Why can't Catholics get married outdoors?

[Tantum_ergo]

Then show me the verse in which He revealed it.

Do you not believe that Scripture said, “I will send the Spirit to you, who will guide you to all truth?” Scripture does not say, "All truth will be contained only in explicit passages of Scripture’. . .Scripture says that the Holy Spirit will GUIDE US to all truth. That itself indicates that there is going to be Truth which is NOT in the Scripture itself. We will be guided to it. We will know it is true because it does not CONTRADICT Scripture. And it is NOT a contradiction for a Church to ask that weddings be indoors. There is no Scripture that says, "Weddings should be indoors or outdoors depending on the individual preference’.

I could ask you to show the verse in which the Spirit revealed that weddings should be held outdoors if the individual wished, and you couldn’t show that to me.

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

Again, there is nothing ‘non scriptural’ about holding weddings indoors rather than outdoors. There is nothing in Scripture that tells you to hold services on Sunday explicitly, or that you don’t hold on the Sabbath the way that Jesus Himself observed; but you do hold service on Sunday, don’t you? Scripture itself does not say that all determination of the Truth is ONLY through examination of Scripture.

I do think he would object to your repeated use of strawman arguments.
You keep accusing me of strawmen; I have not done so.

Because your Magisterium doesn’t have anything objective to show that they’re being “guided by the ‘Spirit’”. We don’t? Can you explain that? We use Scripture and the oral tradition that St. Paul speaks of in Scripture, prayer and ‘testing’. What do YOU have to show ME you’re being guided? Why is YOUR interpretation of a bible passage ‘correct’ but another Christian, who claims the same guidance, 'wrong?"

Saying, “Yeah, you can trust us because we’re being led by the Holy Spirit” is subjective.
Aren’t you saying exactly the same in claiming that we should have outdoor weddings because YOUR interpretation of Scripture says so?

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?

 

[agapewolf]

…and again…

well, you deleted the other portion where I explained there’s a difference of what he was claiming.

now your arguments are just dishonest.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

The magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church, so apparently they are guided by the Holy Spirit when it comes to faith and morals, but all else that happens in the Church is not guided by the Spirit. So one end we have the magisterium being guided, and on the other end the Inquisition happening. No doubt the same hierarchy involved.

Was it separated into different timeslots during the day? Holy by day, evil by night?

OK, maybe I’m being a bit funny about it here, but perhaps you do get my point. It’s very contradictory and un-Christ like for these kinds of things to be happening in a Church that’s apparently led by the Spirit. Events like the Inqusition, and the recent Church sex-scandal aren’t one-off things, they have happened over years, and years. They have been covered up.

How can one claim one is being led by the Spirit when one one hand you teach something that’s moral, and then the hierarchy is unable to practice it? Jesus talked heavily about this subject; hypocrisy.

He didn’t like it.

 

[agapewolf]

The magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church, so apparently they are guided by the Holy Spirit when it comes to faith and morals, but all else that happens in the Church is not guided by the Spirit. So one end we have the magisterium being guided, and on the other end the Inquisition happening. No doubt the same hierarchy involved.

Was it separated into different timeslots during the day? Holy by day, evil by night?

OK, maybe I’m being a bit funny about it here, but perhaps you do get my point. It’s very contradictory and un-Christ like for these kinds of things to be happening in a Church that’s apparently led by the Spirit. Events like the Inqusition, and the recent Church sex-scandal aren’t one-off things, they have happened over years, and years. They have been covered up.

How can one claim one is being led by the Spirit when one one hand you teach something that’s moral, and then the hierarchy is unable to practice it? Jesus talked heavily about this subject; hypocrisy.

He didn’t like it.

again, learn the difference between impeccability and infallibility. its pretty easy.

 

[agapewolf]

Then Jesus was a hypocrite:

He gave the keys of heaven to Peter, and then says “Get behind me satan”

This is hard proof that there can be binding and loosing with the Holy Spirit preventing the church from teaching error, all the while having sinful humans running it. God is capable of this power.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

again, learn the difference between impeccability and infallibility. its pretty easy.

It’s not that I don’t know the difference, I just don’t subscribe to it.

Isn’t the NT full of evidence of supposed “leaders” preaching, but were hypocrites? How difficult is it to relate what was happening there to what’s happening now in the Church, and what’s happened in the past?

It’s not just these issues, there are so many other issues. Especially in regards to wealth, there is a big call to help the poor, but the Pope has a personal cobbler, has an expensive wardrobe, dines in wealth, and in the name of traditionality looks unapproachable to the general public.

Jesus was not like this, neither was Peter and the disciples, they were simple people and lived simple lives. The hierarchy are everything but that.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

Then Jesus was a hypocrite:

He gave the keys of heaven to Peter, and then says “Get behind me satan”

This is hard proof that there can be binding and loosing with the Holy Spirit preventing the church from teaching error, all the while having sinful humans running it. God is capable of this power.

The authority given to the disciples were to spread the word of God, not make up things. They taught others as Jesus had taught them. Why weren’t they going around and saying pray to Mary? That’s one of the things.

Sinful humans is a given, we are all sinful. It’s not the sinfulness, but the hypocrisy specifically.

How can you teach your child to avert sexual immorality when you yourself can’t? Bishops being caught with child pornography, the Pope being involved in it as well is not a sign of anything good.

 

[Danny_Clover]

You have not bee respectful here.

Given your behavior and the accusations you’re making about me, I feel I’ve been very respectful to you.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The authority given to the disciples were to spread the word of God, not make up things. They taught others as Jesus had taught them. Why weren’t they going around and saying pray to Mary? That’s one of the things.A. Mary was still alive during the writing of the earliest gospels.
B. Indeed, the disciples were teaching prayer to the saints (including Mary). Check out the catecombs. . .you will see written evidence of prayer to martyrs (saints). So it was being taught and not ‘made up.’ Prayer is not communicating to God only’; check Shakespeare for a relatively recent example that praying was simply ‘asking’ or communicating with other people.

Sinful humans is a given, we are all sinful. It’s not the sinfulness, but the hypocrisy specifically.

How can you teach your child to avert sexual immorality when you yourself can’t? Bishops being caught with child pornography, the Pope being involved in it as well is not a sign of anything good.

A bishop caught is not ‘all bishops’. They are not impeccable or sinless. And the bishop was not teaching that pornography was right.

How about Jimmy Swaggart? How about Oral Roberts? Here are godly men (I’m not saying they aren’t) who have had public sin.

And the Pope was NOT ‘involved in it all’. Please get your facts straight.

Nobody is saying people don’t sin, but all those sinners are not teaching that the sin is right.

Whereas your protestant denominations HAVE changed teachings. Before 1930, of the Protestant groups who actually had a policy regarding contraception, they taught it was morally wrong. You can SEE the actual documents if you check out the Lambeth Conference records for the Episcopalians and you can SEE when they ‘changed’ what they had once said was proven by SCRIPTURE to be morally wrong, and then made it morally ‘okay’.

 

[Danny_Clover]

Tantum ergo:

Do you not believe that Scripture said, “I will send the Spirit to you, who will guide you to all truth?”

Yes, I do. And because I do, I also believe in the analogy of scripture, which says that we’re to take scripture as a whole and not merely one verses at a time. Because of that, I believe that the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth and that He does so by the Word of God.

Scripture does not say, "All truth will be contained only in explicit passages of Scripture’

No, it doesn’t, but it does say that God has given us scripture for the purpose of knowing truth and that all other sources of truth must defer to the authority of the Word of God.

Scripture says that the Holy Spirit will GUIDE US to all truth. That itself indicates that there is going to be Truth which is NOT in the Scripture itself.

No it doesn’t. It just says that the Holy Spirit will guide us. It says nothing at all about what tools He will or will not use to guide us.

You’re making an asusmption based on your beliefs, rather than letting scripture shape your beliefs.

I could ask you to show the verse in which the Spirit revealed that weddings should be held outdoors if the individual wished, and you couldn’t show that to me.

You really are a piece of work. Even after I’ve explained to you several times that I’ve never claimed that scripture says that weddings must be outside, you’re still claiming that I said that. And then your friend has the nerve to tell me I’m the one who’s not being respectful.

You keep accusing me of strawmen; I have not done so.

Yes, you have. Several times, such as when you keep on accusing me of claiming that scripture says weddings must be outside, even when I’ve repeatedly explained to you that I’ve never said and do not believe that.

We don’t? Can you explain that?

What is there to explain?

What do YOU have to show ME you’re being guided? Why is YOUR interpretation of a bible passage ‘correct’ but another Christian, who claims the same guidance, 'wrong?"

And what was it you were saying about not depending on straw man arguments? Could you please try to respond to what I actually said, rather than putting words in my mouth?

Aren’t you saying exactly the same in claiming that we should have outdoor weddings because YOUR interpretation of Scripture says so?

As I’ve explained to you several times now, I’ve never said that we should or should not have outdoor weddings and I’ve also pointed out to you that scripture doesn’t say one way or the other.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I don’t wish to go off topic, but the point seems to be that some are questioning the “authority” of the Catholic Church to teach.

Again I state that if you are not Catholic, and your Church teaches that you can wed outdoors, more power to you.

But if you are Catholic, then you abide by the teaching of the Church. Simple as that. Scriptural as that (The Church does have the power. Peter (the Pope) has the keys of the Kingdom, and the bishops (apostolic succession) have the power to ‘bind and loose’).

There is nothing antiScriptural about the Church’s teachings.

With respect, continued attacks and confusion about infallibility, impeccability, and extreme misunderstandings about Church history, will do nothing except drive further wedges between peoples who should be, in Christian charity, **supporting the rights of their fellow Christians to follow their conscience and the guidance of the Spirit as they understand it. **

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

Can’t you quote like normal people so that we don’t have to see a whole bunch of code regarding colour when we try to respond to you?

A bishop caught is not ‘all bishops’. They are not impeccable or sinless. And the bishop was not teaching that pornography was right.

Yea, he was indulging in child-pornography, how cool is that?

How about Jimmy Swaggart? How about Oral Roberts? Here are godly men (I’m not saying they aren’t) who have had public sin.

The Pope has been accused of being involved in moving priests around when he was an archbishop, of course this hasn’t been proven yet, so I can’t accuse him of anything. But for him to be involved in this matter so directly regarding something in the past obviously means there is something weird happening here. I wish he would directly address it.

Whereas your protestant denominations HAVE changed teachings. Before 1930, of the Protestant groups who actually had a policy regarding contraception, they taught it was morally wrong. You can SEE the actual documents if you check out the Lambeth Conference records for the Episcopalians and you can SEE when they ‘changed’ what they had once said was proven by SCRIPTURE to be morally wrong, and then made it morally ‘okay’.

Yes, it was the Anglicans who first did it. The Anglicans are not very different to Catholics as a whole, especially the Old Anglicans, they are also into that fancy-pancy stuff, bishops, fancy dress parties and the likes. I’m well aware of the contraception issue, and I believe it has been strongly engrained in Christian history because it was first advocated by the Church and has remained in place until people have questioned it later.

Now, learn to respond PROPERLY, so that I don’t have to sit through a garble of colour code and fiddle with quote tags in the midst of colour tags. We can read black font perfectly fine.

 

[Danny_Clover]

Can’t you quote like normal people so that we don’t have to see a whole bunch of code regarding colour when we try to respond to you?

Yeah, it really is very annoying to have to copy and paste his responses and fix them for him.
tantam ergo:

How about Jimmy Swaggart? How about Oral Roberts? Here are godly men (I’m not saying they aren’t) who have had public sin.

Really? You’re saying that a guy who was carrying on an illicit, sinful affair with protitused, and another guy who was a flaming heretic who routinely perverted the Gospel for money are “Godly men”???

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I hope you’ll understand, Suspicious Mind, that this is a forum.

Please do not attempt to ‘patronize’ people nor to tell them to respond ‘properly’ because you personally do not ‘care’ to read colored fonts. If I find it easier on my tri-focaled little eyes to respond with colored fonts paragraph by paragraph, I will do so, and it is **quite proper. ** At least it is in America.

 

[the_phoenix]

Jesus and his parables of marriages and weddings being inside:

“6 And at midnight there was a cry made: Behold the bridegroom cometh, go ye forth to meet him. 7 Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps. 8 And the foolish said to the wise: Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out. 9 The wise answered, saying: Lest perhaps there be not enough for us and for you, go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. 10 Now whilst they went to buy, the bridegroom came: and they that were ready, went in with him to the marriage, and the door was shut.”

~~ Matthew 25:6-10

“11 And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment. 12 And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? But he was silent. 13 Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 14 For many are called, but few are chosen.”

~~ Matthew 22:11-14

Straight from Jesus’ mouth, two examples where being inside at the wedding is a good thing, while being shut out or cast into the exterior darkness is a bad thing, indeed a punishment.

And what’s this? Being excluded from a wedding for not having enough oil in a lamp, or for being late, or for not meeting a dress code? Some may feel Jesus is being harsh here … what He is doing is upholding the importance and respect due to rightful authority and legitimate tradition. It’s not just “anything goes” or “everybody make up your own mind how to behave based on your feelings.”

~~ the phoenix

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yeah, it really is very annoying to have to copy and paste his responses and fix them for him.

I’m a She. You needn’t FIX my responses, they weren’t broken.

Really? You’re saying that a guy who was carrying on an illicit, sinful affair with protitused, and another guy who was a flaming heretic who routinely perverted the Gospel for money are “Godly men”???

I’'m saying that whatever sins they did at one time, I can’t speak for their current soul state before Almighty God. Are you saying that those who have sinned at any time are ipso facto thus never to be considered godly? That any godly actions they do before or after the sin are ‘wiped out?’

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

I hope you’ll understand, Suspicious Mind, that this is a forum.

Please do not attempt to ‘patronize’ people nor to tell them to respond ‘properly’ because you personally do not ‘care’ to read colored fonts. If I find it easier on my tri-focaled little eyes to respond with colored fonts paragraph by paragraph, I will do so, and it is **quite proper. ** At least it is in America.

Good then, I hope you won’t mind me responding in this manner from now on to you.

No I’m obviously not going to do it when responding all the time, it was just a demonstration as to how annoying it is for others when trying to respond to you

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

Jesus and his parables of marriages and weddings being inside:

“6 And at midnight there was a cry made: Behold the bridegroom cometh, go ye forth to meet him. 7 Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps. 8 And the foolish said to the wise: Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out. 9 The wise answered, saying: Lest perhaps there be not enough for us and for you, go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. 10 Now whilst they went to buy, the bridegroom came: and they that were ready, went in with him to the marriage, and the door was shut.”

~~ Matthew 25:6-10

“11 And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment. 12 And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? But he was silent. 13 Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 14 For many are called, but few are chosen.”

~~ Matthew 22:11-14

Straight from Jesus’ mouth, two examples where being inside at the wedding is a good thing, while being shut out or cast into the exterior darkness is a bad thing, indeed a punishment.

And what’s this? Being excluded from a wedding for not having enough oil in a lamp, or for being late, or for not meeting a dress code? Some may feel Jesus is being harsh here … what He is doing is upholding the importance and respect due to rightful authority and legitimate tradition. It’s not just “anything goes” or “everybody make up your own mind how to behave based on your feelings.”

~~ the phoenix

With all due respect, to use Biblical verses when the “exterior” is bad is being used metaphorially to prove that weddings shouldn’t be outside is deceptive.

There is nothing there at all that indicates Jesus was against marriages happening outside.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Suspicious Mind:
Since I did not use several different colors (only one) nor several different sizes or fonts, your post attempting to demonstrate the ‘annoyance’ my post gave you (in which you used several colors, sizes and fonts) makes no sense.

 

[Danny_Clover]

Tantum ergo:

Yeah, it really is very annoying to have to copy and paste his responses and fix them for him.

I’m a She. You needn’t FIX my responses, they weren’t broken.

Really? You’re saying that a guy who was carrying on an illicit, sinful affair with protitused, and another guy who was a flaming heretic who routinely perverted the Gospel for money are “Godly men”???

Just to clarify, the underlined words are Tantum Ergo’s words, not mine. They should not have been attributed to me.