Why are you not Catholic?

[mek42]

So the only Church approved options in valid marriages with children that see a spouse become abusive are to raise the child as a single parent or to sentence the child to an abusive upbringing?

This does not seem consistent with traditional family values. In fact, this sort of policy seems rather punitive to abused children. I sincerely hope I am misunderstanding something.

 

[MaryT777]

It seems a few here have expressed concern or real issues with the process of Catholic annulments. For those of you that have, can you share for I am really interested, in how your Pastor would handle someone who is divorced and wants to remarry again in the Church.

What would be the process for them to get remarried in your Church after a divorce?
Would there be an instance where your Pastor has or will say NO to someone.

I might imagine for the posters I’ve noticed it would be Biblically based so any Bible references your Church uses in this process would also be appreciated.

Thanks,

Mary.

Actually this may be off topic now that I think of it. Perhaps I will start a new thread on it

 

[Tomdstone]

So the only Church approved options in valid marriages with children that see a spouse become abusive are to raise the child as a single parent or to sentence the child to an abusive upbringing?

Generally, yes. Except that the children could be raised in an orphanage or by the grandparents or possibly a relative or friend.

 

[PRmerger]

So the only Church approved options in valid marriages with children that see a spouse become abusive are to raise the child as a single parent or to sentence the child to an abusive upbringing?

This does not seem consistent with traditional family values. In fact, this sort of policy seems rather punitive to abused children. I sincerely hope I am misunderstanding something.

What would your option be?

Re-marrying?

Can you cite the statistics of how well families do with divorce and re-marriage?

Are they quite successful?

Please cite your source. Thanks.

 

[MaryT777]

It seems a few here have expressed concern or real issues with the process of Catholic annulments. For those of you that have, can you share for I am really interested, in how your Pastor would handle someone who is divorced and wants to remarry again in the Church.

What would be the process for them to get remarried in your Church after a divorce?
Would there be an instance where your Pastor has or will say NO to someone.

I might imagine for the posters I’ve noticed it would be Biblically based so any Bible references your Church uses in this process would also be appreciated.

Thanks,

Mary.

Actually this may be off topic now that I think of it. Perhaps I will start a new thread on it

Please ignore my post; I posted a new thread on non Catholic religions regarding divorce and remarriage in Churches.

 

[Share_love]

Yes Martin Lither did have a a enervation for Mary. But one of the quotes in the article is misleading.

“The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart.
(Sermon, September 1, 1522)”.

If you read the sermon in question, you will see Luther is doing the opposite of what Catholic apologists claim. He is attempting to ween people off of venerating Mary.

Veneration of Mary in the way Catholics venerate her is something that can be traced back to the earliest days of the Church. A Greek inscription reading “Hail Mary” can be found inside Mary’s own house and dates back to the second century, as can be seen here at 3:59:

youtube.com/watch?v=wtyWoskCAzY

 

[Darryl_Revok]

Why am I not a Catholic?

I’ve always found the Papacy to be a dubious institution, primarily because the majority of the Popes have been of Roman/Italian descent. Not that there’s anything wrong with being Italian, bu if the Papacy truly represented a all-encompassing church, I think that the Papacy would be a little more nationally diverse. You have a few outliers–a Pole here, an Argentinian there–but it’s pretty much all Italian. The vast number of Italian popes leads me to suspect the Papacy is historically an instrument of temporal, Italian power more than anything else.

 

[Reuben_J]

Why am I not a Catholic?

I’ve always found the Papacy to be a dubious institution, primarily because the majority of the Popes have been of Roman/Italian descent. Not that there’s anything wrong with being Italian, bu if the Papacy truly represented a all-encompassing church, I think that the Papacy would be a little more nationally diverse. You have a few outliers–a Pole here, an Argentinian there–but it’s pretty much all Italian. The vast number of Italian popes leads me to suspect the Papacy is historically an instrument of temporal, Italian power more than anything else.

And all the apostles were Jews, so … .

But you are right. Most were Italians. They might form among the biggest number of Catholics then and more prominent; close proximity and difficult communication, the Vatican being in Rome, which could account for most of the Popes having to come from their nationality. There is however no denying that politic and power play were also involved in the choice of a Pope. As the Church grew all over the planet and more cardinals being chosen in many countries, the Italians dominance would probably getting less and that may be one reason why the last three Popes were non-Italians.

Reuben

 

[PRmerger]

Why am I not a Catholic?

I’ve always found the Papacy to be a dubious institution, primarily because the majority of the Popes have been of Roman/Italian descent. Not that there’s anything wrong with being Italian, bu if the Papacy truly represented a all-encompassing church, I think that the Papacy would be a little more nationally diverse. You have a few outliers–a Pole here, an Argentinian there–but it’s pretty much all Italian. The vast number of Italian popes leads me to suspect the Papacy is historically an instrument of temporal, Italian power more than anything else.

Well, I must admit that in all my years of religious discussion, this is the first time I’ve heard this objection to Catholicism.

Can you offer where the Bible says that the vicar of Christ would be “nationally diverse”?

And how do you know that this “pretty much all Italian” isn’t going to change over the next 3-4 millenia, meaning, statistically, it will end up being “nationally diverse”?

And how much “nationally diverse” would be enough for you? If we had had a history of 2 popes from Ethiopia, and 1 from Korea, but none from Nigeria, none from Afghanistan…would that be diverse enough? What would be the criteria for determining if the papacy is diverse “enough”?

 

[Horton]

Ok. I’ll freely admit I have not researched canon law regarding annulment. Let me pose a scenario that, while hypothetical here and now, is very plausible. Say two Catholics get properly validly married (no lies, etc.). They have a child and one of the parents engages in combat while serving in the military. Upon return from combat, the serviceperson becomes abusive, severly physically abusive - but was not at all abusive before ths combat experience. If the now abusive spouse is unable / unwilling to receive effective treatment, what options are available to the other parent and child that are acceptable to the Church?

If annulment is an option, then annulment is functionally equivalent to yes-fault divorce. Otherwise, the child must be raised by a single parent or is sentanced to an abusive upbringing. Since the Church places a heavy emphasis on the benefits of a traditional, loving family, these last two options seem logically inconsistant with Church teaching.

The Church recognizes that there are times when a divorce is in the best interest of the family, such as the situation you mentioned, or for the financial well being of the children. But the Church sees a divorce as a legal or civil resolution to a problem.

To understand the Catholic Church teaching on divorce you have to first understand Her teaching on marriage. We have seven sacraments, one of which is marriage. When two people marry they are making a covenant with each other before God. A covenant can not be broken, it’s not a contract. It’s not an agreement that if wife does XYZ, then husband does ZYX. It is a promise a man & woman make to God to love, honor, respect, and stand by each other until the death of one. A covenant before God cannot be broken by man.

Back to annulments. For a man & woman to make this covenant certain conditions must be met. They must freely consent to the marriage, have no impediments such as a prior marriage, understand to nature of a sacramental marriage, be open to life, and vow to remain faithful to the marriage. This is what pre-cana is. A course given to the two people who plan to marry.

When one petitions the tribunal to investigate their marriage, the tribunal is looking to see if one of the conditions wasn’t met at the time the marriage took place. If they find a condition wasn’t met they may issue of a decree of nullity, that it wasn’t a valid marriage to begin with.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

Well, I must admit that in all my years of religious discussion, this is the first time I’ve heard this objection to Catholicism.

Can you offer where the Bible says that the vicar of Christ would be “nationally diverse”?

Well, Peter wasn’t Roman. None of the Apostles were Roman. Jesus wasn’t Roman.

The fact that a non-Roman created the institution based on the teachings of a non-Roman, which then passed into the control of Roman/Italians for the next two millennia leads me to believe that it was an act of co-option and syncretisation rather than an unbroken line of divine favor. Such a thing was not unknown to the Romans.

And how do you know that this “pretty much all Italian” isn’t going to change over the next 3-4 millenia, meaning, statistically, it will end up being “nationally diverse”?

I found it unwise to make judgements on future statistics using the current data.

And how much “nationally diverse” would be enough for you? If we had had a history of 2 popes from Ethiopia, and 1 from Korea, but none from Nigeria, none from Afghanistan…would that be diverse enough? What would be the criteria for determining if the papacy is diverse “enough”?

Hey, determining the requirements in re: demographic representation of a worldwide church is not my problem. I only made an observation that, given that it * *a worldwide church, and the supposed instrument of God’s will on earth, it was odd that the chosen representatives skewed so heavily towards those born on the Italian peninsula. Much is made in the Bible of God’s special relation towards the Jewish people. I see no such affinity towards the Roman.

 

[JustaServant]

Why am I not a Catholic?

I’ve always found the Papacy to be a dubious institution, primarily because the majority of the Popes have been of Roman/Italian descent. Not that there’s anything wrong with being Italian, bu if the Papacy truly represented a all-encompassing church, I think that the Papacy would be a little more nationally diverse. You have a few outliers–a Pole here, an Argentinian there–but it’s pretty much all Italian. The vast number of Italian popes leads me to suspect the Papacy is historically an instrument of temporal, Italian power more than anything else.

You do realize planes, trains, and automobiles didn’t arrive on the scene until rather recently, the last 150 years or so? The rapid advances in travel has had a lot to do with seeing more Popes from other lands.
Next question?

 

[PRmerger]

Well, Peter wasn’t Roman.

There you go. The first pope wasn’t even Roman.

And neither was the second pope.

They were Jewish, no?

None of the Apostles were Roman. Jesus wasn’t Roman.

True.

They were Jewish.

Should the papacy be Jewish in order to convince you that the CC is true?

The fact that a non-Roman created the institution based on the teachings of a non-Roman, which then passed into the control of Roman/Italians for the next two millennia leads me to believe that it was an act of co-option and syncretisation rather than an unbroken line of divine favor.

Your conclusion is a nonsequitur, Darryl.

I found it unwise to make judgements on future statistics using the current data.

That’s odd. That’s exactly how judgements are made on future statistics.

Hey, determining the requirements in re: demographic representation of a worldwide church is not my problem.

OF COURSE it’s your problem, Darryl! It’s your (unique and peculiar) objection. So you need to make some sort of assertion of what the demographics would look like in order to convince you of Catholicism.

What demographics would be convincing to you?

 

[Reuben_J]

Well, Peter wasn’t Roman. None of the Apostles were Roman. Jesus wasn’t Roman.
The fact that a non-Roman created the institution based on the teachings of a non-Roman, which then passed into the control of Roman/Italians for the next two millennia leads me to believe that it was an act of co-option and syncretisation rather than an unbroken line of divine favor. Such a thing was not unknown to the Romans.

PR may put in better answer for you but I just want to interject here. Popes being Romans was never a problem for Catholics AFAIK, your reason thus is quite unique. Of course you are entitled to it.

Of course if you see this along racial line (you did mention Italians in your former post), there is nothing that can stop you.

Saying that the Papacy is ‘act of co-option and syncretisation’ is a serious accusation however and you need more evidence to support that. Seeing the appearance of the make-up of the past Popes and come to a conclusion would be just that – a subjective accusation.

Why would Italian Pope matters? It is the chair of Peter that he is occupying and regardless of what nationality he is, he would be graced with the charism of being Pope. Sure there were bad Popes though a great majority of them were saintly, but Catholics never are saying that the Popes must be impeccable in character. All the more when we had bad Popes that the word of Jesus Christ really comes to play – that the Gate of Hell will not prevail against His Church. And it has not.

But more probably you already have an opinion of the Catholic Church and the Popes.

Reuben

 

[Darryl_Revok]

PR may put in better answer for you but I just want to interject here. Popes being Romans was never a problem for Catholics AFAIK, your reason thus is quite unique. Of course you are entitled to it.

I never said it was a problem for Catholics. **I **merely find it suspicious–the title of the thread is, after all, "Why are you not Catholic?–and indicative of baser (i.e. political) reasons.

Of course if you see this along racial line (you did mention Italians in your former post), there is nothing that can stop you.

I used Italian as a political catch-all, rather than typing out Naples, Milan, Florence, etc.

Saying that the Papacy is ‘act of co-option and syncretisation’ is a serious accusation however and you need more evidence to support that. Seeing the appearance of the make-up of the past Popes and come to a conclusion would be just that – a subjective accusation.

Well, it kind of fits. The Roman Empire collapses, and the pan-European political void is largely filled by the RCC, no? The Church adopted the Latin language–the language of the Roman state–as its de facto lingua franca. The Papacy is held by an assortment of noblemen, becomes the focal point of conflict between noble families, is responsible for calling up armies to conquer foreign lands, and becomes a patron of the arts–all attributes held by the defunct position of Roman Emperor.

Then you have the Vestal cult’s adoration of virginity.

 

[Denise1957]

And all the apostles were Jews, so … .

Perhaps it neither here nor there, but it’s believed that St. Luke may have been a Gentile, born in Greece, though it hasn’t been proven.

catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=76

 

[PRmerger]

I never said it was a problem for Catholics. **I **merely find it suspicious–the title of the thread is, after all, "Why are you not Catholic?–and indicative of baser (i.e. political) reasons.

I used Italian as a political catch-all, rather than typing out Naples, Milan, Florence, etc.

Well, it kind of fits. The Roman Empire collapses, and the pan-European political void is largely filled by the RCC, no? The Church adopted the Latin language–the language of the Roman state–as its de facto lingua franca. The Papacy is held by an assortment of noblemen, becomes the focal point of conflict between noble families, is responsible for calling up armies to conquer foreign lands, and becomes a patron of the arts–all attributes held by the defunct position of Roman Emperor.

Then you have the Vestal cult’s adoration of virginity.

None of the above is anything which disqualifies Catholicism from being the One True Faith.

IOW: all of the above could be true yet Catholicism still be the Church Christ founded.

Not to mention: if Catholicism isn’t the faith Christ started, which is? Where is His Body today? And how do you know?

 

[Reuben_J]

Well, it kind of fits. The Roman Empire collapses, and the pan-European political void is largely filled by the RCC, no? The Church adopted the Latin language–the language of the Roman state–as its de facto lingua franca. The Papacy is held by an assortment of noblemen, becomes the focal point of conflict between noble families, is responsible for calling up armies to conquer foreign lands, and becomes a patron of the arts–all attributes held by the defunct position of Roman Emperor.

The RCC was in existence from day one long before the Roman Empire collapsed.

The process of choosing the Popes varied and admittedly its design could be further changed and improved which what happened along the centuries. So your accusation does not hold there.

Yes, after Constantine made emperor, the Church was recognized and had government support but then again the number of Christians had grown too that need to be addressed by the Church.

Then you have the Vestal cult’s adoration of virginity.

How is this relevant to Popes being Italians?

 

[steve_b]

So, why do so many priests mess up and grant marriages which must later be annulled? Feel free to explain how I don’t properly understand what an annulment is.

Priests aren’t mindreaders. Inspite of couples going through classes preparing before a wedding, people can always hide their true self, from other people, particularly their future spouse.

Priests act as a witness. Priests don’t marry the couple. The couple gives the sacrament to each other. THEY marry each other.

Re: nullity of marriage

All sacraments involve form and intent. Both need to be in place.

Suppose

one person’s intent (either bride or groom or even both) at the time the vows are given, is not honest. The one partner has no clue that’s the case in the other partner… Suppose in one’s heart they don’t really believe the marriage vow of until death do us part. Then while one partner can make a beautiful vow to the other , the other partner didn’t reciprocate that vow in return. That deffect means they did not give the sacrament to the other person, therefore a sacramental marriage did not take place.

Down the road, if a divorce takes place, if nullity is to be explored, the marriage would have to go through scruitny by a tribunal to see if nullity is even a possibility.

As an aside
A marriage found to be a valid sacramental marriage can’t be annuiled

 

[Reuben_J]

I never said it was a problem for Catholics. **I **merely find it suspicious–the title of the thread is, after all, "Why are you not Catholic?–and indicative of baser (i.e. political) reasons.

Granted that you are suspicious and perhaps your suspicion maybe due to an erroneous preconceived idea about Catholicism. I am just trying to correct it from Catholics’ perspective.

The reason why I am saying that it does not matter whatever the Pope’s nationality is, because when he is Pope, he is the Pope for all Catholics, not Roman Empire or any of the Italian states/cities of where he came from.

IOW, the Pope is apolitical. It is true that candidates for a Pope may have their own preference, that may be natural and can be construed as human weakness but once he is Pope, theoretically his interest is not merely the city he came from but the entire Church. One have to see it also from the spiritual point of view.