Catholic views

[Phenomanul]

Although, Mormons by and large really are lovely people. It's a shame their theology is so whack.


They do an amazing job of stressing the "fruits of the Spirit" in their daily walk. In particular a life of integrity.

[Samurai Jane]

So are widows to remain perpetually widow? And are we to adopt Jewish tradition that states that the brother take the wife of his deceased brother?

Look, philosophically and theologically speaking we are on the same page as far as divorce goes. I don't believe in it. If I am not married yet, it is precisely because I want to make sure it is with the person that GOD has in His plans for me -- not someone I choose at a whim. And when I marry said person, does that mean we will never have problems? No. We will just have to be wise about how we go about resolving our differences. Most of all, if I love her as "Christ loved the church" I will love her enough to give my life for her (are you listening sickdsm). Most people that are going into marriages nowadays aren't even capable of sincerely evaluating that premise. For me, divorce will not be an option.

Back on point, is I've never claimed that the Protestant church was perfect. But that doesn't mean that divorces don't run amuck in Catholic nations either. It is a worldwide problem associated with our times. And yes, I would agree with 101A that the RCC is doing a better job than most other denominations in stressing the sanctity of marriage.

Nevertheless, divorce is not a problem that is rooted in protestant theology... it isn't. We more than discourage it.


Likewise for me.

[ploto]

Likewise for me.
Unfortunately, sometimes you do everything he said and that person- whom you never in a million years imagined would- chooses to leave you. You can't stop someone from a civil divorce. You can take years of knowing that person- pray and pray- go through prep classes,... and discover that when his mid-life crisis hits early, he doesn't want to be married anymore. Then you are left with the notion of what do you do? If he did not cheat- he just left- then I suppose that H is saying you can't get remarried in his church. If your marriage was valid from the start and this person changed after the vow, then an annulment is not an option. An annulment is not a divorce- it is a declaration that a sacramental marriage did not exist in the first place. So, you get to decide-- are you alone for the rest of your life or do you become an adulterer? Not a nice option to be left with.

Personally, I appreciate the practices of the Orthodox Church. They do not grant an annulment- they acknowledge the marriage existed and that it failed. The ceremony for a second marriage is as much a penitential service as a marriage. To face the truth seems to me to be the best option. To ackowledge the loss and be granted a second chance.

For me, the real issue is this- God's mercy is stronger than any human failure. I understand the Church is supposed to stand for the ideal and not act as if a marriage ending is nothing, but I still think that the allowance for compassion should be greater.

[jochhejaam]

It's not? The church has no right to know about the state of the people they are marrying? Don't you require any pre-marriage counseling or meetings with the minister? Doesn't he ask about your divorce?

And my questions are not just for you. I am waiting for those who seem suddenly silent.
Here's the policy on Marriage and Remarriage from the Church I attend (Assembly of God).
I'll post only that portion that pertains to remarriage. I'll provide a link for anyone that's interested in the policy on Marriage.

C. Remarriage

1. The Law accepted the fact that divorce permitted remarriage.

This is clear from the passage in Deuteronomy 24:1—4 already quoted. The same passage shows that the Law put some limits on remarriage. Malachi 2:11 condemned remarriage to an unbeliever. A priest was forbidden to take a divorced woman as his wife (Leviticus 21:7).

2. Jesus in His basic teaching forbade the remarriage of divorced persons.

He condemned remarriage as an act of adultery, a sin against the covenant of the first marriage (Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18).

However, Jesus recognized that the basic problem is divorce itself, for He saw that the divorced could be expected to remarry. By doing so they would commit adultery and cause the new partner to commit adultery. Thus, the basic purpose in what Jesus said is to prevent divorce in the first place.

3. Matthew 5:32 added an exceptive clause.

"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress." This shows that a husband who divorces a sexually immoral woman does not cause her to commit adultery, since she is already guilty of adultery.

4. Matthew 19:9 also carried this exceptive clause.

In this verse the best manuscripts read: " ‘I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery’ "1

It should be emphasized that the exception has in view sexual immorality, not merely a single act. Wherever possible, sexually immoral practices should be dealt with through repentance, confession, forgiveness, and reconciliation, thus saving the marriage.

Some, including those who follow the traditions of the Roman Catholics, say that the exceptive clause does not apply to "and marries another, commits adultery." In this view, fornication, or habitual sexual immorality, gives the right to separation from bed and board but does not sever the bond of marriage or give any right to dissolve it. But this is difficult to fit in with other passages that deal with the responsibilities of husband and wife (1 Corinthians 7:25). Therefore, most Protestants have always taken the position that the exceptive clause does apply to "and marries another."

It should also be pointed out that in the extreme cases where divorce seems necessary, Jesus did not command remarriage. However, it is clear that in Matthew 19:9 Jesus assumes the man will remarry. The verse deals with divorce and remarriage, and the laws of grammar make the exceptive clause apply to both. The Greek word for "divorce" (apoluo) is used with regard to the Deuteronomy passage referred to in Matthew 5:31 and Mark 10:2—12. There, the "divorcing" clearly did dissolve the marriage bond. Jesus did not change the nature of divorce as dissolving marriage. He simply threw out all excuses, reasons, or causes except "fornication" (porneia, habitual sexual immorality). However, in no case does He command divorce or remarriage. They are merely permitted under this one condition.

Again, the objection is made that Romans 7:1—3 and 1 Corinthians 7:39 make no exception to the statement that marriage is dissolved by death. Thus some take this to mean that marriage is broken by death alone.

But these passages are stating basic principles and do not deal with the exceptions. Romans 7 recognizes that the husband under the Law could get a divorce, but the wife could not. Therefore, the wife was bound by "the law of the husband" (lit.) until his death. We must also keep in mind that under the Law the penalty for adultery was death. This penalty of death was given not to break the marriage relationship, but in recognition that it was already broken.

5. 1 Corinthians 7:15 also contains an exception.

"If the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound [not enslaved] in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace."

"Not bound" is a strong expression. Yet some, insisting on the basis of Romans 7:2 that death alone can dissolve a marriage, interpret this passage to mean that the Christian is free to let the unbelieving partner go, but not free to remarry. However, we must remember that in Romans 7:2 Paul is not addressing the subject of divorce and remarriage. He is simply using the unique situation of the woman under the Law in which only death could loose her from her husband to illustrate believers’ complete dependence upon Christ’s vicarious death to loose them from the claims of the Law. Paul was aware that under the Law the husband had the option of divorcing his wife (Deuteronomy 24:1—4), which was not available to the wife. Only death could loose her from the law of her husband. Sound principles of exegesis will not permit one to assume that Paul’s view on the subject of divorce and remarriage appear here.

If a believer is "not bound" when an unbelieving spouse, unwilling to remain in the marriage, follows through with a divorce, the believer must be considered set free. Since it is the unbelieving partner who determines to go and initiates the divorce, the believer’s freedom seems to be more than a freedom to let the partner go, since the partner is going anyway. The plain meaning seems to be that the believer is set free to remarry when choosing to do so.

Paul, however, does discourage remarriage for the sake of ministering to the Lord. "Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned" (1 Corinthians 7:27,28).

6. Remarriage is a new contract or covenant.

Some say that a person who remarries is living in adultery. They say that though adultery is not an unforgivable sin, true repentance will demand quitting the sin, as the thief must quit stealing. They argue that for a person who has remarried, to live with the new partner involves them continually in acts of adultery. But to assume an analogy between marriage and thievery is erroneous. It is obvious that marriage always involves a contract, but thievery does not.

A remarriage entered into wrongly does indeed constitute an act of adultery against the previous contract. This breaks the old contract; the former partner is set free. The person who remarries is then obligated to be faithful to the new contract. Deuteronomy 24 showed it to be wrong to go back to the old marriage contract. (Hosea was later commanded to do so as an illustration of the love of God that would take back apostate Israel.)

The Bible shows that God expects contracts to be kept even when entered into wrongly. When Joshua wrongly entered into a contract with the Gibeonites, God not only expected him to fulfill it, He gave him miracles of a hailstorm and the long day to help him (Joshua 9 and 10). Isaiah warned Ahaz against making a covenant with the Assyrians, but he made it anyway (Isaiah 7). Then God warned Hezekiah against breaking it and going down to Egypt for help (Isaiah 30 and 31).

D. The place of the divorced and remarried in the church
1. Membership is open to all born-again believers.

This would certainly include those who were divorced and remarried before they were saved. Paul indicates that those in various social and legal positions, such as the circumcised and those who were slaves, should be accepted in the condition in which they were when they were saved (1 Corinthians 7:17—24). "Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to" (1 Corinthians 7:24).

God accepted the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius (Acts10 and 11). Knowing the frequency of divorce and remarriage among the Romans of the time, it is very probable that some at the house of Cornelius were so involved.

Paul gives the Christian no option but to continue to live with the unbelieving partner who is willing to remain in the marriage. Again, it is very probable that many of these Corinthian believers were married to unbelievers who had previous spouses still living. If God accepts such believers, who are we to judge? However, in no case shall a person be accepted into membership while living in a common-law state of matrimony.

2. The offices of elder and deacon are not open to those who are remarried.

The offices of elder (corresponding to pastor) and deacon are restricted by the requirement that they shall be "the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2,12). Some say this refers to polygamy. History clearly indicates, however, that polygamy was not generally practiced at the time, while divorce and remarriage were extremely common among both Gentiles and Jews.

The offices of elder (corresponding to pastor) and deacon are restricted by the requirement that they shall be "the husband of but one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2,12). This is understood to mean that candidates for elder and deacon are to be persons in a faithful heterosexual marriage with neither partner having been previously divorced, except where the divorce occurred prior to conversion.

We must remember that the Bible does not indicate that everyone is to have a turn at these offices in the church. The Bible lays down specific requirements for elders and deacons. The requirement that they be the husband of one wife is in keeping with the requirement that they must have a good report from outside the church. Both for the sake of the witness of the church and for the sake of freedom from entanglements, those who administer the affairs of the local church must meet these and other qualifications. This in no way promotes a double standard of morality, but is simply a matter of qualifications for the specific ministries of elders and deacons.

Some would restrict the remarried from all the ministries of the Church. However, every member of the Body has a function, and the ministries are given by the Spirit (Roman 12:6—8; 1 Corinthians 12:11; Ephesians 4:16).

Application of Biblical Principles to Our Bylaws as Revised and Adopted by the General Council in Session

http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_4189_divorce_remarriage.cfm

[ploto]

I could not help but notice that no one has breached the subject of abuse.

H- if a woman ended her marriage because the man physically and emotionally abused her- say she tried to get him to seek counseling but he would not- say she went through counseling herself and ended the relationship for her own safety and well-being. Could she not get remarreid by your father since the ONLY exception is for sexual misconduct? If he did not cheat on her- but only beat on her- she is out of luck?

[Phenomanul]

I could not help but notice that no one has breached the subject of abuse.

H- if a woman ended her marriage because the man physically and emotionally abused her- say she tried to get him to seek counseling but he would not- say she went through counseling herself and ended the relationship for her own safety and well-being. Could she not get remarreid by your father since the ONLY exception is for sexual misconduct? If he did not cheat on her- but only beat on her- she is out of luck?

Do you really want to play the 'IF' game???

[jochhejaam]

I could not help but notice that no one has breached the subject of abuse.

H- if a woman ended her marriage because the man physically and emotionally abused her- say she tried to get him to seek counseling but he would not- say she went through counseling herself and ended the relationship for her own safety and well-being. Could she not get remarreid by your father since the ONLY exception is for sexual misconduct? If he did not cheat on her- but only beat on her- she is out of luck?

Maybe you can share your view on this scenario.

[ploto]

Do you really want to play the 'IF' game???
It is a very clear question. You said your father would only remarry someone if the divorce was caused by infidelity. So, what about abuse? Are abused spouses not allowed to get remarried and are they in your view bound to the abuser for the rest of their lives? It is no more hypothetical than the other situations we have discussed.

Why such a resistance to discuss this particular topic? I am sure your father has encountered ths situation in his ministry. Is the problem that your answer will be harsh and without mercy for victims of spousal abuse?

[Samurai Jane]

It is a very clear question. You said your father would only remarry someone if the divorce was caused by infidelity. So, what about abuse? Are abused spouses not allowed to get remarried and are they in your view bound to the abuser for the rest of their lives? It is no more hypothetical than the other situations we have discussed.

Why such a resistance to discuss this particular topic? I am sure your father has encountered ths situation in his ministry. Is the problem that your answer will be harsh and without mercy for victims of spousal abuse?

Does the Catholic church allow for mercy in this regard, too? I may have misunderstood, but I thought that the RCC does not allow for divorce regardless of the situation, including that of infidelity. Is annullment like a catch all work around?

[JoeChalupa]

I will never marry again.

[101A]

I will never marry again.

:married:

Neither will I.

[Phenomanul]

It is a very clear question. You said your father would only remarry someone if the divorce was caused by infidelity. So, what about abuse? Are abused spouses not allowed to get remarried and are they in your view bound to the abuser for the rest of their lives? It is no more hypothetical than the other situations we have discussed.

Why such a resistance to discuss this particular topic? I am sure your father has encountered ths situation in his ministry. Is the problem that your answer will be harsh and without mercy for victims of spousal abuse?


Those in abusive relationships were probably not Christian to begin with (one or neither).

Which raises the question; can someone who is not a Christian in the first place make a vow to GOD if they've yet to meet GOD? Would that vow even hold merit??? A true Christian relationship will have problems yes... but none of a violent nature. So your point is moot. Re-read JJ's post... The answer you are looking for is actually there so don't concern yourself over what my father may or may not do. He would more than likely assess the situation and seek counsel from above; you have to consider that my father stakes no authority of his own on such 'technical' matters, he is only a servant that seeks to do what is right in the eyes of the LORD. Your questions remind me of the Pharisees who tried to trick JESUS into contradicting the Law.

[johnsmith]

Here's one that I've always wondered about, I've asked this question to the Priest at my church but would like to hear it here...........What about the guy that grows up in the jungle in Africa (pick your isolated location) and never learns about Christianity. What happens to that guy when he dies?

[johnsmith]

Those in abusive relationships were probably not Christian to begin with (one or neither).

Which raises the question; can someone who is not a Christian in the first place make a vow to GOD if they've yet to meet GOD? Would that vow even hold merit??? A true Christian relationship will have problems yes... but none of a violent nature. So your point is moot. Re-read JJ's post... The answer you are looking for is actually there so don't concern yourself over what my father may or may not do. He would more than likely assess the situation and seek counsel from above; you have to consider that my father stakes no authority of his own on such 'technical' matters, he is only a servant that seeks to do what is right in the eyes of the LORD. Your questions remind me of the Pharisees who tried to trick JESUS into contradicting the Law.


If you ask me, they did a pretty weak job in trying to trick him too.

[ploto]

Those in abusive relationships were probably not Christian to begin with (one or neither).

Which raises the question; can someone who is not a Christian in the first place make a vow to GOD if they've yet to meet GOD? Would that vow even hold merit??? A true Christian relationship will have problems yes... but none of a violent nature. So your point is moot. Re-read JJ's post... The answer you are looking for is actually there so don't concern yourself over what my father may or may not do. He would more than likely assess the situation and seek counsel from above; you have to consider that my father stakes no authority of his own on such 'technical' matters, he is only a servant that seeks to do what is right in the eyes of the LORD. Your questions remind me of the Pharisees who tried to trick JESUS into contradicting the Law.
Oh- so I am back to being a Pharisee again- huh?

I noticed you still did not answer my question. Has your father ever remarried someone whose divorce was granted for a reason other than sexual misconduct? A simple Yes or No.

I am not trying to trick anyone. It is a situation that many in ministry deal with-- but it is not specifically enumerated as an exception in the Bible.

The Catholic Church considers possible grounds for annulment. Again remember- an annulment is not a divorce. It is a declaration that a valid sacramental union did not exist in the first place. The area most related to this thread is this:


SIMULATION (canon 1101): There are several subdivisions within this ground, which is a heading of nullity that has seen and is continuing to sec new developments in jurisprudence. The canon starts by establishing the legal presumption that people are sincere, mean what they say when exchanging wedding vows, and thus accomplish what they intend by those words. But the canon goes on to say that if either party has a positive intention (not merely an omission) excluding marriage itself or some essential element or property of marriage, then the union is not valid. That positive exclusion may be made explicitly, but far more commonly it is implicit. What happens in the various forms of simulation is that people substitute their own (or society's) definition of marriage for that as understood and taught by the Church. Marriage has a content that the parties do not create but God does. When this ground is evident, the one simulating has tried to substitute their own content for that of the Church, entering a limited, conjugal-like union, but not a genuine marriage. Finally, the intention must be present at the time vows are exchanged. A “change of mind” later in the common life may be a serious violation of the vows, but it is not simulation. A look at the subcategories will help:

a) Total Simulation: This involves the exclusion of marriage altogether – that is, of what the Church understands marriage to be. For example, if a party exchanges wedding vows solely for immigration purposes but not to create a true marital partnership, then the simulation is total.

b) Simulation contra bonum prolis: This intention may, but need not, involve an absolute refusal ever to have children. Perhaps more commonly the exclusion might be a matter of one of the parties reserving to him or her self the sole power to determine, without respect to the other party's rights or wishes, whether or not to have children or unilaterally to limit the number of children. The Church teaches that in a genuine marriage the parties exchange certain rights, and one such right is that of openness to children in the union. An intention in which one partner denies this right of the other is invalidating. A situation in which the two parties mutually agree to limit the number of children or delay having children is not an invalidating exclusion unless that agreement is understood by one of the parties to supersede the right of the other to change his or her mind. Since marriage is ordained not only for the procreation but also for the education of children, the jurisprudence recognizes the invalidating consequences of an intention against the education of children.

c) Simulation contra bonum fidei: One of the essential properties of marriage specified by canon 1056 is marital unity – that is, fidelity. An intention that excludes this essential property invalidates the consent. It is an attempt to enter into a union in which the party or parties create their own rules for it rather than accept marriage itself as God created it. The simple fact of infidelity in a union is not the same as simulation against fidelity; adultery is not a ground of nullity. It is a matter of a person intending, at the time of exchanging vows, to reserve the right to seek other sexual partners (either heterosexual or homosexual). In a society influenced by the “sexual revolution,” “open marriage,” and the exaltation of personal “fulfillment” and gratification, such intentions contrary to fidelity occur all too commonly.

d) Simulation contra bonum sacramenti: Another essential property of marriage is indissolubility (canon 1056). Marriage is a life-long commitment. Hence, an intention to enter a “trial marriage” or an attitude that sees marital permanence as something merely desirable or to be hoped for, but not of the essence of the commitment, vitiates the consent. In our cultural circumstances, attitudes of this kind do pervade the thinking of many people.

e) Simulation contra bonum coniugum: This is a developing area in jurisprudence, one rooted in the teaching of Vatican II that marriage is a “partnership of the whole of life … ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses …” (canon 1055, §1). This is not a right to perfection from a spouse, but that the spouse be dedicated to the good of his or her partner (and not merely to his or her own good). When a man intends to obtain a maid instead of a partner, he simulates contra bonum coniugum. When a woman exchanges vows but withholds the commitment to sacrifice for the other, she simulates contra bonum coniugum.

[ploto]

Those in abusive relationships were probably not Christian to begin with.
Do you actually realize what you are saying here? Now, the victim of abuse is not a Christian to start with?

[ploto]

Neither will I.
Hopefully, your spouse agrees.

[ploto]

Re-read JJ's post... The answer you are looking for is actually there...
I did not ask JJ- I asked you about your church.

The sure sign that someone does not have an answer is when he tries to turn it back on the other person by hurling accusations and name-calling. I guess I gave you too much credit. I actually thought you wanted to discuss the issues. I obviously hit a nerve.

[Guru of Nothing]

Your questions remind me of the Pharisees who tried to trick JESUS into contradicting the Law.

How can a door be a jar?

[smeagol]

Pheno, please avoid comparing us to the Pharisees. It's not really fair.

[Phenomanul]

I did not ask JJ- I asked you about your church.

The sure sign that someone does not have an answer is when he tries to turn it back on the other person by hurling accusations and name-calling. I guess I gave you too much credit. I actually thought you wanted to discuss the issues. I obviously hit a nerve.


OK... I don't live in the forum you know. I do have other things to do. I'm not sidestepping anyone, or running away from anything.

My dad has conducted 22 marriages in his 10 years as a pastor. Three of the marriages had a divorcee in them... all from alleged infidelity. If someone lied to him about the circumstance he said that 'hiding' the adultery was their issue -- not his. Anyways, he has turned down 6 couples seeking marriage in that same span, for a variety of reasons; the main one being that he doesn't marry couples unless both of them have Christ reign in their lives as LORD.

In either case, I find that ploto's incessant harping on this topic is fruitless, I really don't know what she's trying to prove. Is she wanting to suggest that my father has erred on doctrinal matters concerning marriage? Cause if that's the case she'll be very mistaken. My father takes great pride in making sure his couples are well prepared before taking that big step -- and none of the couples that he has wed have divorced to date. He doesn't charge anyone for conducting wedding ceremonies either. Nor does he make any money by charging anullments... oh wait... we don't do that.

[Phenomanul]

How can a door be a jar?

Your point???

How much wood could a wood-chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?

[Phenomanul]

Do you actually realize what you are saying here? Now, the victim of abuse is not a Christian to start with?

You did not cite any particular examples... the circumstances of abusive relationships can be all across the board.

All I said was that many divorcees that split from abusive relationships more than likely divorced before becoming a Christian. That is by no means the rule, but it certainly isn't the exception. Think about it.

Couple that to the fact that Paul writes in:

2nd Corinthians 5:17 -- "If any man be in Christ he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold all things are become new."

If GOD doesn't hold our past against us... why would we? Again, who are we to judge the actions of others -- especially acts conducted before they were shown the 'light'???

[Guru of Nothing]

This thread has jumped the shark, again.

[Phenomanul]

Pheno, please avoid comparing us to the Pharisees. It's not really fair.

The comparison was directed to the style of her questions... not Catholics in general.... she has harped on the subject trying to find the 'ahh.... there it is' element that she needs for her argument to have more merit... She certainly won't find it in my father's church.

Furthermore, I take it she doesn't realize that countries like Mexico or Brazil (predominantly catholic as you very well know) have pretty high divorce rates as well -- and that over 75% of them end up re-marrying (guess where and by which ministers). But let's not bring that into the argument. Apparently, she couldn't accept the fact that I praised the Catholic Church for emphasizing the sanctity of marriage and leave it at that. That's why the analogy was made.

[Phenomanul]

This thread has jumped the shark, again.


You may as well speak in LEET.

[Guru of Nothing]

You may as well speak in LEET.

When asked to address questions relating to Jesus and scripture, you are quick with an authoritative answer.

When asked to address situations involving spousal beat-downs and divorce, you vacillate.

Translation: your commitment to the spirit of the thread, while once sincere, jumped the shark.

I'm sure you can find details on Wikipediea, if you have it in you to search for answers to your questions.

[Phenomanul]

When asked to address questions relating to Jesus and scripture, you are quick with an authoritative answer.

When asked to address situations involving spousal beat-downs and divorce, you vacillate.

Translation: your commitment to the spirit of the thread, while once sincere, jumped the shark.

I'm sure you can find details on Wikipediea, if you have it in you to search for answers to your questions.


You forgot one... How about I was too busy at work until now? I didn't vacillate; I answered what I could.

(plus I had a soccer game today).

[Guru of Nothing]

You forgot one... How about I was too busy at work until now? I didn't vacillate; I answered what I could.

(plus I had a soccer game today).

Mmmm ... Soccer moms.

Oops, wrong forum.

[ploto]

All I said was that many divorcees that split from abusive relationships more than likely divorced before becoming a Christian.
Where on earth did you pull this from? Sorry to be the one to inform you, but there ARE people who got saved who beat their wives. Their spouses believe they have married a wonderful Christian man.

Or is your claim that a Christian woman would not divorce an abusive spouse to save herself and possibly her children?

As for my questions- I simply asked for clarification. You said emphatically that your father would ONLY married a divorced person if it was due to sexual infidelity- so I asked- what about an abusive relationship? It was a simple question, wanting to find out if in actuality there were other circumstances besides adultery in which your church deemed remarriage acceptable. Your continued claims that the victim must not be Christian are downright insulting to every person (male or female) who has been the victim of spousal abuse. I certainly hope that you have no interest in the ministry.

[ploto]

Furthermore, I take it she doesn't realize that countries like Mexico or Brazil (predominantly catholic as you very well know) have pretty high divorce rates as well -- and that over 75% of them end up re-marrying (guess where and by which ministers).
Herein points very clearly to your problem in this thread- see I am seeking clarification on your beliefs. You are instead in here to bash the Catholic church.

Anytime someone brings up an issue, you insult back with some outlandish claim like celibacy causes pedophilia or abused women are not Christians.

See, I did not realize this thread was a competition to see who could find the most fault with the other's church. I mistakingly thought it was a forum for mature adult discussion on the topics. My bad. Instead of addressing the question that is asked, you turn it onto the other person. You really should ask Jesus to help you with your blatant passive-aggressive personality disorder.

[Phenomanul]

Where on earth did you pull this from? Sorry to be the one to inform you, but there ARE people who got saved who beat their wives. Their spouses believe they have married a wonderful Christian man.

Or is your claim that a Christian woman would not divorce an abusive spouse to save herself and possibly her children?

As for my questions- I simply asked for clarification. You said emphatically that your father would ONLY married a divorced person if it was due to sexual infidelity- so I asked- what about an abusive relationship? It was a simple question, wanting to find out if in actuality there were other circumstances besides adultery in which your church deemed remarriage acceptable. Your continued claims that the victim must not be Christian are downright insulting to every person (male or female) who has been the victim of spousal abuse. I certainly hope that you have no interest in the ministry.

Ok... whatever. I'm done with you. :rolleyes

That is the problem when you want to address a 'philosophical' issue without clearly defining the terms.

I still maintain that the 'generalization' I made is valid. Somehow you conveniently skipped over the "this is by no means the rule but certainly isn't the exception." Go ahead hammer away.

BTW Women in such relationships, who are Christian, should rely on the power of prayer to transform the life of their husbands. It's a decision they made. If things don't get better. Subject the abusive partner to the authorities.

[Phenomanul]

Herein points very clearly to your problem in this thread- see I am seeking clarification on your beliefs. You are instead in here to bash the Catholic church.

Anytime someone brings up an issue, you insult back with some outlandish claim like celibacy causes pedophilia or abused women are not Christians.

See, I did not realize this thread was a competition to see who could find the most fault with the other's church. I mistakingly thought it was a forum for mature adult discussion on the topics. My bad. Instead of addressing the question that is asked, you turn it onto the other person. You really should ask Jesus to help you with your blatant passive-aggressive personality disorder.

Please....... Your motives were clear. I wasn't born yesterday so don't try and turn this around. IF and when I disagree with Catholic doctrines, should by no means imply that my disagreement was directed as a personal insult to you. I am entitled to my own personal beliefs; just like yourself.

Just remember that I wasn't the one who perceived imaginary solicitation, outright conversion attempts, or misdirected insults. That was all you. :clap

[ploto]

Your motives were clear. I wasn't born yesterday.
You do not know me nor my motives. I assure you- I have discussed issues of this sort with many people more knowledgeable than you. Your talking in circles doesn't impress me. Your continually trying to turn the subject back on the person who asks the questions does not work with me.

I asked a simple question that you still have not answered and when I pressed for an answer you turned to insulting me. I am beginning to see the pattern of a man with a problem with a woman who doesn't hang on his every word like it came directly from the mouth of God.

Most interesting is that this thread was started by someone who wanted information about the Catholic Church and yet you came in here with your half-truths and blatant propaganda about things that were not even correct representations of Catholic teachings.


Ok... whatever. I'm done with you.
Thanks for proving my diagnosis.

[Phenomanul]

You do not know me nor my motives. I assure you- I have discussed issues of this sort with many people more knowledgeable than you. Your talking in circles doesn't impress me. Your continually trying to turn the subject back on the person who asks the questions does not work with me.

I asked a simple question that you still have not answered and when I pressed for an answer you turned to insulting me. I am beginning to see the pattern of a man with a problem with a woman who doesn't hang on his every word like it came directly from the mouth of God.

Most interesting is that this thread was started by someone who wanted information about the Catholic Church and yet you came in here with your half-truths and blatant propaganda about things that were not even correct representations of Catholic teachings.


Thanks for proving my diagnosis.


Just let it go.

I clearly stated (ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS) that my beliefs are personal, and by no means perfect.

I answered your questions and still you retorted with a response that I hadn't. You asked me what my father would do. I answered and it still wasn't enough. You then insisted :huh.... quite stubbornly I should add... so again, without addressing your other lies above (cause all people have to do is go back and read the thread)... let it go.

[ploto]

I'm just starting.

[Phenomanul]

You don't know me or my motives... :dramaquee



I'm just starting.



hmmmm right.... like I was saying your motives are very clear... Your defense of the Catholic Church... though admirable, is not necessary. :wakeup

[ploto]

like I was saying your motives are very clear... Your defense of the Catholic Church... though admirable, is not necessary.
I meant I'm just starting with my comments about you. I have actually exercised great restraint while I have watched a man who is such a self-proclaimed Christian hurl blatant insults at other Christians, brag about himself, and act as if he is better than other people- (remember the whole I have not sinned as much as they have). You have denigrated and insulted women whose husbands beat them. You have repeated lie upon lie after being told by people that what you were saying was untrue, but the truth does not matter to you. It you whose motives for coming into this thread in the first place are very clear.

And you still have not answered my questions about abuse-- are these women not Christians- are they not Christian in your view for divorcing their abusive husbands

Or do you- I suppose- hold onto the notion that if these women were obeying their husbands like they are supposed to that they wouldn't be getting a beating in the first place.

[101A]

I meant I'm just starting with my comments about you. I have actually exercised great restraint while I have watched a man who is such a self-proclaimed Christian hurl blatant insults at other Christians, brag about himself, and act as if he is better than other people- (remember the whole I have not sinned as much as they have). You have denigrated and insulted women whose husbands beat them. You have repeated lie upon lie after being told by people that what you were saying was untrue, but the truth does not matter to you. It you whose motives for coming into this thread in the first place are very clear

And you still have not answered my questions about abuse-- are these women not Christians- are they not Christian in your view for divorcing their abusive husbands

He doesn't know; you are talking in hypotheticals. The fact that they were beaten and divorced doesn't make them any more, or less, Christian. Pheno suggests that in such a marriage, it is possible, if not probable, that both (as in either/or, not sum total) parties were not Christian from the outset.


Or do you- I suppose- hold onto the notion that if these women were obeying their husbands like they are supposed to that they wouldn't be getting a beating in the first place.

You're just making stuff up now, trying to pick a fight.

I know the answers to your questions from Pheno in this thread. Why don't you?

[Phenomanul]

I meant I'm just starting with my comments about you.

That's nice.


I have actually exercised great restraint while I have watched a man who is such a self-proclaimed Christian hurl blatant insults at other Christians,

No not really. Me calling a practice or a doctrine blasphemous, should not be taken as a personal insult to you. You have very big 'victim' issues.... <--- now that would be an insult.


brag about himself,
It's all relative. What? Am I not allowed to state my position anymore? To quote from the Word of GOD? If I have stated anything with an air of authority it's because I believe that the inherent authority of GOD's Word cannot be superceded by anyone... not because I claim to be superior. I'm still a lowly servant in the LORD's Kingdom... so I don't see how you would misconstrue that.... Oh wait, because it suits your argument to declare it so.


and act as if he is better than other people- (remember the whole I have not sinned as much as they have).
Oh... how convenient that you would miss the point of the comparison altogether...

I made the comment to show that Popes don't have a higher place in GOD's kingdom simply because someone has given them the title of Pope. One sin alone is enough to separate us from GOD. So the point of having more or less sin is rather moot -- we are all sinners. My comparison then of 'my slate of sin' to that of certain popes (such as Gregory IX or Innocent III) was still rather poignant in that I've never sanctioned the murder of people --- an obvious and rather weighty distinction.

But here's the catch....

The amount of sin is irrelevant. Again, it was all to show that they, much like us, are sinners completely undeserving of being addressed with phrases like "Holy", "Majesty", or "Holy Emperor". But no, apparently all you could focus on was the fact that I could even dare to compare myself to former leaders of your institution... as if they were untouchable.

But don't let that stop you from jumping to conclusions.


You have denigrated and insulted women whose husbands beat them.
Only as perceived by you. Not explicitly stated by me.


You have repeated lie upon lie after being told by people that what you were saying was untrue, but the truth does not matter to you.
One opinion doesn't trump another. So I don't see how what you just wrote holds any merit. Just because someone offers up a counter argument doesn't make it so. Again, for the umpteenth time I've stated repeatedly that my views are not perfect. So I don't know why you keep harping on this point -- the more you continue to do this, the more you will make a mockery of your own allegation.


It is you whose motives for coming into this thread in the first place are very clear.
Just because you read more into peoples posts than is actually there doesn't mean that your opinions are true.


And you still have not answered my questions about abuse-- are these women not Christians- are they not Christian in your view for divorcing their abusive husbands
Oh they are. But that wasn't the particular scenario you described the first time around. You just can't warp it at your every whim to suit your arguments. Build a circumstancial matrix and define the bounds of the argument then maybe we can discuss, otherwise you will continue to put words in my mouth.


Or do you- I suppose- hold onto the notion that if these women were obeying their husbands like they are supposed to that they wouldn't be getting a beating in the first place.
No, don't suppose. That is exactly what I'm talking about. That is not a proper way of conversing or debating.

But that's it... I gain nothing by addressing your stubborn allegations nor will anything good come out of it.

So if you want to propagate your opinions about me, go ahead. Just realize that half the things you have claimed about me have all been fabrications and distorted viewpoints as produced in your head. I never stated my position as you did above. Funny how that works.

Good day.

[ploto]

No not really. Me calling a practice or a doctrine blasphemous, should not be taken as a personal insult to you.

Your questions remind me of the Pharisees who tried to trick JESUS into contradicting the Law.
I am not the only one to point out your continued calling of other people Pharisees.


You have very big 'victim' issues.... <--- now that would be an insult.
You have very big "abuser" issues.


If I have stated anything with an air of authority it's because I believe that the inherent authority of GOD's Word cannot be superceded by anyone... not because I claim to be superior. I'm still a lowly servant in the LORD's Kingdom... so I don't see how you would misconstrue that...


I've read the Bible from cover to cover at least seven times
That's not an air of authority based upon God- but upon you, and your supposition that because someone is Catholic that they have not read the Bible.


The amount of sin is irrelevant.
Then why say you have sinned less than someone else?


Only as perceived by you. Not explicitly stated by me.

Those in abusive relationships were probably not Christian to begin with.



One opinion doesn't trump another. So I don't see how what you just wrote holds any merit. Just because someone offers up a counter argument doesn't make it so.
These are not issues of opinion to which I refer- they are issues of the FACTUAL teachings of the Church about infallibillity. It has been explained to you more than once that what you claim the Church teaches is not what it teaches and yet you continue to repeat it.



But that wasn't the particular scenario you described the first time around.


If a woman ended her marriage because the man physically and emotionally abused her- say she tried to get him to seek counseling but he would not- say she went through counseling herself and ended the relationship for her own safety and well-being. Could she not get remarreid by your father since the ONLY exception is for sexual misconduct? If he did not cheat on her- but only beat on her- she is out of luck?
I'm still waiting for the answer to my question.

[Phenomanul]

This certainly won't bode well for you... But, OK.... have it your way.


I am not the only one to point out your continued calling of other people Pharisees.
"Your comments remind me of...." was a valid analogy. Your questions were trying to solicit more than just the answer.

My other references to pharisees were not directed at you. They were directed at the RCC's tendency of giving equtative value to certain traditions and GOD's Word -- and in some instances allowing other traditions to supercede it... But typical of you to personalize the comment.

Much like when I and others disapproved of practices that have given Mary more standing than she deserves -- stated as an opinion. You turned it around and suggested that we were no one to question the faith of millions. So even though we felt that calling Mary "our Queen" was a blasphemous notion, your 'personalization' of said criticism severely distorted the view.


You have very big "abuser" issues.
It's in the eye of the beholder I guess.


That's not an air of authority based upon God- but upon you, and your supposition that because someone is Catholic that they have not read the Bible.
Again the suppositions, and reading more into a post than is actually there... I never stated that Catholics dont' read the Bible.

Here was the full quote in context:

On a side note: I've read the Bible from cover to cover at least seven times. A communion with GOD through Christ JESUS my LORD does not require that another man or institution mediate my bond. That much is understood. Besides, I have experienced the power of the Holy Spirit and seen His mighty hand at work -- and all outside the 'blessing' of the RCC -- was I just imagining things? IS GOD only GOD to Catholics? By their rules, apparently so.

The emphasis was not placed on me having read the Bible several times... it was placed on the fact that the Bible never states that our communion with GOD requires a middle man, aside from Christ, for mediation...


Then why say you have sinned less than someone else?

Re-read the above post.... yeah, the one you quoted from. The answer is in there.

Really... your reading comprehension has been a major contributor to much of this bickering.



These are not issues of opinion to which I refer- they are issues of the FACTUAL teachings of the Church about infallibillity. It has been explained to you more than once that what you claim the Church teaches is not what it teaches and yet you continue to repeat it.

-- That some popes called Mary our "Queen"....
-- Others have alluded to Mary having a "redemptive" role...
-- The church has made the practice of celibacy mandatory when in reality the condition is not meant for everybody...
-- Pope Benedict recently recanted the church's belief in child purgatory....
-- The RCC claims that Mary was "sinless"...
-- The RCC claims that Mary was "assumed" into Heaven...

I'm sorry if most of the above notions were not officially proclaimed as "infallible teachings" -- But to me... they are very much doctrines. Some even to the point that they have pervasive and significant implications on other doctrines. Again, it is my opinion that the RCC convolutes the simple message of the Gospel. But for the millionth time... that does not mean that I believe that Catholics are not able to have genuine fellowship with GOD. Millions of them do. Many unfortunately, have instead been blinded by earthly traditions.


I'm still waiting for the answer to my question.
Again it's already been answered. That you are not taking the time to read the posts properly is not my fault.

[ploto]

Pope Benedict recently recanted the church's belief in child purgatory.
PERFECT example. It has been pointed out to you more than once in that discussion that limbo was NEVER an official doctrine of the Catholic Church- and yet you continue to repeat it as if it was. You have also made many snide remarks meant as jabs at infallibility in discussions to which it does not even apply.



The emphasis was not placed on me having read the Bible several times.
It was the VERY FIRST thing you said in the paragraph. It was obviously intended to give your view greater weight.


You also don't seem to get in your smugness that there is a reason for every statement that someone makes- repeatedly to brag about your reading, your study, your lesser sinfulness is not in any way in line with the humility that Christ preached. I guess that you are simply blind to your own pomposity.

And don't worry- my reading comprehension is fine- I'll be happy to compare my GPA with yours.

[jochhejaam]

I'll be happy to compare my GPA with yours.
What the heck? That's hilarious. :lol


The wisdom of this World is foolishness with God -Corinthians-

[Guru of Nothing]

You also don't seem to get in your smugness that there is a reason for every statement that someone makes- repeatedly to brag about your reading, your study, your lesser sinfulness is not in any way in line with the humility that Christ preached. I guess that you are simply blind to your own pomposity.

Well stated. Were I to read these threads without alcohol, I might respond with similar words.

[Phenomanul]

PERFECT example. It has been pointed out to you more than once in that discussion that limbo was NEVER an official doctrine of the Catholic Church- and yet you continue to repeat it as if it was. You have also made many snide remarks meant as jabs at infallibility in discussions to which it does not even apply.


It was the VERY FIRST thing you said in the paragraph. It was obviously intended to give your view greater weight.


You also don't seem to get in your smugness that there is a reason for every statement that someone makes- repeatedly to brag about your reading, your study, your lesser sinfulness is not in any way in line with the humility that Christ preached. I guess that you are simply blind to your own pomposity.

And don't worry- my reading comprehension is fine- I'll be happy to compare my GPA with yours.

I'm done arguing with you. This could go on all night back and forth, back and forth, starting with your latest spew of lies above :blah :blah :blah ... but nothing good will come of it. Your perspective is really really skewed.... you only seem to see things your way, and only from that perspective... Whatever. I don't want to lose my peace over something so trivial. Nor do I want to get angered needlessly and impair said peace.

You go ahead and do what you want...

And there is no need to enter the childish "mine is bigger than yours" fray; I could care less about GPA's at this point in life.

[Phenomanul]

Well stated. Were I to read these threads without alcohol, I might respond with similar words.


Sour grapes still???

[Samurai Jane]

This discussion has degraded into the proverbial spitting contest, time for me to step out as well.

[Guru of Nothing]

Sour grapes still???

Please continue to cherry pick what you respond to, and don't.

[Phenomanul]

Please continue to cherry pick what you respond to, and don't.
:cry :depressed :dizzy :wow :down: :grim: :sleep

[Guru of Nothing]

:cry :depressed :dizzy :wow :down: :grim: :sleep

If Jesus had your knack for persuasion, you would not be a Christian.

[ploto]

I only mentioned the GPA bit as a joke because he questioned my reading comprehension. Guess religious people have no sense of humor. And for the record- Mr. Wisdom of the World- part of my studies included scripture and theology.

[ploto]

So sorry I won't be around the next couple of days to debate. I will be too busy worshipping saints today and needlessly praying for the dead tomorrow.