What would it take for non-RC Christians to join the RCC?

miamited said:

Hi hank,
My parents were married for 25 years. My father had often been seeing other women throughout this period of time. Not always, of course, but it was fairly regular that he would have a 'girlfriend'. He was a man with a wandering eye and I loved him as my father and it wasn't until I was well into my teens that I caught on to his activities. My parents marriage had had its rough patches throughout those 25 years, but from their union 4 children were born. However, 25 years was to be the end of their marriage. My father was then sleeping with his secretary at work and had been for quite sometime. Of course, the secretary that he was sleeping with was a 'good' catholic girl.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Click to expand...

I agree that what happened to you is a sad and tragic thing. If I may, there is a lot of misinformation, even among Catholics, about the annulment process. What I post is from the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) website. They have a FAQ about annulment here:
http://www.foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage/church-teachings/annulments/
From that FAQ -
A valid Catholic marriage results from five elements: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they freely exchange their consent; (3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; (4) they intend the good of each other; and (5) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by church authority.

It seems from your story that your father never had the intent to remain faithful to your mother. This is probably why the tribunal ruled the way they did. The annulment is usually hardest on the spouse that isn't seeking it. They see themselves as being on trial. It sounds like your mother's conduct was not the deciding factor at all.

miamited said:

I remember my mother saying that as the catholic organization actually sees it, we four children were bastards since we were conceived and born by parents who were never married.

Click to expand...

From the same FAQ -

If a marriage is annulled, are the children considered illegitimate?

No. A declaration of nullity has no effect on the legitimacy of children, since the child’s mother and father were presumed to be married at the time that the child was born. Legitimacy depends on civil law.

Please don't take what I have said as some attempt to minimize the pain that your family has suffered. That is not my intent. I only offer this post as a way to try to promote healing through understanding.

God's Mercy be with you,
Byron

Tangible said:

That wasn't the point I was addressing. And yes, I realize that. However, it's not just a blanket recognition. It has to be a Christian baptism, the washing of water with the Word, in the name of the Triune God. Mormon or Oneness baptisms are not valid.

Now if they would only do the same with Holy Communion where the Real Presence is discerned and confessed ...

Click to expand...

It would certainly be a historical decision for the Church to validate Communion in other sects, but I don't think that will ever happen- they hold that rite as close as they do their papacy altogether.
It's not something I am worried about- Communion to me is vain, as I would not feel nor have a stronger relationship with God partaking in it. I wouldn't feel more connected with the church or the laity either- it's bread and wine.
I know that Lutherans hold to it, and so I don't say this out of any disrespect- but I do feel that Luther simply meant to keep the tradition for the sake of the church not being so alien.

tz620q said:

I agree that what happened to you is a sad and tragic thing. If I may, there is a lot of misinformation, even among Catholics, about the annulment process. What I post is from the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) website. They have a FAQ about annulment here:
http://www.foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage/church-teachings/annulments/
From that FAQ -
A valid Catholic marriage results from five elements: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they freely exchange their consent; (3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; (4) they intend the good of each other; and (5) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by church authority.

It seems from your story that your father never had the intent to remain faithful to your mother. This is probably why the tribunal ruled the way they did. The annulment is usually hardest on the spouse that isn't seeking it. They see themselves as being on trial. It sounds like your mother's conduct was not the deciding factor at all.



From the same FAQ -

If a marriage is annulled, are the children considered illegitimate?

No. A declaration of nullity has no effect on the legitimacy of children, since the child’s mother and father were presumed to be married at the time that the child was born. Legitimacy depends on civil law.

Please don't take what I have said as some attempt to minimize the pain that your family has suffered. That is not my intent. I only offer this post as a way to try to promote healing through understanding.

God's Mercy be with you,
Byron

Click to expand...

Hi TZ,

Well, as I posted, most catholics believe what the 'church' tells them because they believe that the 'church' is the authority of God upon the earth. I find it awfully hard to understand how someone 25-30 years after the fact can determine what one's intentions were at the time 25-30 years ago. Sure, if my dad wanted to remarry this 'good' catholic girl, then I can understand that now some 25-30 years later he is going to tell them that, no, he didn't have any intentions of being faithful. But the condition you post says: in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; To me, this clearly is referring to the day in which they consented to marry and not some testimony given 25-30 years later, looking back on things, and now determining that, "Well, I really didn't mean it." You, of course, are free to believe what you will, but if my grandfather and the witnesses were here, I'm sure they'd tell you that Ted McFarland had every intention of being faithful and true to his new wife on the day that they were married. Again, it just isn't something that the 'church' has any authority to meddle with or decide, in my understanding of the Scriptures.

Yes, I understand what you are saying as regards the 'church's' position on the condition of children from such a dissolved union, but, the truth is that children who are born outside of marriage are, as it is defined by the very 'church' that you are beholden to, bastard children. Since the act of annulment, in truth and as defined by that same 'church', never existed, then ipso facto, I am, in the eyes of your 'church' a bastard child. It's Ok with me because I'm not beholden, as you are, to believe that what the RCC says is the truth. I know that I am not a bastard child because I know that my parents marriage was done with the blessings of God and did, in fact, exist and consummated by vows to God. What your 'church' teaches and what those who follow such, believe, isn't the truth, but it is surely and deeply imbedded in them as part and parcel of their faith. I get it! This is just another of many clear situations where the 'church' has had to go back and reinvent or change their stance.

The friend I mentioned in my reply to albion. She was married when her children were born, but not to a catholic, therefore her children were refused baptism on the basis that they were bastard children conceived and born out of wedlock, as defined by the RCC.

Friend, go with what you believe to be the truth. That's what I do. But the truth I measure all things against are the Scriptures and not the particular position of any 'church'. Thank you for you input, but please don't be disappointed that I don't cotton to the same 'truth' that you do. I appreciate your blessings and you may have my testimony that God's mercy, grace, power and forgiveness are what sustains me every breath of my life. Praise God!

BTW, if there is a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding among those beholden to the catholic organization regarding annulment, how do I know that you aren't also one of them? I'll go look at your link, but let me be clear, since I don't hold that bishops are necessarily purveyors of the truth of God, I'm going to hold what they write up against the light of Scripture before I am going to agree that they are correct.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Hi again TZ,

Ok, I looked. Here are just a couple of positions that I can't find supported by Scripture:

The tribunal process seeks to determine if something essential was missing from the couple’s relationship from the moment of consent, that is, the time of the wedding. If so, then the Church can declare that a valid marriage was never actually brought about on the wedding day.

There is never any indication in the Scriptures that there are these two kinds of marriage or that anyone in the church has the authority to make such determination as to the intent of the marriage partners. The Scriptures speak of marriage. It defines it as the union of two people vowing to cleave unto one another to become one. That's it! My parents did that.

There is nothing in the Scriptures that even suggests that any marriage, even those performed today by a justice of the peace, has to have some outside parties blessing to be a valid marriage. That's an authority that the RCC has usurped from God himself.

Then your site says:

The tribunal process examines the events leading up to, and at the time of, the wedding ceremony, in an effort to determine whether what was required for a valid marriage was ever brought about. The length of common life is not proof of validity but a long marriage does provide evidence that a couple had some capacity for a life-long commitment. It does not prove or disprove the existence of a valid marriage bond.

This, of course, is the part I have trouble with. The only evidence that they have access to are testimonies given 25-30 years later by people that were most certainly coached by the applicant. If one truly wanted to know the intention of the partners at the time of their marriage, then for me, there would have to be some signed statement or voluntary recording on the day of the marriage that would attest something to the effect that they were entering into this union without any faith that they intended to remain married for life. After all, that's what both the man and woman generally are asked, "Do you promise to have and to hold, through sickness and in health, richer or poorer, til death do you part?" Generally, and certainly in the case of my parents, they answer yes. What could possibly be more telling of one's intent than their own answer to such a question at the time that they are being joined? I'm not sure that I could even begin to understand the RCC's position as to what proves or disproves the existence of a 'valid' marriage bond. But, you, on the other hand believe the RCC to be God on the earth and so you are willing to agree with whatever they say, just because they say so. Not me!

Anyway, the rest of the issues about payment and when an annulment becomes valid, etc., doesn't really enter into the issue that I'm discussing. My questions are all about who gives the 'church' the authority to do such a thing, and is it really what God asks of us? If it is what God asks of us, then you're on the right path. If it isn't, then you're not.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Hi all,

I'm sorry, but I addressed in my salutation the wrong person. Please forgive me that error. The last two posts should correctly be directed to tz620. I'll go change it, but I just wanted those who may have read the posts to understand that it was in error.

God bless you all,
In Christ, Ted

LoveofTruth said:

by the way, do you believe all the traditional Catholic teachings?, why do you say you are a Hebrew catholic?

Click to expand...

I choose to believe in Christ, and in His Church. I am not a person of great faith. To the contrary, I struggle with a lot of doubts. There are times when I more don't believe than believe, but I have to remind myself that belief isn't what my brain is telling me but what I choose. And yes, I choose to believe as the Catholic magisterium teaches.

A Hebrew Catholic is a Jew who is Catholic who chooses to some extent to incorporate some of Jewish tradition into their Catholic observance. For me that means in addition to my Catholic obligations, I keep Sabbath, I eat kosher, and I observe the Jewish holy days. I'm sort of a Catholic version of a Messianic Jew.

miamited said:

Hi TZ,
BTW, if there is a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding among those beholden to the catholic organization regarding annulment, how do I know that you aren't also one of them? I'll go look at your link, but let me be clear, since I don't hold that bishops are necessarily purveyors of the truth of God, I'm going to hold what they write up against the light of Scripture before I am going to agree that they are correct.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Click to expand...

Ted,
I try not to be a purveyor of misinformation. So I try to use the most authoritative sites that I can access. That is why I posted from the USCCB website. The correctness of the information is based on Catholic Canon law, just like the validity of your parent's divorce is based on U.S. law.

Let me ask you a question, do you believe in the exception to divorce in Matthew? And is inappropriate contenteia correctly translated as adultery?

God's Hands uphold us both,
Byron

Crowns&Laurels said:

It would certainly be a historical decision for the Church to validate Communion in other sects, but I don't think that will ever happen- they hold that rite as close as they do their papacy altogether.

Click to expand...

Historically, it was the Roman Church that accepted baptisms of any religion as equivalent to a Christian baptism. It was Cyprian and Firmillian who argued for a narrow validity of baptism. RC view prevailed. It was anything goes validation, but then became "changed" over the centuries as the Trinity formula gained acceptance. More recently RC decided LDS baptisms, though invoking the Trinity, was not really invoking the same Trinity as Christians. So LDS baptisms are invalid.

As to communion, there's two issues. One is the so-called valid priestly line (apostolic succession some call it) and the nature of said priest function as regarding the offering. Is it a (re)sacrifice or not? For RC, if there is no priest who thinks he is sacrificing, then that communion is invalid. The only way to make it valid is for the priest to join RC (or EO). But yes you are right. There is absolutely no way for RC to ever agree that any communion is valid apart from theirs. To do so would end RC as we know it.

tz620q said:

Let me ask you a question, do you believe in the exception to divorce in Matthew? And is inappropriate contenteia correctly translated as adultery?

Click to expand...

Adultery is a direct evidence that the approval of marriage was only a wishful idea of lifelong matrimony to the adulterer.
The Catholic Church gives annulments to whoever can show the rite was never legitimate, as it requires the full will of both the man and woman.

The fact that the Bible outright proclaims that marriage is void due to adultery, as opposed to Catholicism teaching otherwise and yet backtracks much later on the matter is very tell-tale altogether.

And no, I don't believe inappropriate contenteia is adultery. If you mean in the context of masturbation or inappropriate contentography. It is certainly a sin, however, but these things are almost always due to another sin in and of themselves- the withdrawal from sex from the spouse- women tend to use sex as a device of control over men, and the man becomes sexually frustrated.

Open Heart said:

I choose to believe in Christ, and in His Church. I am not a person of great faith. To the contrary, I struggle with a lot of doubts. There are times when I more don't believe than believe, but I have to remind myself that belief isn't what my brain is telling me but what I choose. And yes, I choose to believe as the Catholic magisterium teaches.

A Hebrew Catholic is a Jew who is Catholic who chooses to some extent to incorporate some of Jewish tradition into their Catholic observance. For me that means in addition to my Catholic obligations, I keep Sabbath, I eat kosher, and I observe the Jewish holy days. I'm sort of a Catholic version of a Messianic Jew.

Click to expand...

Ok I see, so now we have a whole bunch more stuff to deal with lol

anyway, we all have struggles and doubts. But as jesus said we must be born again, and have a personal relationship with the Lord in our hearts to know Him and hear His voice. To know that jesus Christ is in us.

What is the new birth to you?

Hank77 said:

I think we could get into a problem here with semantics.

I am aware of that. I didn't say they were dogma, I said doctrines. You are calling them traditions of men? Can they be ignored by a RCC member? I remember that they were mandatory in order to fulfill obedience. Please correct me if I am wrong about that though.

Click to expand...

No, Ash Wednesday and fish on Fridays are not doctrines, they are traditions. Yes, they are still mandatory. But they can easily be changed.

You are making a lot of excuses for Protestant traditions. "They can be done other ways." "They make sense." "They are laws more than traditions." Everything except admitting that Protestants have their traditions too. Yes, there is flexibility in Protestant traditions; there is flexibility in Catholic traditions too. It may take a little more to change, but they can be changed.

Would you say that saying the rosary is a tradition of men like the handwashing? An oral law?
I remember the French priest who told the nuns that they didn't need to say the rosary, he was arrested and kept in prison. That was hundreds of years ago but still at that time it was considered church law, has that changed?

Click to expand...

Yes the rosary is a tradition and not a law. I don't have to say the rosary if I don't want to. The priest was correct. Now, if someone wants to be a nun, she knows that she is going to be a part of a community that has those traditions. But it really was stupid to arrest the priest. He was correct.

Hank77 said:

Not all priests would even ask. In the summer many people on vacation would come to our church. They weren't asked what they believed. If they went forward to receive the sacrament it was given to them without hesitation.

Click to expand...

Well, if you go forward to receive communion, the priest is not going to deny you unless it causes a grave scandal in the church. Usually a person knows in advance that they will be denied and doesn't bother going up. So technically, even if you are not supposed to receive communion, you can violate that an receive communion anyhow.

Open Heart said:

I choose to believe in Christ, and in His Church. I am not a person of great faith. To the contrary, I struggle with a lot of doubts. There are times when I more don't believe than believe, but I have to remind myself that belief isn't what my brain is telling me but what I choose. And yes, I choose to believe as the Catholic magisterium teaches.

A Hebrew Catholic is a Jew who is Catholic who chooses to some extent to incorporate some of Jewish tradition into their Catholic observance. For me that means in addition to my Catholic obligations, I keep Sabbath, I eat kosher, and I observe the Jewish holy days. I'm sort of a Catholic version of a Messianic Jew.

Click to expand...

also you may want to consider these verses,

Galatians 3:28
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

Colossians 3:11
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision noruncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."

"
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands.
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
" (Ephesians 2:11-15 KJV)


Also you say your not a great person of faith, and yet you try to argue theology with people here some who have been believers for thirty years and have studied and diligently seek the Lord and His truth???? Maybe you should pause before you speak about any matter in here. Just some wisdom to consider.

Proverbs 1:5
A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:

LoveofTruth said:

What is the new birth to you?

Click to expand...

Being born again is when we become spiritually alive through repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38). We attain initial salvation at that moment, but it doesn't stop there. There is an ongoing salvation, what Protestants call sanctification, where we are utterly transformed (Romans 12:2).

LoveofTruth said:

Galatians 3:28
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

Click to expand...

Right, and you will notice that the verse also says there is neither male nor female, but I bet your privates have not fallen off. The Scriptures also give certain obligations to each gender. This verse in Galatians means we are equal before God. Don't apply it where it doesn't apply.

LoveofTruth said:

"
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands.
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
" (Ephesians 2:11-15 KJV)

Click to expand...

So tell me what significance you think this verse would have for me given what I told you.

tz620q said:

Ted,
I try not to be a purveyor of misinformation. So I try to use the most authoritative sites that I can access. That is why I posted from the USCCB website. The correctness of the information is based on Catholic Canon law, just like the validity of your parent's divorce is based on U.S. law.

Let me ask you a question, do you believe in the exception to divorce in Matthew? And is inappropriate contenteia correctly translated as adultery?

God's Hands uphold us both,
Byron

Click to expand...

Hi TZ,

No, I don't believe that there is any exception to divorce. In Matthew we find that Jesus says about divorce:

But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Pay very careful attention to all that Jesus says about this issue. Basically, anyone who divorces his wife causes her to become an adulterer. He does allow, however, that there is one exception to the one who divorces his wife making her an adulterer, and that is if she has already made herself an adulterer. At the end of his speaking to them on this occasion about the matter of divorce, he says to them clearly. Moses gave you the law of divorce because your hearts are hard. It was not this way in the beginning.

So, to recap, I believe that adultery was never given as a reason to divorce. It was merely mentioned in this issue of divorce, where a woman has already committed adultery, that it then isn't the divorce which makes her an adulterer, but rather she herself has made herself an adulterer.

Oh, and of course, the divorced wife is prevented from remarrying unless her new spouse is ok with being an adulterer.

Yes, I imagine that inappropriate contenteia has been correctly translated in this instance.

I think that God's position on divorce is pretty clear. God hates divorce. I would never teach or encourage someone to do something that I know God hates.

God bless you,
In Christ, Ted

LoveofTruth said:

Also you say your not a great person of faith, and yet you try to argue theology with people here some who have been believers for thirty years and have studied and diligently seek the Lord and His truth???? Maybe you should pause before you speak about any matter in here. Just some wisdom to consider.

Click to expand...

Arguing for the positions I have chosen to believe, but don't necessarily have a strong faith for, is an exercise to increase my faith. It is a way of affirming that this is what I believe despite my doubts. It gets me into the word, and into prayer. It increases my commitment in a practical way. It gets me professing that Jesus is Lord on a daily, even hourly, even minute by minute basis, which is so good for my soul. There is nothing better to fight the enemy with than that, except perhaps Eucharist.

Open Heart said:

No, Ash Wednesday and fish on Fridays are not doctrines, they are traditions. Yes, they are still mandatory. But they can easily be changed.

Click to expand...

If it is mandatory than it is an oral law/tradition. As one who practiced Orthodox Judaism for, five yrs. I think you said, you understand what I am saying here.

Open Heart said:

You are making a lot of excuses for Protestant traditions. "They can be done other ways." "They make sense." "They are laws more than traditions." Everything except admitting that Protestants have their traditions too. Yes, there is flexibility in Protestant traditions; there is flexibility in Catholic traditions too. It may take a little more to change, but they can be changed.

Click to expand...

This is from your other post and what you thought were traditions/oral law and mandatory in the Protestant church. Again.....

Open Heart said:

Every church has traditions that are not in Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture does it mention an altar call, for example. Or the four spiritual laws. Or the sinners prayer. Or having the band play a special song while the offering is taken up.

Click to expand...

An altar call is not mandatory, no oral law. Music is not mandatory ever, no oral law.

There isn't any "THE" sinner's prayer. It doesn't exist. When you repented and turn to Yeshua as your Lord and Savior, you said "A" sinner's prayer, whatever those words were.
It is however commanded that ALL men everywhere to repent and turn to God.
Act 17:30 the times, indeed, therefore, of the ignorance God having overlooked, doth now command all men everywhere to reform,

The four spiritual laws are binding laws on All of the Body of Christ, even you and me, and they written laws.
Act 15:18 `Known from the ages to God are all His works;
Act 15:19 wherefore I judge: not to trouble those who from the nations do turn back to God,
Act 15:20 but to write to them to abstain from the pollutions of the idols, and the whoredom, and the strangled thing; and the blood;

Does that explain more clearly?

Open Heart said:

Yes the rosary is a tradition and not a law. I don't have to say the rosary if I don't want to. The priest was correct. Now, if someone wants to be a nun, she knows that she is going to be a part of a community that has those traditions. But it really was stupid to arrest the priest. He was correct.

Click to expand...

The Church must have changed that from back in that priest's time, I think maybe around 1200-1500. I wish I could remember his name, it was an interesting read. I'm thinking he lived in France.

Open Heart said:

So tell me what significance you think this verse would have for me given what I told you.

Click to expand...

you said,

"A Hebrew Catholic is a Jew who is Catholic who chooses to some extent to incorporate some of Jewish tradition into their Catholic observance. For me that means in addition to my Catholic obligations, I keep Sabbath, I eat kosher, and I observe the Jewish holy days. I'm sort of a Catholic version of a Messianic Jew."

all such distinction is not needed in the church of God.