I've been reading this thread with a lot of interest, as I'm asking myself some of the same questions as cc46 - (hi cc - I used to be Lady in Red). WH and I are both Catholic (converts) and our shared (supposedly) Christian faith is a big element in the twistedness of our own sitch.

I'm sorry to see BR and FH in this kind of unfriendly exchange - perhaps due to a lack of understanding on both sides. I understand that FH feels the RC Church has got it wrong in some areas (undoubtedly it has in past history - I like to look at the whole witch-burning craze - from the 12th c to the 16th c, the Church did a complete 180, from condemning those who accused others of witchcraft, to condoning the official hounding, torture and murder of those accused of witchcraft, back to condemning those who accused others of witchcraft (read historian G. Trevelyan on this subject for a good overview) - so yes, the Church IS fallible, and it does sometimes get it wrong). The areas of Europe which were Protestant were often worse in their whole-hearted pursuit of "witches", so no demonination is let off the hook here, I'm afraid.

I see the Church as the family I have chosen to belong to, warts and all. Because I see that it is fallible, I also reserve the right to follow my conscience, not just unquestioningly adhere to edicts. But my conscience is shaped by my reading of Scripture and my understanding of Scripture, which I read (almost) every day, and through sermons I hear at Mass and other forms of study. Scripture study forms a big part of my spiritual life, but not all. I became a Catholic because I wanted to participate in the sacramental life of the Church. That became a hunger that could not be filled in any other way, and remains so.

What I would like say to FH in his defense of Scripture as the final authority, is that, as Catholics, even while we recognize the Word of God as of primary importance in our spiritual lives, what most non-Catholics overlook is that the Church existed for more than 300 years after Christ's death without the aid of the Bible, and that it was the Church which called the Council which brought all the books of the Bible together and actually "created" the Bible in the early form that we know it today - as a book, in so doing, transforming us, as a religious people, into one of the great religions who are "people of the Book". It was the collegiate of bishops who brought together that Council who held the authority to do so, and it is that authority which Roman Catholics still recognize today. It is not a "higher authority" than the Word of God, but it is an authority instituted by Christ himself during his ministry here on Earth.

Having said that, I find I am closest to FH in his interpretation of scripture on this topic of divorce following adultery....and I can relate to all the conundrums aired on this thread about annullment and how hurtful it can be...it's not an "easy" way out and can cause a lot of pain. There ARE people who use the annullment process as a way of getting what they want and condoning a "new" relationship, and I can give some examples I know from my own personal experience. As I am now facing the same questions, I will continue to read this thread with interest. I hope we can all try to speak to each other with respect and respect the fact that people who post their views are actually trying to help each other - FH's understanding of Scripture is quite helpful to me and I appreciate him taking the time to outline his views. I encourage cc46 to enter into a personal dialogue with a priest with whom she can discuss her own personal situation - she may find it very illuminating.

LIR

There is an ignore button. Go to a post made by the person you want to ignore, and click on the person's name to the top left of the post. That will bring up an information page about that poster. Look along the bottom, and one of the choices is "ignore this user". Click on that, and posts by that user will be replaced by the words "You are ignoring this user" on your browser when you are signed in.

friend4life(LadyInRed) - welcome to the discussion and to trying to help cc46 with her dilemna.

For the record, I don't see my discussion with Bramblerose as "unfriendly," though perhaps she might.




Non-Catholics do NOT "overlook" the early church. But that does not necessarily "define" what the church is today, or what it has "evolved into." At least, I don't overlook the early church's contributions. However, where in the past they relied SOLELY upon Scripture, that is often not the case today. Simply because one "organization" started out "on the correct path" does NOT mean that they always will be. That's because MEN, all fallable, and some wolves in sheep's clothing, can gain control and CHANGE things.

That's precisely what lead the priest Martin Luther to finally say, in effect, "Enough is enough!" It was NOT that Martin Luther wanted to "start a new religion." Rather, it was that Martin Luther want the "Church" to examine it's practices and teachings that had gone far astray from what the Bible actually teaches. For that, he was excommunicated because he disagreed with then established "Church teaching" and would not submit to anyone other than Christ when opposing "teachings" came into being.

On the Protestant "side" of this sort of thing one of the most glaring examples of starting out solidly "in God" and then becoming apostate to an extreme would be Princeton University. It's history makes a very interesting read and a very strong example of what NOT "being true to Scripture" can lead to.

"It is not a "higher authority" than the Word of God, but it is an authority instituted by Christ himself during his ministry here on Earth. "

This IS where a huge difference in interpretation arises between the RCC and most other religions, especially Protestant religions. When Jesus was talking about "....and upon this rock I will build my church" the RCC view is that the ONLY church would be built upon PETER (not Christ himself). That, in effect, excludes all believers who are NOT members of the Roman Catholic Church.

For Protestants, the statement of Jesus referred to Peter's FAITH in Jesus AS being the Son of God and the Messiah. It was upon THAT faith, the truth and acceptance of WHO JESUS IS, that Christ would build His church of "true believers."

It IS strictly Jesus Christ, not Jesus "plus" something else.

That's where much disagreement centers.

God bless!

Lady ~


That isn't the problem at all.

I understand exactly where FH is coming from. I disagree with him wholeheartedly but I respect his right and free will to decide for himself what is right and wrong.

What I want (silly self will) is the same respect in return - however, FH is NOT someone who respects others opinions or allows them to voice them peacefully.

The bottom line is - if you want to be a Catholic, there is no "divorce". I've tried to communicate my understanding of the why's behind it. I am not here to argue whether or not the Catholic Church correctly interprets scripture.

Anyway, elspeth pointed out the ignore button and it is used.

I think however, that my time on MB is coming to a close - has been for quite sometime. There truely is on the board any longer for a respectful discussion. Reading the archives from 2001, 2002 showed me just how much this place has changed, and not for the better.

cc46 ~ I hope you find the peace and healing you are looking for.

Bramblerose,

You are SO NEEDED on this forum BECAUSE of who you are and what you have to offer!

I have always seen you as someone with strength, courage and integrity... always... that NEVER changes.

I'm not trying to make you into a savior or a saint... I know it would be the last thing you want. I just think you are needed, that's all... perhaps more than most.

...and I (for one) have gleaned so much about your beliefs from this thread. Thank you for sharing...

PS: I do understand the spirit behind your words, BR, and have thought the same (and left, come back, left again) many times... as have many of us that throw our 'whole selves' into our posts... for years...

Just don't ever believe that your words didn't affect someone... they did... and do... and I suspect it is MANY someone's.

ETA: cc46~~ Your question was an excellent one... I sincerely hope that you take what you've learned here, along with your willing spirit and some prayer... and put it all together with some help from your church... Let us know what you finally decide... this was a fascinating discussion and I appreciate what you added to it.

Bramblerose, you have my utmost respect and I respect your right to hold any opinion you so choose. I also expect from myself, and would think that the same holds true of others, that when I offer MY opinion to someone else as something that they might want to "embrace," it is incumbent upon me to also explain WHY I believe WHAT I believe so that they can make or reject the same conclusion.




You have, and quite well I might add.

But there are also other Catholics who have stated that the "annulment" process is, at least, flawed in it's application by the RCC. Do those folks not "Respect" your opinion, or is your anymosity somehow restricted to me simply because you don't like what, or how, I say something?




Of course you are not. But when you state the position of the Catholic Church and state that YOU embrace it and therefore others might also want to embrace it, THEN it becomes your duty to explain why that position, as opposed to other positions that may be in conflict with that stated position, is the CORRECT position in matters of faith and God. Or are you saying that God has multiple answers for each person that conforms to THEIR belief, not HIS?

The "danger" in hiding behind such a statement is that it implies that "there is no definitive truth" and that "any idea or position is equally good regardless of what God has said." That, I am certain, is NOT what you intended to imply or state. So when I ask for clarification, it is NOT to attack you, it is to understand WHY you believe what you believe and whether or not that belief is firmly grounded in the Scripture. I, like most believers, continually examine self to make sure of our faith and that we are, to the best of our ability, leading a life surrendered to God.

THAT is founded in a respect for God and HIS revealed Word. I hope you can see that difference and that it is NOT motivated by some petty attack on you or your ideas, but that it is motivated by trying to discern God's will in matters such as this.

God bless.

BR,

I have been here since 2002. You have been very helpful to many. For that, many here are thankful...including me.

I dont agree that this discussion board has gotten worse.. I also dont agree that FH doesnt take into account how you feel or your beliefs. But I do believe, that just as a WS coming on here and saying they believe that the OP is the love of their life...we would all jump in and try to guide them to the truth. Which we all know is that the OP is not the answer...

What FH does is state that while many hold different beliefs, that Christians by definition believe in the Word of God. And as such, anything that is oppositie of what it says, is by definition...not Christian and not of Christ. Which also means it is not the will of God.

The RCC isnt the only institution to make mistakes. Every protestant denomination has its issues with Scripture. it is one of the reason that I have gone fro ma baptist background, to non-denominational. It is because denominations accentutate certain things...certain parts of Scripture, certain practices that they have adopted, etc.

But the Scripture is the word of God. You cant be a Christian and not believe that. Which means all 66 books have to be weighted the same. The first word is as valid as the last.

Too often, the denominations get caught up in majoring in the "minors" and minoring in the "majors." Is it immersion baptism or sprinkling? Stuff like that, which really doesnt matter in the end result.

The issue at hand in this thread was about religious divorce. Since the CC stated that she is a Christian, FH offered up what the Bible says on that issue. Now, to find otu further on, CC is Roman Catholic. That still doesnt change what Scripture says.

I went to a Baptist church when my wife's affair happened. When I went in to see the pastor, I wanted him to follwo the guidelines of Scripture...to have 2-3 witnesses go and talk to my wife...and if she still wouldnt repent, then I would bring it before the church. The pastor said "we dont do that anymore. We can do counseling for you or both of you, though?" I told him I wasnt looking for social services...I was looking for Christ's church...the one that lives up to and enforces God's word.

I left that church the next day and found a church that would live up to Scripture...at least in this case. I took thsi before the elders and it was resolved Scripturally. Sure, I ahve remained a member of that new church...and have found some inconsistencies in their approach on some other issues. As one person once told me..."if you find the perfect church, dont join it...you will jsut screw it up!" No church is perfect.

But in the matter at hand, the RCC is actually in direct violation of Scripture in several areas. And as Christians, we are ALWAYS to side on the side of Scripture before man's interpretation.

I again do not see FH attacking you or anyone. As a fellow Christian, he provided the Scriptures that form the basis of what should be done. These are the majors. The minors are stuff like, does the pastors take care of the witness part, or do the elders? How it is enacted is different from church to church.

All churches are fallible! FH was just trying to keep a fellow believer to concentrate on the Word. When we follwo the Word, we can NEVER do wrong. When we do it our own way, as many churches have done, we find out that things jsut get messed up.

We hope you dont leave, BR because you have been invaluable to many. But I also knwo the heart of FH, and I am quite certain that his posts are only to build up the bretheren.

In His arms.

Yesterday I finally went to the chat with the priest.
I’m glad it took him 3 weeks to be able to talk to me because during those three weeks I learned a whole lot of things and came to quite a few realizations.
So I thought I was well prepared.

Basically he started off saying that catholic marriage, the sacrament, is for life. It cannot be undone. But he was in a hurry to leave that subject because his main message was: forget WH, he’s gone, don’t pray for him too much because you’ll get caught up thinking about him, so try to give him up to God and sort of forget him. Nothing you can do about it.
Pray for yourself, get a life, BE A WOMAN AND A MOTHER, and I don’t really recall what came next.

I finally blurted out that I couldn’t stop praying for WH, that I wanted him to be saved and I had to pray for him because apart from being HIS WIFE, probably nobody else was worrying about WH’s soul!
But he insisted I let go and pray for myself.

Then in the end he said that although WH is objectively an adulterer, we couldn’t be sure he was committing a sin.

I know, I still can’t understand what that means.

Anyway, I’m still trying to recover from this chat. It had to be done though.

At one point I mentioned that my MIL accepted the situation and he said "well a mother..." and I didn't even let hiim finish. I gave him the example of drugs but he still said it was different for a mother...

I'm still shocked.

CC:

What part of his message did you find to be "shocking?"

not pray for WH
be a woman
it's OK for MIL to accept the adulterous relationship
WH may be an adulterer but it may not be a sin

Our priest told us right off the bat that he is not an MC or an IC. He agreed to counsel and advise FWW spiritually. And that was it. But it sure helped. He is good at his job.

I wasn’t there so of course I am talking through my hat. But it sounds like the priest you talked to is being somewhat pedantic.

As in all careers, you will find excellent priests and some who are barely competent. And I’m talking only about how well they do their job here.

I think he may have erroneously assumed you already know some arcane things when he spoke so cryptically.

Look, he could have given you this headache-producing tract to read:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

It’s all relevant to your questions, but a simpler view can be found in these excerpts:

Error and ignorance in regard to the object or circumstances of the act affect the judgment, intellect and consequently the morality and imputability of sin. Invincible ignorance excuses entirely from sin. Vincible ignorance does not, although it renders the act less free.

The passions, while they disturb the judgment of the intellect, more directly affect the will. Antecedent passion increases the intensity of the act, the object is more intensely desired, although less freely, and the disturbance caused by the passions may be so great as to render a free judgment impossible, the agent being for the moment beside himself.

Consequent passion, which arises from a command of the will, does not lessen liberty, but is rather a sign of an intense act of volition. Fear, violence, heredity, temperament and pathological states, in so far as they affect free volition, affect the malice and imputability of sin.

It is clear that for actual personal sin knowledge of the law and a voluntary act, free from coercion and necessity, are required. No mortal sin is committed in a state of invincible ignorance or in a half-conscious state.

It is not necessary that the explicit intention to offend God and break His law be present, the full and free consent of the will to an evil act suffices.


In other words, objective sin is related to the act. Mortal sin is closer to the intent.

I like the passions disturb judgment paragraph. Sounds like the fog, huh.

What he was saying is, your H's sin is not your call. It isn’t even this priest's call. It’s God’s.

I remember telling our priest the first time we talked to him that FWW was going to he11 for adultery. He turned a stern face to me and said, “Luckily for you, you do not get to make that decision whatsoever.

As far as not praying for him. Well, I think he is feeling compassion for you. He is advising sort of a Plan B. But go ahead and pray for him - all you want, all you can. I will also.

With prayers,

Thanks Aphelion for your very clear explanation. Unfirtunately it's nearly midnight and I wouldn't understand much even if it were about a simpler subject so I'll re read it tomorrow. So if God will determine whether we have sinned, why do we bother with confession?

I feel great knowing that I don;t have to confess anymore... of course now they don't even call them sins anymore. It all depends on your perceptions...

Gotta go to sleep <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

“So if God will determine whether we have sinned, why do we bother with confession?

I feel great knowing that I don’t have to confess anymore... of course now they don't even call them sins anymore. It all depends on your perceptions...”

Lol, that’s not it at all. Not perceptions at all.

Let me come back to this later. I need to participate irl tonight.

I think his final advice is good though. Give him to God and concentrate on yourself.


With prayers,