Ask a Catholic

[Elisabeth]

You must understand that Catholics also believes that a valid Sacramental marriage cannot be seperated and the couple is married for life. If this couples seperates and subsequently remarries they have committed adultry. If one receives a declaration of nullity there never was a valid marriage in the first place. Like KansasDad has asked, how do you define marriage? Every person that stands in front of a judge, priest, minister, some Elvis look alike in Las Vegas, Buddist monk, and says "I do", are now in a valid marriage?

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.

[Guest man]

If you guys aren't going to answer my questions...please be kind enough to say so.

man,

I truly apologize for the delay. As I explained, I simply haven't had much time this week. And, we are putting a new roof on our house this weekend--doing the job ourselves. My husband is on the roof as I type this. I couldn't resist a quick peek before I joined him up there.

I promise to get back to you and the others as soon as I can.

Peace,

Fiosh

I understand your situation.

Don't worry about it....there are others who "should" be able to answer my questions.

I just find it odd that they haven't.

[Pax]

You must understand that Catholics also believes that a valid Sacramental marriage cannot be seperated and the couple is married for life. If this couples seperates and subsequently remarries they have committed adultry. If one receives a declaration of nullity there never was a valid marriage in the first place. Like KansasDad has asked, how do you define marriage? Every person that stands in front of a judge, priest, minister, some Elvis look alike in Las Vegas, Buddist monk, and says "I do", are now in a valid marriage?

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.

Elisabeth,

I am not trying to patronizing or defensive. Sorry if it seems that way. I will try to answer your question the best I can. I also appreciate the fact that you are not bashing the Church. Unfortunantly, I have been through the annulment process and feel like I can shed some light on this topic with you. Each case that goes before the tribunal is investigated. There are many things that the tribunal is looking for to see whether or not the marriage was a valid sacramental bond. I will list some of them: Age, were both people Catholic, where were they married (in the Church, Las Vegas, justice of the peace etc.), has either person been married before, how long were they married, was alcohol or drugs involved in the marriage, sexual abuse, adultry, physical/emotional abuse involved, pressure from parents or friends to get married, was the mother pregnant before marriage, maturity or lack of, was marriage prep taken, were they open to having children, etc. All of these things and others are taken into consideration. The tribunal is interested in how the relationship was handeled before the marriage and right after the wedding vows. If a Catholic couple is married for 25 years and has 6 children and then the women divorces the man there is still a chance it wasn't a Sacrmental marriage. That is why the tribunal will investigate the marriage and question witnessees. Lets say the women was pregnant before the marriage and she felt as though she had to get married. During the marriage she was emotionally and physically abused. The husband vowed to kill her if she left him. She stayed with this man for 25 years out of fear. There is a good chance this was never a Sacramental bond. As far as children go, each children born in a marriage, even if the marriage is considered non-Sacramental later on, are still considered ligitimate. Any Catholic who disowns their children after receiving a declaration of nullity are commiting a sin.

I hope this helps out.

[CellShade]

It is important to note that nothing in RCC doctrine is anti-Biblical,

The catholic church uses images in their worship of God.

That's anti-biblical.

Agrees.

You are absolutely correct, Eric, Catholics are not "sola scriptura" believers. We believe that Jesus blessed us with not only the Bible, but with an oral Tradition passed down from the Apostles; and a Church---guided by the Holy Spirit---to interpret Scripture and guide us in our faith journey.

We revere the word of God and believe that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. We simply believe that Jesus left us with much more than a book.

All this is defensible from Scripture.

Blessings,

Fiosh

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

[Pax]

It is important to note that nothing in RCC doctrine is anti-Biblical,

The catholic church uses images in their worship of God.

That's anti-biblical.

Agrees.

You are absolutely correct, Eric, Catholics are not "sola scriptura" believers. We believe that Jesus blessed us with not only the Bible, but with an oral Tradition passed down from the Apostles; and a Church---guided by the Holy Spirit---to interpret Scripture and guide us in our faith journey.

We revere the word of God and believe that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. We simply believe that Jesus left us with much more than a book.

All this is defensible from Scripture.

Blessings,

Fiosh

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

[CellShade]

It is important to note that nothing in RCC doctrine is anti-Biblical,

The catholic church uses images in their worship of God.

That's anti-biblical.

Agrees.

You are absolutely correct, Eric, Catholics are not "sola scriptura" believers. We believe that Jesus blessed us with not only the Bible, but with an oral Tradition passed down from the Apostles; and a Church---guided by the Holy Spirit---to interpret Scripture and guide us in our faith journey.

We revere the word of God and believe that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. We simply believe that Jesus left us with much more than a book.

All this is defensible from Scripture.

Blessings,

Fiosh

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

[Pax]

It is important to note that nothing in RCC doctrine is anti-Biblical,

The catholic church uses images in their worship of God.

That's anti-biblical.

Agrees.

You are absolutely correct, Eric, Catholics are not "sola scriptura" believers. We believe that Jesus blessed us with not only the Bible, but with an oral Tradition passed down from the Apostles; and a Church---guided by the Holy Spirit---to interpret Scripture and guide us in our faith journey.

We revere the word of God and believe that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. We simply believe that Jesus left us with much more than a book.

All this is defensible from Scripture.

Blessings,

Fiosh

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

[Fiosh]

Hi friends!

Ok, the Pope thing.

Up front I would like to say that I am getting this info from mainly 2 sources:"Catholic and Christian" by Dr. Alan Schreck & a nifty little handbook titled "Catholic Pocket Evangelist". This is not to say that I couldn't put together a comprehensive response on my own. I could ---and I have in the past. But it would take several hours of time that I don't have, to look up the Scripture references. I don't want to take credit for work I didn't do.

So here is how the Catholic Church arrives at its understanding that Jesus founded not only a spiritual Church comprised of a body of believers, but also established a visible, hierarchical Church. This Church, by ( with Jesus as the cornerstone) was built by Jesus upon the Apostles with Peter holding a preeminent role. This Church established by Christ is the one, true Church. Every true Christian denomination can trace its roots to it.

The Primacy of Peter:

1. Peter is usually the spokesperson ( Mk 8:29; Mt 18:21; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:67ff)

2. Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus ( Mt 14: 28-32; Lk 5:1ff; Mk 10:28; Mt 17: 24f)

3. In the synoptic gospels,Peter is always named first when the apostles are listed ( Mk 3: 16-19; Mt 10:1-4; Lk 6:12-16; Acts 1:13)

4. John waits for Peter to enter the empty tomb first (Jn 20:3-8)

5. Jesus singles Peter out as shepherd of His people (Jn 21: 15-17)

6. Peter's leadership is shown in the book of Acts:

* 1st to proclaim the Gospel publicly ( 2: 14-40)

*gives many of the major speeches (3:12-26; 4:8-1; 5:3-9, 29-32; 8: 20-23; 10: 34-43; 11: 4-18; 15: 7-11)

*1st healing thru Peter's command 3: 6-7

* had widely recognized gift of healing 9:34, 38-41; 5:15

*1st to receive revelation that Gospel should be preached to the Gentiles 10: 9-48

* 1st to command baptism of the Gentiles 10: 46-48

Next...

Jesus makes explicit statements about Peter's unique role

Luke 22: 31-32

John 21: 15-19 Jesus is comissioning Peter to assume the role of "good shepherd" after Jesus' ascends

Mt 16: 18-19 Jesus gives Peter a new name "Kepha"..."rock". In the Bible, receiving a new name from God marks a new role. Note that Jesus goes on to explain " I will give you the keys to the kingdom. Keys signify authority.

So, it's pretty clear that Peter had a unique leadership role.

**********************************************************

Protestants will normally bring up 2 verses that they believe destroys this comprehensive portrait of Peter's role in Christ's Church

1. Gal 2: 11-14 Paul confronts Peter for hypocrisy.

This changes nothing. The RCC freely admits that the Pope sins, the Pope errs. He is only infallible in very specific circumstances.

2. Acts 15:7 James addresses the council.

Not a problem. Peter spoke first and explained the principle.

*******************************************************

It's important to understand that Catholics do not look to Peter as a "replacement" for Jesus; but rather as His representative.

If you'll compare to Isaiah 22: 20-22 you'll see that the prime minister(the one who held the keys to the kingdom) had successors.

The Holy Spirit then led the Church to continue the structure that Jesus had begun.

*******************************************************

Who is the Pope to a Catholic?

The Pope is the visible source and foundation of unity of the company of the faithful. He is Jesus' prime minister, who acts on His behalf, guided by the Holy Spirit. But he is also officially titled "Servant of the Servants of God". Just as Jesus came to lead a life of servant-hood, so, the Pope as His representative lives to serve the people of God.

*****************************************

There's lots more info.......like the fact that the Early Church acknowledged a "patriarch" or "chief bishop", even though the term "pope" was not yet used. And, if you want to see the unbroken line of succession, simply pick up any secular encyclopedia.

Hope that answers your questions.

I'm not here to convince you that I'm right, just to lay out what I believe and why. I respect your right to disagree and don't want to debate every detail in this thread. It will get too unmanageable. If you have a question or need clarification, please ask; I'll be glad to try to clarify any point

If you would like to discuss anything more in-depth, start a thread and invite us over.

Peace,

Fiosh

[Fr Chuck]

one also has to understand that every denomination has a leader, or a group that oversees or controls that groups activities.

The mormon church has a group of 12 with a President, The Lutheran Church MO Synd has a church president, and so on, It happens with the Catholic Church that being so large they have a much larger and complex system of leaderships.

Also if you follow the teachings of all of the early Christian Church, all of the larger groups had thier head bishops or Patarachs ( Pope for the Catholic) and all had oversight of thier groups in very simular ways.

[ayin jade]

The mormon church has a group of 12 with a President

That doesnt help your case. The mormon church is an unsaved cult.