Kansasdad

If you know your doctrines are correct and will not change, then you are not likely to ever second guess yourself or look at the doctrines objectively, as I had asked a few posts back. I would add that the difference is between you and me is that I know the Bible and my God will not change. Man-made doctrines will change. Eating meat on Fridays is a good example. I understand the current Pope is also wondering about going back to completely Latin masses and no more folk music or modern music, only the old-time hymns. This is the second time you have said this. It is news to me. Where did you get this. I have very serious doubts on this one, you might want to question your source of information. God Bless, K.D.

3 Kings? 3 Kings 6:.18 And all the house was covered within with cedar, having the turnings, and the joints thereof artfully wrought and carvings projecting out: all was covered with boards of cedar: and no stone could be seen in the wall at all. 3 Kings 6: 23 And he made in the oracle two cherubims of olive tree, of ten cubits in height. 24 One wing of the cherub was five cubits, and the other wing of the cherub was five cubits: that is, in all ten cubits, from the extremity of one wing to the extremity of the other wing. 3 kings:6 35 And he carved cherubims, and palm trees, and carved work standing very much out: and he overlaid all with golden plates in square work by rule. 36 And he built the inner court with three rows of polished stones, and one row of beams of cedar. 3 Kings 10: 19 It had six steps: and the top of the throne was round behind: and there were two hands on either side holding the seat: and two lions stood, one at each hand. 20 And twelve little lions stood upon the six steps on the one side and on the other: there was no such work made in any kingdom.

That says it all. This was addressed in Post 231

You have such a way with words Lenard

I assume you are talking about Images? Even if we grant that God forbade the making of all images to the Jews, such a law would not bind Christians, as the positive Jewish law was abrogated by the Gospel (Rom. 8: 1, 2; Gal. 3: 23-25). There is certainly no inherent wickedness in making an image. The eternal law can never be abrogated; it will always be sinful "to adore them and serve them/" We know that the Jews did not understand the command as an absolute prohibition of images, for we find a number of them in the Temple. There were, for example, the brazen serpent (Num. 21: 9), the golden cherubim (Exod. 25: 13; Ezech. 1: 5; 10: 20; 3 Kings 6: 23), the carved garlands of flowers, fruit and trees (Num. 8: 4; 3 Kings 6:. 18; 6: 36), the carved lions which supported the basins and the King's throne (3 Kings 6: 24; 10: 19, 20), and the ephod (Judges 8: 27; 1 Kings 19: 13). The Jews of the dispersion, despite their bitter hatred of idolatry, decorated their cemeteries with paintings of birds, beasts, fishes, men and women. The early Christians adorned their Catacombs with many frescoes of Christ, the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, which recalled incidents in the Sacred Scriptures. The most common paintings were Moses striking the rock, Noe in the ark, Daniel in the lion's den, the Nativity, the Coming of the Wise Men, the marriage feast of Cana, the raising of Lazarus, and Christ the Good Shepherd. Statues were rare only because they were costly and difficult to make. When the Church came up from the Catacombs, she began to decorate her churches with costly mosaics, carvings, paintings and statues. No one can honestly accuse these early Christians of idolatry, for they died in protest against it by the thousands, and wrote treatise after treatise condemning it. God Bless, Kansas Dad

Not surprising at all. I wonder if France will ever wake up?

If you look back at some of what I previously asked about annulment, I wasn't asking about people who were married in Vegas. I think we all know that the RCC is not granting annulments in those situations. I specifically asked about people who were both Catholic, who were married in the RCC, and who raised their children in the RCC -- and THEN got an annulment. I've seen that happen more than once, and I've seen adult children who are essentially estranged from one parent -- because that parent got an annulment, primarily so they could selfishly remarry in the Catholic Church. How is that Christ-like? One parent essentially sends a message to their children that their family was a sham. And also sends an incredibly confusing message about their Church. I'm sorry, but asking for us to define marriage is like Bill Clinton asking for the definition of "is." Many of us here are not trying to bash the RCC, we are trying to understand it. Fiosh has done an excellent job of providing real and honest answers. She is not defensive or patronizing. Those of us who are not Catholic may not necessarily agree, but at least we are learning from her. Thank you and God bless you. If I am the one who came off defensive or patronizing, then I owe you an apology. I am sorry, that was not my intention. I agree an annulment should not be taken lightly. It is very difficult to respond to individual cases that you are aware of, for we do not have all the information. I would guess, although I don't know, that you don't know all the circumstances that led to these individuals marriages either. I am not trying to evade your question. In a case where a couple is married in a church, do you feel there is any circumstances that would have made it a non sacramental marriage?, In other words, a marriage where God was not a part of the union? I think the key element is that no man can separate that which God put together. The annulment process determines that God was never part of the union in the first place. You asked for scripture reference to this, I am not aware of any scripture that deals with this specifically, if there is please post it, I would like to see it. It would not be the first time I was not aware of a verse in scripture. I think there would be some examples of a non-sacremental marriage that would be very obvious. But then people through the centuries have come to the Church and asked, what about this circumstance, and what about this, and that. Somewhere the Church had to set up some way to deal with it. If a woman was threatened with her life if she did not marry (This actually did happen in our past) was this a marriage brought together by God. Ok that is a obvious one, but now lets say a woman comes to the church and tells the Priest that she was 14 when she got pregnant, Her parents made her get married to the boy. She was scared, she didn't feel she had any choice. The pregnancy was created out of lust, the marriage happened out of fear. Was this a union brought together by God? Now this woman comes to the Priest and ask for guidance. What does he tell her? We can then look at examples that become more and more gray. Does the Church just leave these people on their own? The Church has on many many cases determined that the marriage was a union by God and that the couple cannot remarry. I know of a person who left the Catholic Church because they would not grant an annulment. She remarried, as did he and they and their kids lives has been a mess. God Bless, Kansas Dad

I have answered your question. An annulment states that a marriage never happened in the first place. I think a very legitimate question then is ...OK what constitutes a marriage, recognised by God. If you don't want to explore What constitutes a marriage recognised by God that's OK, but you have your answer. The Church through the annulment process discovers that there was not a legitimate marriage in the first place. If the person was not married in the first place then there is no issue with them getting married in Gods eyes for the first time. There is still the issue of living in a state of fornication, which repentance is needed. But this is a different issue then the annulment. Can you see how the question I asked is different. You stated that you couldn't accept this because a marriage is a marriage in Gods eyes and it could not be separated. An annulment says that a marriage never took place. I would think to progress any further we would need to establish what exactly constitutes a marriage. I have given you examples of what the Catholic Church see are reason that a sacramental marriage never took place. You have asked where In scripture this is supported. As far as I know there are not any verses that address this issue specifically. If there are please post them I truly would like to see them. What is the definition of a marriage sanctified by God according to scripture? Is a legal marriage all that is required, if so where in scripture do we see this? If a person is stoned on chemicals in Vegas and gets married by the Judge, is that marriage sanctified by God? If so please give me scripture to support that. My point is that sometimes Scripture does not give us all the direct answers to our questions. The Catholic Church has given us some guidelines, based on oral teaching passed on through the generations and the general concepts portrayed through out the Bible, ie; considering free will, culpability, full knowledge, deception, and the unfathomable mercy of God. God Bless, K.D.

I do not approve of divorce. Nor do I think annulment is proper. The person who first described it (KansasDad) said this: The most common reasons to grant an annulment are insufficiency or inadequacy of judgment (also known as lack of due discretion, due to some factor such as young age, pressure to marry in haste, etc.), psychological incapacity, and absence of a proper intention to have children, be faithful, or remain together until death. These grounds can manifest themselves in various ways. For example, a couple, discovering her pregnancy, decide to marry; only much later do they recognize the lack of wisdom in that decision. Or one spouse carries an addictive problem with alcohol or drugs into the marriage. Perhaps a person, unfaithful during courtship, continues the infidelity after marrying. In cases like these, the Church judges may decide that something contrary to the nature of marriage or to a full, free human decision prevents this contract from being sound or binding. Sorry, but the bible does not give us the right to divorce, much less have the marriage annuled, because we made a stupid decision when we got married. This isnt like your example of a woman with a gun to her head. (I mean really, how often will you see the gun type scenario.) If 2 consenting adults marry because they couldnt keep their hands off of each other, she got pregnant and they chose to be married, there is no exception clause in the bible for that marriage to be dissolved by divorce or by annulment. Show me please where the bible says that God accepts that as a valid reason for divorce/ marriage annulment. Please show me scripture to back up the marriage annulment thing to begin with. I would like an answer to this. Kansasdad Today, 09:37 AM Post #390 QUOTE(Ayin Jade @ Oct 5 2006, 03:04 PM) Please show me scripture that specifies how a marriage ceremony has to be in order for it to be considered God approved? It says marriage. Marriage is marriage whether it is performed by a minister in a church or by a justice of the peace. Let me ask you this. Please show me in scripture what constitutes a marriage. This might be a good place to start. Lets establish what scripture actually says, and move from there. God Bless, K.D. Just trying to start on common ground and see where we depart from our understanding.

The Consecrated Host can be dispensed by a lay person. Often this is done for people in the hospital, nursing home, shut-ins. There is some training and prayer to be a Eucharistic minister. I get the privilege and honor every 5th Sunday. Hmmmmmm, how many 5th Sundays are there in a Year. God Bless, K.D. See Catholic's can't even count! That's because we would have to ask a Priest if what we counted was correct first. Silent you slay me, I love your sense of humor!!!!!!!!!!!! God Bless, K.D.

Hmmm... thats a shame. If anything, I think that states should invest more money into childcare for children without parents (foster homes, adoption type stuff, etc.). Passing a child into anothers hands is SOO much better than murder. And there are so many couples out there who want children, but can't have any of their own, and there's so much red tapr involved in adoption. I agree wholeheartedly they should make sure the parents will love and take proper care of babies, but I don't think the process in place is doing that. It's just guarenteeing babies to couples with money. You should be able to provide for a child but you don't need to be rich...sheesh... Unfortunately the process is very expensive. My oldest son is adopted. At the time my wife and I were at a stage in life where we financially had little. We both had solid jobs but there was little left over. Fortunately my mother inherited some money from her fathers estate and she let us use some of that money for the adoption process. She couldn't think of a better way to use the money then to get a new grand baby. Anyway, The whole process needs to be revised so that money is not such a deciding factor. Yes there are soooooo many folks who want to have children, yet millions are just killed and disposed of like waste. I applaud SD, and hopefully more will follow suit. Unfortunately Kansas had not been a good example. We have one of the worst abortion murderers in the nation. Good job SD!

The Consecrated Host can be dispensed by a lay person. Often this is done for people in the hospital, nursing home, shut-ins. There is some training and prayer to be a Eucharistic minister. I get the privilege and honor every 5th Sunday. Hmmmmmm, how many 5th Sundays are there in a Year. God Bless, K.D.

Does anyone live in New Mexico Cats needs God in the flesh right now. K.D.

Let me ask you this. Please show me in scripture what constitutes a marriage. This might be a good place to start. Lets establish what scripture actually says, and move from there. God Bless, K.D.

Ok let me put it this way. Two people live together, they do all the things married people do including have kids. They split up and wreck the kids lives in their selfish life. Is this an offence to God...Yes......Were they ever married....no.......Did God ever consider them married... I would venture....no....... Now legally, they are married by common law, so in a legal sense they could be considered married, but not in Gods realm. Now one of this couple repents, turns their life to God, and wants to get married. This is scripturally allowed because they were never married in the first place. The process of annulment is the process in which the Church determines that the couple was in fact living in sin, and never married. This is not always the finding. As often as not the Church finds that the marriage was valid and binding. That is the best I can explain it, I have been married for 20 years and I know an annulment would be a lie that wouldn't fly in Gods eyes. God Bless, K.D.

WHAT A BUNCH OF MacQueeneys: God Bless or MacQueeneys K.D.

My simple understanding of it is that by the best evidence that can be known the Church feels that God never "blessed" the marriage in the first place. It was never a union brought together by God. In other words, God was absent from the formula, and If God was not part of the beginning then it was never a marriage in the first place, more like a long spell of fornication. ( was that too blunt) God Bless, K.D.

There is only one school in my little town, the public school. Fortunately, we still sing songs about Jesus during our school Christmas program and the preacher says a prayer before the football game and end in Jesus name amen. Don't tell the ACLU though. God Bless, K.D.

A declaration of nullity states that, according to Church law, a given marriage was not valid (and therefore not binding) at the time a couple spoke their marriage vows. A person will asks the Church to look at a previous marriage which has ended in divorce, and, if possible, to issue a declaration that this previous marriage no longer binds either party to the union. In no way should this process be thought of as a type of "Catholic Divorce." A declaration of nullity states that a marriage was invalid from the beginning. A civil divorce, on the other hand, asserts that a marriage, valid or not, is dissolved. The Catholic Church does not grant divorces. Neither is an annulment a statement that a marriage never existed civilly. Rather, it is a determination that certain conditions were present at the time the marriage was entered that made it an invalid union according to Catholic Church teaching. The civil effects and recognition of that marriage remain intact and unchanged. Moreover, an annulment is not a statement that the marriage was entered into in bad faith by either of the parties. It is not a statement of who caused the marriage to fail or who was most guilty for its failure. Those are certainly important questions for a person to ask. But they are not the questions the Church must answer. The annulment process, in its most simple form, involves any person coming to the Church and asking to be heard. Information is gathered by the Church and in the end, The Church, usually a Tribunal, answers that person's request: the marriage was invalid or valid according to the laws of the Church. Some cases are given a negative decision; that is, the judge decides that the marriage was a valid and binding union The most common reasons to grant an annulment are insufficiency or inadequacy of judgment (also known as lack of due discretion, due to some factor such as young age, pressure to marry in haste, etc.), psychological incapacity, and absence of a proper intention to have children, be faithful, or remain together until death. These grounds can manifest themselves in various ways. For example, a couple, discovering her pregnancy, decide to marry; only much later do they recognize the lack of wisdom in that decision. Or one spouse carries an addictive problem with alcohol or drugs into the marriage. Perhaps a person, unfaithful during courtship, continues the infidelity after marrying. In cases like these, the Church judges may decide that something contrary to the nature of marriage or to a full, free human decision prevents this contract from being sound or binding. As far as Ted K. I don't know and it would be hard to know what led to the conclusion of the annulment....Well maybe it would not be so hard to figure out. God Bless, Kansas Dad

Sure, but someones mouth filled with germs is still going to be placed on the cup. Then the next person is going to put their mouth on the cup and on for 300 people. It isn't the contents one is worried about, but rather the germs from ones mouth that will be on the edge of the cup. I personally would drink the precious blood of Christ, but if I had a cold I wouldn't out of respect for others. I wouldn't want them to get sick. A Catholic isn't obligated to drink the precious blood of Christ and essentially one is receiving the body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist. The parish I belong to only offers the precious blood to all the lay people during two masses a year. Easter, and Christmas. However the Eucharist is offered at each mass. Some parishes will offer both at each mass. If you truly believe you are drinking the blood of Christ...wouldn't your faith prevent you from becoming sick? If you truly believe the blood of Christ is in that cup...wouldn't His blood kill those germs? That's why I raised this question. If it were truly the blood of Christ, and if your heart truly was aligned with the Lord when you participated in Communion, then what would there be to fear? In terms of germs, etc. And if that were truly a concern, then why doesn't the RCC use a different method of serving the wine? I am personally having a difficult time appreciating why someone would take the bread (body) but not the wine (blood) if our Lord instructed us to do so. You are asking why some people with in the church do what they do, and I can not honestly answer for them. I can tell you what the Church teaches and what I do and think. Personally, I take both whenever it is available. However, Jesus is completely present in both, It would never be an incompleteness, in receiving one and not the other. God Bless, K.D.

I think this series of questions were missed. Any takers? I don't know that I can answer this with out sounding apologentic, but here goes. "Luke mentions Peter and John, but he sets Peter first; and in his record of what happened to Simon, John acts the second part, and it is Peter alone who teaches, commands, judges, and condemns with authority, as the head and supreme ruler. Peter alone replies to Simon, and not only so, but condemns his profaneness, enlarges upon his guilt, and solemnly declares that the gifts of God are not purchasable with money" But this then often gets the question of, Did not James preside at the Council of Jerusalem, and give the definite sentence? How then was Peter chief Apostle? St. Peter, not St. James, presided at the Council of Jerusalem. The question at issue was whether the Gentiles were bound to obey the Mosaic law. Paul, Barnabas, James and the rest were present as teachers and judges, just as Bishops were present at the Vatican Council, but Peter was their head, and the supreme arbiter of the controversy, This is evident because, St. Peter spoke first and decided the matter unhesitatingly, declaring that the Gentile converts were not bound by the Mosaic law. He claimed to exercise authority in the name of his special election by God to receive the Gentiles (Acts 15: 7), and he severely rebuked those who held the opposite view (Acts 15: 10). After he had spoken "all the multitude held their peace" (Acts 15: 12). Those who spoke after him merely confirmed his decision, mentioning like Paul and Barnabas the miracles wrought by God on their missionary journeys, or suggesting, like James, that the Gentiles respect the scruples of the Jewish converts, by abstaining from the things they detested (Acts 15: 20, 21). The translation in the King James Version of krino, "my sentence is" (Acts 15: 19) should be "I think; I am of the opinion"; as we learn from other passages of the Acts (13: 46; 16:15; 26: 8). James gave no special decision on the question, but merely expressed the views that had been adopted at the meeting spoken of in Gal. 2: 6. Moreover the decree is attributed to the Council of Apostles and Presbyters, assisted by the Holy Spirit (Acts 16: 4; 15: 28), and not to James personally. I am only trying to answer your question of where the Catholic Church can demonstrate Peters authority, after Christ resurrection, to the best of my understanding and research. God Bless, Kansas Dad

The Mormons use other scripture...are you saying they are correct? Not at all. Do the Mormans have two thousand years of history? No, about 150. Did the early Church fathers align themselves with Joseph Smith? Nope he wouldn't be born for 1850 more years. They aligned themselves with the apostles who followed Jesus Christ. Do the Mormans believe in the Trinity? Nope. Mormans are not Christians, just as Muslims aren't. Catholics are Christians, just as you are. You are mixing apples and oranges here. Time in existence does not speak to the issue of using other scripture. It just means you have been using other scripture longer Paul instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). The difference is that Mormons are not following the oral teaching that were passed down from the Apostles. So the time frame in which the teaching was presented does have a bearing. Obviously an extra Biblical teaching that has its origin from 150 years ago could not possible be oral teaching from the Apostles. Now just as valid is that just because the oral teaching comes from the time of the Apostles does not necessarily make it an oral teaching of the Apostles. God Bless, Kansas Dad

God Bless you sister. Yes HE did and yes, God has given us many wonderful traditions dating back to the beginning of time that help us understand HIM better. We have many oral traditions passed down through various sources before and after Christ many of which have been written down. The difference between us, I think, is what is considered "authoritative". ANY source other than Holy Scripture as the Holy Spirit gives understanding is not authoritative. Helpful, enhancing, thought-provoking? YES. Authoritative, the final say? NO. One tradition in the Bible are the seven festivals of Messiah. Currently we are in the series of Fall festivals, all which prophetically reveal the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ. The Bible is the authoritative source regarding these festivals but there are many Jewish traditions relating to Rosh Hashanah (13 days past), Day of Atonement (3 days past) and the Feast of the Tabernacles (coming up in 2 days) that are wonderful festivals full of tradition, all of which have a prophetic message for mankind. So the Bible is the authority but the details of the traditions recorded in other sources are meant to enhance our understanding and experience BUT are not authoritative. There is the difference I think. I think there is a difference in the understanding of tradition.

Can you point me to the scripture you speak of? Where does scripture mention oral traditions to be passed down? Man I don't think you are reading the replies. This has been answered several times, but here it is again, Kansasdad Yesterday, 04:41 PM Post #311 I think this accurately describes each position: Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church

Can you point me to the scripture you speak of? Where does scripture mention oral traditions to be passed down? Man I don't think you are reading the replies. This has been answered several times, but here it is again, Kansasdad Yesterday, 04:41 PM Post #311 I think this accurately describes each position: Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church