A personal clarification.
My answer would be CCC 65-67 which is far more practical.
Merely!
…
Okay, this has been on my mind, and I’m gonna share it. Let’s say for the sake of argument, I decide to join the CC. What kind of Catholic do you think I’d make? I’m a firm believer in placing everything in submission to the Authority of God’s written Word, meaning I’d reject many catholic traditions. I can’t take the Eucharist because I’m divorced,I’d have to pay the Church for their “annulment”, and that divorce was to a non-believer, and she left me, so as Paul says I can let her go. Also, my second wife, who was baptised Catholic (though them’s fighting words for her. She loathes the CC) if that ends in divorce, there’s two annulments to pay for. Finally, yes, I was not charitable, I was irritable, and for that, I am sorry. But, I am a firm believer in Jesus, and I firmly believe that I am in His Church, and with His people, and I don’t need other people to tell me that I’m not in communion with Christ becuase I don’t belong to the right organization.
All these issues can be resolved if you and your wife are willing to do it. And people who loathe the Church often have a skewed idea of what the Catholic Church teaches due to some life experience or bad information. None of the teachings of the Church violate the Bible–not one. As a former Protestant I too thought there were some that did, but after looking into it, I found out that that’s not true. As for paying for an annulment–everyone has the right to eat, clothe themselves and have a roof over their heads, even theologians and clerics, yes? So why begrudge them their due payment? Besides, when people cannot pay the fees are waived, so that’s not really a problem. I’d say you have a lot of misconceptions about the Church and some bitter feelings (stemming from what? only you would know but don’t need to tell us), but that doesn’t mean the Catholic Church is not for you–it’s for everyone everywhere, hence the name of catholic.
I don’t mean to add salt to your wound, batman, but if you truly are a firm believer in God Word, then how is it that you can believe that divorce and re-marriage is not adultery?
:hug1:
It’s a valid question. One that I have struggled with off and on, but I take the words of St Paul the Apostle :“But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.”(1 Cor. 7:15 ESV) as solace. Now, if the second marriage ends in divorce (which it may or may not at this point),then, I may not be so quick to remarry without much prayer and Godly council.
Thank you.
There’s really not bitter resentment. Ever had a thought that sounds better in your head, then comes out all wrong? Welcome to my nightmare. Truth is, there was a time when I wanted to join the CC. Check this very Non-Catholic religions board.(You’ll have to go back a few pages) But, it was time, prayer and study that led be to question whether or not the CC was right for me. There’s a lot to love about the Catholic Church. The antiquity, the pagentry, the liturgy, the respect for the Bible. But, as I’ve said, there are things that the CC church teaches for doctrine, what are** In my opinion only** commands of men. let me be clear: I have no quarrel with many core teachings of Catholicism. Like the Real Presence, confession, baptism, prayer, scripture reading, etc. It’s the extra stuff that concerns me.(Mary,I agree she’s Theokotos, but not co-redemptrix or mediatrix, or that she was sinless, or that she didn’t die.Saints, Yes, there are saints, but prayer is to God and God alone. And the such)
So you are saying that divorce and re-marriage is fine if a Christian marries an unbeliever (and the unbeliever leaves)?
1.I didn’t say it, Paul the Apostle did. (or, at least that’s how I read it
)Oh yes, I’ve had those moments, as well.
There are things that are the commands of men, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t right and true. The First Council of Jerusalem is the perfect example of this. Peter quoted a rather obscure passage to allow the Gentile Christians from having to be circumcized, a passage that said nothing about the topic. Was he wrong? I’ll answer–no he wasn’t. He took the whole of Christ’s message, which fulfills the Law, into account in making his determination–and that was after much prayer and discussion, as well. The Church has followed the same pattern of discernment to this day. No teaching is simply pulled out of a hat, so to say, but rather carefully studied, prayed about, discussed and then decided upon. We can know that such decisions are right and proper because Christ promised that his Church would be led into “all truth” by the Holy Spirit, so it isn’t simply the whims of men at work.
The Church has not given Mary the titles you mentioned, but is still considering the ramifications of them, as it has always done. It may take centuries before the Church comes down one way or the other on them, but then it has all the time it needs, until Christ returns, to do so.
The Communion of Saints is a Lutheran belief, as well, isn’t it? All it means is that those who are in heaven pray for us/aid us, and that we can ask them to pray for us/aid us. They can do this because they are now with God and cannot will to do anything other than his will–it is the Holy Spirit who empowers them to do these things, not they themselves. And as we know, all things are possible with God. 
We are still one with them for they are not dead but alive in Christ. Why should they be prevented from helping us in heaven when we know they would have helped us if they were in the flesh? And the Church has not said whether or not Mary died but only that she was assumed into heaven. Others before her were also assumed into heaven, why is it impossible to believe that God would to it for Mary? Mary being sinless is more about Christ than it is about her–all the Marian teachings tell us something about Christ or safeguard his dignity and divinity and mission. It’s not really about Mary, as Mary herself would say: “Do whatever he tells you.”That is an interesting perspective. I had not ever heard anyone in Christendom proclaiming that, which is why I questioned it.1.I didn’t say it, Paul the Apostle did. (or, at least that’s how I read it
Why? Was the marriage through the CC?
Well, that segues into another interesting teaching proclaimed by the Catholic Church: premarital sex.
Nicea325: Then where is the canon explicitly or implicitly mentioned IN scripture? Where is such a base from Scripture?
Actually, the more you learn the Scriptures, the more you will find Christian Doctrine within them - and you will become more and more Catholic, the more you read.
The Church neither gives nor sells “annulments” - the Tribunal of the Church (which employs several very well educated people in full time positions, just like a regular law office) examines the situation to discern whether a marriage ever took place. If it did, no amount of money will obliterate that fact. You pay the money to have the work done - the result may or may not be to your liking.
Actually, if you become single and remain in that state, you don’t have to do anything. The only way you’d need to have two marriage trials would be if you were to attempt marriage a third time.
Christ only established one Church - and it was never “invisible” or “hidden.” It was always set up as a city on a hill for all to see - Vatican City.
But the fact remains that you don’t know what is Scripture, except through the authority of the CC.
Sorry,but you are side-stepped the questioned posed at you. You adhere to a 27 NT canon ratified centuries after Christ-right? The 27 NT canon is doctrine,thus where is the NT canon remotely mentioned in scripture? You said as long as it is based IN scripture-right? Where is it mentioned IN scripture? Unless you reject the 27 NT canon?
Yes wrong choice of word,but the Scriptures are Traditions penned.
Precisely because no one volume Christian book called the Bible existed. And why? Because the early Christian church taught orally what was handed to her via the Holy Spirit. Those teachings were there Itwin yet not fully explained in detail( Trinity,Incarnation,Hypostatic Union,NT canon,etc). It is called doctrinal developlment which lied upon Apostolic Traditions later to be reserved and safe-guarded in Scripture. To deny Traditions is to deny one’s own humanity. Humans are full of Traditions passed on from one generation to the next.