Why can't Catholics get married outdoors?

[richardwy]

Cause the Church said so. End of discussion.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It’s a strawman. They’re very good at that. In another thread, somebody started whining about how my “argument is illogical”, before I ever even made any kind of argument. I just made a comment and didn’t refer to any Bible verse, and yet, the first thing out of his mouth was about how I was taking scripture out of context.

It’s just a game they play with us poor, ignorant Protestants.

Umm. It was, not a strawman, and I just finished explaining in another post. So please don’t make assumptions (which are not correct).

I don’t think of you as a poor ignorant Protestant by any means. So you’re putting words in my mouth and then attempting to portray me as playing a ‘game’ with you. I’m not. Sorry if you feel that way.

 

[Danny_Clover]

Tantum ergo:

Well, you seemed to be saying that even though neither indoor nor outdoor was specifically mentioned in the Bible, that we should have ‘outdoor’ weddings if desired. But since nothing is mentioned in the Bible that we can’t have them indoors, it also seemd that you were saying that our preference for indoors only was wrong.

No, as you know, all I said is that there is nothing in scripture that tells us to have weddings indoors or outdoors and so your insistence that weddings must be held inside a Catholic Church because a wedding must be held in a “consecrated place”, is off the mark.

But that isn’t in Scripture. The Holy Spirit doesn’t have one truth for you, and another for another individual.

You might want to google a word called “adiapheron”. You might also want to look up Paul’s writings about what he refered to as “disputable matters”.

GOOD QUESTION. We DO have an objective and authoritative standard. We have the Magesterium of the Catholic Church.

But that’s not objective. That’s subjective.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

How on earth would the Bible having a verse citing that it is the penultimate authority in the Christian’s life be circular? That’s not even remotely logical.

If the Bible containing a verse or injunction about it being the ultimate authority in the Christian’s life is “circular reasoning”, then why believe anything that is in it? You have no reason to, for by this logic, everything in it can be brushed aside with that charge.

Bottom line is that there is no citation in the Bible proving Sola Scriptura because the Bible is not the final authority in our lives. Christ is, and He teaches us through His Church. The Bible is but one of those teachings.

You’re right it was an incorrect call on my part about circular reasoning.

That only says that the Bible is useful for teaching and so forth. It does not state or imply in the slightest that the Bible is the final or only authority in the life of the Christian.

Click here to see why Sola Scriptura is wrong.

Erm, I was asking if that was the verse he meant, I didn’t imply anything more than that

As for the Sola Scripture, I believe if we all go into depth with that now, that will derail the thread further.

The only games being played here are by Protestants who can’t justify their man-made teachings.

Not really, I want to know why having a wedding outdoors is so wrong.

Man-made teachings is a good one, when have we made anything up that is outside scripture?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No, as you know, all I said is that there is nothing in scripture that tells us to have weddings indoors or outdoors and so your insistence that weddings must be held inside a Catholic Church because a wedding must be held in a “consecrated place”, is off the mark.

No, it isn’t. It is a revealed truth of the Holy Spirit. If you are permitted to make an ‘individual’ determination as to what the Spirit reveals to you, why may the Catholic, who likewise asks the Holy Spirit for guidance, in return not rely on the guidance of the Spirit through the Church? St. Paul in fact who calls the Church the pillar and bulwark seems to advocate that we do just that.

You might want to google a word called “adiapheron”. You might also want to look up Paul’s writings about what he refered to as “disputable matters”.

I don’t think that St. Paul would find any fault with my decision to accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit as I see fit. And I see fit to accept the guidance of the Spirit through the Catholic Church as I think the teachings are true. This is my personal decision based on prayer to the Spirit.

But that’s not objective. That’s subjective.

How is it subjective to accept the guidance of the Spirit through the Catholic Church?

 

[agapewolf]

Thank you, but I’ve already got a couple dozen books to catch up on. Besides, if you can’t answer my question even after you claim you’ve read the book, how helpful can it be?
?

Wow…"After I have claimed to read the book? "Why such an insulting tone. How would I even know to suggest it if I haven’t read it? This makes no sense.

I’m not going to explain it because its pages long…and very simple for you to read it.

And as I said, I actually look up things I don’t understand, instead of just making an uninformed opinion.

Again, the state has certain rules one must follow to get married. Why can’t the church?

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

How is it subjective to accept the guidance of the Spirit through the Catholic Church?

Cunning, conveniently put Spirit in there. That’s obviously a belief you hold that the Spirit is guiding the magesterium of the Church, and therefore we should believe the magesterium.

Here’s a brilliant example of the Holy Spirit guiding the magesterium:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Wow…After I have claimed to read the book? Why such an insulting tone. How would I even know to suggest it if I haven’t read it? This makes no sense.

I’m not going to explain it because its pages long…and very simple for you to read it.

And as I said, I actually look up things I don’t understand, instead of just making an uninformed opinion.

Again, the state has certain rules one must follow to get married. Why can’t the church?

That’s a good point in your last 2 sentences. There is nothing in the Bible about having to take blood tests, but most states in the U.S. require it and most people don’t even think twice about it. These are mandatory even though they certainly were not required in Biblical times. We have no trouble following state rules. So indeed, why cannot the Church have laws?

 

[agapewolf]

Cunning, conveniently put Spirit in there. That’s obviously a belief you hold that the Spirit is guiding the magesterium of the Church, and therefore we should believe the magesterium.

Here’s a brilliant example of the Holy Spirit guiding the magesterium:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod

This has nothing to do with magisterium

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

This has nothing to do with magisterium

Of course not, for every single ridiculous event that has happened in the last 2000 years, there is always some convenient loophole constructed. Not the Cadaver Synod, not the Copernicus issue, not the Galileo issue, not the Crusades, not even the Inquisition!

Why, the Inquisition is just a carefully constructed ploy by the Protestants and Atheists to undermine the Church

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Cunning, conveniently put Spirit in there. That’s obviously a belief you hold that the Spirit is guiding the magesterium of the Church, and therefore we should believe the magesterium.

Here’s a brilliant example of the Holy Spirit guiding the magesterium:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod

Well, you obviously have a belief that the Spirit guides individuals (even if the Spirit guides one individual to a belief in the Real Presence and another to a 'symbol only.)

Yes, I do believe the Spirit is guiding the Church in matters of the teachings of faith and morals. I certainly do not believe that the Spirit preserves members of the Church from sin, or error, in their ACTIONS. There is a difference.

You don’t understand what the Magesterium is. Your ‘example’ is not an example at all of what the Magesterium is, so it is not germane to the conversation.

 

[Danny_Clover]

Tantum ergo:

No, it isn’t. It is a revealed truth of the Holy Spirit.

Then show me the verse in which He revealed it.

If you are permitted to make an ‘individual’ determination as to what the Spirit reveals to you, why may the Catholic, who likewise asks the Holy Spirit for guidance, in return not rely on the guidance of the Spirit through the Church?

Because the church can only determine what the Holy Spirit says by examining scripture, the same as you.

I don’t think that St. Paul would find any fault with my decision to accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit as I see fit.

I do think he would object to your repeated use of strawman arguments.

How is it subjective to accept the guidance of the Spirit through the Catholic Church?

Because your Magisterium doesn’t have anything objective to show that they’re being “guided by the ‘Spirit’”.

Saying, “Yeah, you can trust us because we’re being led by the Holy Spirit” is subjective.

agapewolf:

Wow…After I have claimed to read the book? Why such an insulting tone. How would I even know to suggest it if I haven’t read it? This makes no sense.

I’m not going to explain it because its pages long…and very simple for you to read it.

And as I said, I actually look up things I don’t understand, instead of just making an uninformed opinion.

Again, the state has certain rules one must follow to get married. Why can’t the church?

Sorry about that. It was my understanding that you had read the book.

So, I guess this brings us to the next obvious question, if you haven’t read the book, then why should I read it? If you haven’t read it, then how do you know that it will be beneficial to me?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Of course not, for every single ridiculous event that has happened in the last 2000 years, there is always some convenient loophole constructed. Not the Cadaver Synod, not the Copernicus issue, not the Galileo issue, not the Crusades, not even the Inquisition!

Why, the Inquisition is just a carefully constructed ploy by the Protestants and Atheists to undermine the Church

And you obviously do not understand what the Inquisition was, either.

 

[agapewolf]

Of course not, for every single ridiculous event that has happened in the last 2000 years, there is always some convenient loophole constructed. Not the Cadaver Synod, not the Copernicus issue, not the Galileo issue, not the Crusades, not even the Inquisition!

Why, the Inquisition is just a carefully constructed ploy by the Protestants and Atheists to undermine the Church

Wow…really showing ignorance of what the actual magisterium is…

the church has never claimed impeccability. The church’s magisterium claims infallibility. Learn the difference and then there can be a discussion.

Again, someone going off on a very uninformed opinion.

 

[Danny_Clover]

And you obviously do not understand what the Inquisition was, either.

Gee, didn’t see that one coming at all.

Why is it that whenever you guys run out of arguments, instead of admitting that you don’t know or, God forbid, that a Protestant might actually be right, you just fall back on the “well you just don’t know what you’re talking about” card?

I’m curious, has any Catholic ever conceded a point to a Protestant or even tried to be respectful when faced with a point they can’t refute or a question they can’t answer?

 

[agapewolf]

So, I guess this brings us to the next obvious question, if you haven’t read the book, then why should I read it? If you haven’t read it, then how do you know that it will be beneficial to me?

I HAVE the read the book. Are you even reading the same thread I am reading? What in the world is this about?

How in the world would I know to suggest it if I haven’t read it? Your claim that “i’ve claimed to have read it” was insulting, and unnecessary.

I’m suggesting that you read this book that explains very well and deeply the significance of the building of the temple/church.

 

[Danny_Clover]

agapewolf:

Wow…really showing ignorance of what the actual magisterium is…

Again, someone going off on a very uninformed opinion.

…and again…

 

[Danny_Clover]

I HAVE the read the book.

So then why are you getting mad and me for saying you said you read the book???

How in the world would I know to suggest it if I haven’t read it? Your claim that “i’ve claimed to have read it” was insulting, and unnecessary.

You just said you read it!!

Honestly, this is precisely why I said you guys just play game.

 

[agapewolf]

Gee, didn’t see that one coming at all.

Why is it that whenever you guys run out of arguments, instead of admitting that you don’t know or, God forbid, that a Protestant might actually be right, you just fall back on the “well you just don’t know what you’re talking about” card?

I’m curious, has any Catholic ever conceded a point to a Protestant or even tried to be respectful when faced with a point they can’t refute or a question they can’t answer?

You have not bee respectful here. You can’t answer because you just spout off opinion as fact, rather than backing it up.

You: “there’s no significance to the church building”
Me: yes, there is, i’ve given a soft explanation how it has history through the temple, and significant of the community,and you can learn more by reading a book"
You: no, I won’t read the book and you’re wrong.

 

[agapewolf]

So then why are you getting mad and me for saying you said you read the book???

You just said you read it!!

Honestly, this is precisely why I said you guys just play game.

No, you said “a book you CLAIM to have read”
That is the insulting sentence.