity in all aspects of the Church, save those that are reserved for the ordained. It called for “full and active participation…”.

The term “Eucharistic minister” is commonly used incorrectly, even by those responsible for the parish bulletin. The correct term for a lay minister who distributes communion at Mass or brings the Eucharist to the homebound is “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist”. The priest is the “ordinary minister of the Eucharist”. Only the priest can consecrate the elements, but the laity may distribute it to the faithful.

There are many, many ministries in the Church that are performed 100% by the laity. It is a wonderful thing and I would urge all Catholics to get involved in some ministry at their particular parish. Sadly, in just about every parish I have attended, about 10% of the people do 100% of the work.

So you are correct, they didn’t mean only priests and deacons, but they spoke in error if they used the term “Eucharistic Minister”.

Well at least it’s nice to know it’s common and that not only HH and I have (in the words of PRMerger) “clearly an uninformed understanding of what the priest does, the nature of the Mass, and, most importantly, a greatly impoverished understanding of the Eucharist”. But even a person in a parish office who is in charge of a bulletin can be clearly uninformed and greatly impoverished in their understanding as well.

I then of course have to assume none of the clergy proofread the bulletin. But maybe 1 of the 3 priests ( pastor, parochial vicar or priest in residence) or one of the 4 assisting priests or 1 of 2 deacons of the parish saw the bulletin today and if they are still in need next wk, it will be corrected. I hope so they are not deemed uninformed and impoverished in understanding as well.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Well, best if we remove any doubt about what you consider yourself. Why don’t you just make it clear?

Are you a Catholic?

I would need to know your definition of Catholic.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Sigh.

It’s not a mortal sin for you to attend a non-Roman Catholic service.

Exhibit # 4322234 regarding Catholics (ex/former/not practicing/current) not knowing their faith

No it is not exhibit whatever # you so choose. You apparently misunderstood. I know it’s not a mortal sin.

 

[guanophore]

Again, you are mixing your analogies.
.

I have very much missed reading your posts.

 

[PRmerger]

I have very much missed reading your posts.

YAY!! My favorite poster whom I model my posts after is BACK!!!

I was just thinking about you.

Really!

 

[PRmerger]

I would need to know your definition of Catholic.

I go by the Church’s definition.

So how do you define yourself? Are you a Catholic? Have you left the Church? Are you an ex-Catholic?

I will simply go by the label you choose to go by, since you haven’t identified it in your profile.

It makes no matter to me.

You will note that I have never told anyone here on the CAFs that she’s not a Catholic if that’s what she identifies herself as.

I will go by what you would put in your profile here, that you currently have empty.

 

[PRmerger]

Well at least it’s nice to know it’s common and that not only HH and I have (in the words of PRMerger) “clearly an uninformed understanding of what the priest does, the nature of the Mass, and, most importantly, a greatly impoverished understanding of the Eucharist”. But even a person in a parish office who is in charge of a bulletin can be clearly uninformed and greatly impoverished in their understanding as well.

I then of course have to assume none of the clergy proofread the bulletin. But maybe 1 of the 3 priests ( pastor, parochial vicar or priest in residence) or one of the 4 assisting priests or 1 of 2 deacons of the parish saw the bulletin today and if they are still in need next wk, it will be corrected. I hope so they are not deemed uninformed and impoverished in understanding as well.

Perhaps it will make you feel better to know that most Catholics (esp. ex-Catholics) can’t even identify what the Immaculate Conception is.

It’s irrelevant, really, how many are–if they’re in the Parish Office, or even if they are in positions of catechizing our children. At least as it applies to our discussion.

You have been proven wrong in your dismissal of my premise that Catholics leave the Church when they have no idea what their Church teaches.

Clearly, you were poorly catechized. HH was poorly catechized.

Irrelevant how many others were, at least as it applies to our discussion.

Unless you want to prove me wrong? Can you articulate in 1 paragraph some apologia for the Church’s teaching on birth control without recourse to Fr. Google?

 

[Sy_Noe]

I see what you’re saying. I guess I would just say that it’s usually just 1 or 2 issues that this knowledgeable non-Catholic can’t get his head over that keeps him from crossing the Tiber. (That’s a reference to joining the Church of Rome–the Tiber is a river in Rome.)

Yes I have a clear understanding of the reference.

 

[Sy_Noe]

It makes no matter to me.

Ok

 

[PRmerger]

Yes I have a clear understanding of the reference.

I’ve learned never to presume folks here know certain things about Catholicism.

 

[PRmerger]

Ok

So how do you identify yourself?

 

[Milasol]

Wow
How do I unsubscribe from this thread. It’s flooding my inbox. I tried to click on the unsubscribe link but it’s not working.

Anyone can help please?