Anth,

Back for more I see.

From the top, one relevant comment at a time -

“Several practicing Catholic posters in the first thread had experienced an interesting though painful situation. Their WSs went to Confession every Saturday, received Communion in church every Sunday, then resumed the A.”

If you remember my post on your original thread, FWW did not resume the VLTA while receiving the sacraments, she continued it unabated. And even while attending RCIA after D-Day 1!

She said she thought God meant them to be together which made anything and everything she wanted OK. Why else would the earth move, you know…

You should check out two books: Torn Asunder by Carder and People of the Lie by Peck. This phenomenon is discussed, to a degree, in both.


BTW, our priest took her to task for this. She had to take RCIA again and she had to spend many hours with him in spiritual counseling before he would let her receive the sacraments again.


With prayers,

I can attest that this is true...My BIL is Catholic, and has MANY times come up to me and told me that our DD7 will go to H E L L because she was not baptized at birth...Okay, maybe this is truly a Catholic belief, but he KNOWS that I am Southern Baptist and do not share his belief...I have NEVER said anything to him regarding Catholicism or tried to convince him that what I believe is "more right" than what he believes...When he says this to me, it makes me ANGRY at him...That is MY child, and I don't wish to hear him say that about her...And it really has left me with a sour taste in my mouth regarding Catholicism, even though I'm not even sure if that is a universal Catholic belief...<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> I hope no one misunderstands this to mean that I don't like Catholics, because that is not true...

Are these the type feelings that you all feel when someone takes "shots" at your belief system?

Mrs. W

Athanasius ~

I haven't read this whole thread, only bits and pieces of it...I am Catholic also, in fact one of my "hobbies" before dday was Catholic Apologetics.

I had to stop reading this thread because FH infuriates me also. He is a strong Catholic basher, and I no longer respond to him and I try not to read any of his posts. He may have a lot of good things to say, but it is all so skewed by his hypocricy and refusal to actually *learn* what the Church teaches; rather he prefers to think *he* knows more about what Catholics believe and why we believe it than we do.

Keep your thread going, put him on ignore if you need to. Like Pep said, it was inappropriate for him to jump in here anyways.

Good for you for looking into all of this now ~ I am not sure if you are married or not, but you are going to be one big step ahead of the Marriage / Affair-proofing / MB concepts than most. And congrats on your new-found Catholicism.

~MF

P.S. I know of some really great apologetics type books / new-to-Catholicism books. I would be happy to email you a list of them off-line if you are interested. You can email me at marriedforever2006@yahoo.com . Oh, there is also an incredible Catholic Family Conference that travels around the country that I can tell you about too. If you're interested, that is. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Mrs. W ~



It's wrong of your BIL to do this, I believe. I would not tell my sister, who is Protestant (not sure which denomination, there are so many!) that my three precious nephews are going to he** because they haven't been baptized! Even if that is what I believed!!

I mean, really, is that going to bring her any closer to wanting to understand, or maybe even one day, rejoin, the Church? Of course not. And, it's just cruel and self-righteous to presume that we know what God's final judgement is going to be. I have enough cr** to deal with down here on earth, I'll leave that kind of judging up to God, thanks very much. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

And yes, I think it's normal to feel angry when someone takes "cheap" shots at your belief system. If he was really, truly concerned about your daughter's salvation, there are many, many better ways for him to express that to you without offending you. IMO, that is. (I feel like I always have to say that).

Thanks MF...What you said makes me feel validated, and I appreciate your taking the time to address it! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Mrs. W

MF, cleaning up few things owned to others before going. You are quite right that you sent me a large email attachment in October which I was unable at the time to spend the amount of time required to respond to. For the sake of others, I will post that attachment here as additional proof of your allegation.

I am sorry that circumstances prevented me from responding beyond my initial response to you.

Suffice it to say that will respect your desire to “ignore me” and not send you any responses event though I might have the time now to do so.


Quote:

Anyways, FH - I could be way off base here, but it sounds to me like you believe that Catholics don't really follow or believe the bible...this is totally and completely WRONG. We believe EVERYTHING in the bible...everything. So, there really is no reason for you to be thinking that anything you are gonna say is going to offend any of us Catholics - we all believe the same thing....that the bible is true. We're on the same playing field, believe it or not (I know you may very well not - most Protestants are shocked to hear that we actually read and believe in the bible! But they are WRONG).


MarriedForever - Okay, I am thrilled to hear you believe in the Bible. But the "problem" will often come from not what the Bible says, but what the RCC leadership says. Let's take the Pope as just one example. According to Catholic teaching, the Pope is infallable and what he says is equivalent to "gospel." The Bible clearly teaches that NO man is without sin and, therefore, infallable.

You are confusing infallibilty with "being without sin"...that is NOT what is meant when we refer to the Pope as being infallible! In addition, we consider the Pope ONLY being infallible when he is sitting "ex cathedra" - that is, on Peter's throne, as the head of the Catholic Church....so, he is only infallible in MATTERS OF THE CHURCH. That is, when the Pope makes a decision REGARDING the church, (for example, if changes need to be made or whatever), THEN and only then is he considered infallible. THAT'S IT! He can't go out and commit murder or any other sin and claim infallibility - that isn't even what infallible means, in the sense of the Catholic Church. Infallibility refers to his decisions regarding church doctrine and/or dogma - and that's it. This is because we believe that the Pope is totally and completely led by and protected by the Holy Spirit, when he is ACTING AS POPE.


Then there is the issue of Purgatory and prayers for the dead. Also unbiblical, but a common practice among Catholics.

Purgatory is a place we believe we are "privileged" to be able to go in order to purge our final sins from us, after death, since the bible very clearly states in Rev. 21:27 that "....Nothing unclean will enter it (heaven)....". How many of us will be totally "clean" from sin when we die, do you think? and then 1Cor. 3:15 "....The person will be saved, but only as through fire." Sounds sort of like some sort of purging is taking place, even as souls are being saved, doesn't it? Some serious cleansing needed to take place, and FIRE is what cleansed....

And Heb. 12:22-23 "No, you have approached Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and countless angels in festal gathering, and the assemly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, and the God the judge of all, and the spirits of the just made perfect." How were these spirits made perfect? It wasn't in heaven, because we already know that nothing unclean shall enter heaven....so, where were they "perfected"? "Purgatory...." (and no, the word Purgatory is not in the bible....it's just described as a "place"...but then again, the word "Trinity" isn't in the bible, either, it also is simply "desribed"....yet you still believe in the Trinity, right?)

And Mark 9:49: Jesus says" Everyone will be salted with fire".....would we be salted with fire in HEAVEN? I don't think so....again, a reference to needing to be completely cleansed before entering heaven.

And 1 Peter 3:19: Speaking of Jesus: "....He also went to preach to the spirits in prison...". I don't think heaven would ever have been referred to as a prison, and if they were in ******, why would Jesus have bothered preaching to them? They must have been somewhere else....

And Mt. 12:32: "...Whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this age or the age to come." Apparently, Jesus taught that SOME sins CAN be forgiven in the "age to come"....when/where is that age to come? It can't be heaven, because nothing unclean shall enter it...and it can't be ******, cuz once you're there, you're there....no turning back. So, in Purgatory, SOME sins can be forgiven.....

There's plenty more, but I think you get the picture...

As far as praying for the dead.....

In Jeremiah 31:15, we see Rachel interceding for their children (Israel). Jeremiah was written during the time of the Babylonian exile hundreds of years after Rachel's death, yet the text says her "voice [was] heard," and her prayers were answered!!!!

Also: Luke 20:36-28, where Jesus is responding to the Saduccees, says that those who die in the Lord "cannot die...they are equal to angels....But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Now he is not God of the DEAD, but of the living; for all live to him". So, while we're praying for those who are physically dead to us, to God and everyone in heaven, they are WAY more alive than we are, PER JESUS'S WORDS!!!!

Ok, now this is gonna get into another discrepancy: the book of Maccabees....after I express my point, I will go back and explain where we got the book(s) of Maccabees from: 2 Maccabees 12:39-45, Judas Maccabeeus comes across some of his fallen comrades' corpses......so he takes up a collection to provide a "sin offering" for the dead and "made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin". (Now, Maccabees was ALWAYS accepted as part of Scripture, as per apostolic tradition....it has ALWAYS been a part of the Catholic bible....in which ALL of the books were canonized per the Catholic Church...yes, all the books in YOUR bible were decided upon by the Catholic Church....why it was taken out of your bible at some point by Protestants, I am not sure...).


Prayers to Mary or the Saints are inappropriate according to Scripture as it teaches us who to pray to and how to pray, and it is to God the Father, in Christ's name. There is ONE mediator between God the Father and Man, and that is Jesus Christ, God the Son.

Now, are you sure you really believe this? If so, then it would also be inappropriate for you to ask others to pray for you....because that is all we are doing when we pray to Mary and/or the saints - we pray to them for intercession only. The kind of prayer that we use towards Mary and the saints DOES NOT INCLUDE WORSHIP....that is totally and completely reserved for God and God alone. When we say we are "praying" to Mary and/or the saints, it is purely to ask them to pray FOR us and WITH us....that's it. And if you think about it, how neat that is: they are sitting RIGHT THERE with God...with Jesus...with the Holy Spirit. Can you imagine the power of all those saintly people PRAYING for you?!?!?! WHILE they are in God's midst?!?!? Awesome!!!

The "Bible" itself is a difference in that the RCC Bible includes the Apocrypha as Canon whereas Protestant Bibles do not, so there is an issue concerning the "authority" of the Bible and what is accepted as God's Word.

Yep, and again.....YOUR bible, all the books in it, were decided upon BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!!!! So just because the Catholic Church decided on some things later (after the Reformation), or Protestants didn't agree that they were divinely inspired, yet chose to accept OTHER books that the Catholic Church had concluded were divinely inspired....doesn't make a ton of sense to me. So the Catholic Church was ok in some decisions regarding the books of the bible, but not in others...????

Transubstantiation is another major difference between Catholics and Protestants.

Yep, a huge difference. We can get into if you want, but that's gonna be a long one:)

And one of the major differences is that the RCC teaches a "faith plus works" type of salvation rather than "by grace alone" as the "traditional" Protestant churches, starting with Martin Luther, believe.

First off, did you know that before Martin Luther, this "teaching" was NEVER HEARD OF? Go back and read some of the early church fathers....Jerome, Tertullian, Augustine....and others, many of whom worked side by side with the apostles....NONE of them believed that they were saved by grace OR faith alone...not one of them. And they were "trained" by the apostles!!!!

Not only that, but we DO believe that we are saved by "grace alone"....that our salvation is purely and totally a gift from God...undeserved and unmerited...we did NOTHING to deserve this gift....but that we are STILL required to do things in order to keep it (we do NOT believe in "once saved, always saved"...because that is NOT in the bible....in fact, quite the opposite: the bible is pretty clear that we CAN indeed lose our salvation): Mt. 7:21-23: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord,Lord", will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?" Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.'" This seems pretty darn clear that Jesus is saying we MUST have works in order to enter the kingdom of heaven....that not everyone who calls him 'Lord' is saved.

And then Jn. 5:29 "...All who are in the tombs will hear his voice and will come out, those who have done good deeds to the resurrection of life, but those who have done wicked deeds to the resurrection of condemnation." Could it be any clearer? We MUST perform “good deeds” in order to come to “the resurrection of life”.

And what about Luke 10: 25-28 " 'Teacher, what must I DO to inherit eternal life?' Jesus said to him, 'What is written in the law? How do you read it?' He said in reply, 'You shall LOVE the Lord, you God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all you mind, and your neighbor as yourself.' He replied to him, 'You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.'" Notice the words I highlighted here..."DO" is an action....the question is not "what must I BELIEVE?".....and the answer is "you must LOVE"....another action....a "good work".

Then we have James 2:14 "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead."

And James 2:24 says, "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone....".

Can't really be more clear than this!!!
To sum it up: we do not believe that we are EARNING salvation: we know that it was purely given as a gift, even as undeserving as we all are…however, in order to KEEP that salvation, and to earn more “jewels in your crown”, or however you want to phrase it, yes, we need to perform good works – just as Jesus did, since we have also been commanded to be imitators of Christ.

So, are you sure you really believe that you are saved by grace alone? (by the way, IF your bible really says that (some Protestant bibles do - others do not), did you know that Martin Luther ADDED the word "alone" after the Reformation? And as far as I know, the bible is pretty darn clear that no one is to be "adding or taking away from" words in Scripture....). Anyways, try envisioning this in your mind...a saved person....happy and glorious and beautifully wallowing in Christ's love...yet NOT doing any good works....what kind of a Christian would they be???? As Christians, we know that we are required to imitate Christ....and He was all about "good works"....would a person truly be "saved", or even "born again" if they had faith, but were not committing ANY good works? And if this is the case, why would the bible refer to "judgment day"? If we're saved purely by grace and/or faith alone, what would God be judging?!?!?!


There are many other differences, but suffice it to say that they are theological differences that "descend" from the "leaders and experts," but that all things should be checked against the Scripture to see if it is "of God" or "of Man."

Yep, right again...and what we believe too:) So why is it different/ok for your Protestant pastors to "interpret" scripture (your "leaders and experts") - to which they ALL interpret it differently - all 33,000 sects of Protestantism that are out there...but not Catholic leaders?!?!?! EVERYTHING we do and believe comes from Scripture....and APOSTOLIC TRADITION (that is, things the apostles did (for example, infant baptism), because they were TRAINED BY CHRIST...because they LIVED WITH HIM and FOLLOWED HIM and LEARNED FROM HIM....and because the bible is also clear that we SHOULD follow tradition;" ....Brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." (2 Thess. 2:15). Again, if you go back and read the early church fathers (the ones TRAINED BY THE APOSTLES), you will see that everything we believe that is outside of the bible, is BECAUSE THE APOSTLES TAUGHT THESE THINGS TO THEIR SUCCESSORS!!!! The bible NEVER says anything about "scripture alone" (sola scriptura)...ever….and so we are privileged enough to have the Catholic Church, which has preserved those traditions that the apostles FIRST employed!!

This concept of sola scriptura is probably one of the most crucial ones to explain….because once you understand WHY we do not believe in sola scriptura, it’s much easier to see where we have gotten our “other” traditions…we can get more into it, but basically we don’t believe in sola scriptura because IT ISN’T SCRIPTURAL!!!! You will not find that concept ANYWHERE in the bible…..and so to then turn around and say that you “only” believe what’s in the bible, and nothing else, kind of goes against the whole concept of sola scriptura ….like, Scripture alone is the supreme authority in every principle of faith…in every belief that we have….EXCEPT in this one, since the bible never says a THING about sola scriptura!!!! Kind of confusing, isn’t it? &#9786;

I really don't think we should get into a theological discussion right now about the differences in beliefs. The issue was raised about "God's Plan" and that's what I'd like to try to restrict the discussion to, with the Scripture as the definitive source for determining what God's Plan is, as He has revealed it to us. You did a very good job of laying the groundwork for "God's Plan" in quoting the Jeremiah 29 passage. Let me add to that God's pronouncement upon the creation of Adam and Eve, that it was "VERY good." God's Plan was for a personal relationship between Adam and Eve and between the two of them and Himself, without sin. That exclusive "threesome" is still God's Plan for marriage, but just like in the Garden, it is Man who decides to "push God out" and run his own "plan."

If you'd like to discuss the differences, however, I'd be willing to entertain an email discussion. If you choose that route, I'd suggest you compose the email in Word, or a similar program, so as not to lose the stuff that might have taken some time to type. I know, it's happened to me too many times when I type as I am now doing, directly into the Reply box and not into Word and then Copy/Paste it into the reply box.

God bless.

--------------------
In Christlike love at all times.


***** Married Forever,

Thanks for the email and the responses. I appreciate
your stating your positions and some reasons for them.
Obviously there is a lot of "ground" there, and I do
want to respond to you and to some of your questions,
so I'll try to find some time to do that. It may take
a while, but I don't think God, or you or me, is going
anywhere soon and a good discussion shouldn't be
hurried anyway.

One point that I may address first (even though it's
not in the order you addressed things) is the concept
you reject of sola scriptura. That is something that
the Scripture DOES speak to, including Jesus Himself,
so I'll probably "tackle" that one first and the
Scripture speak about Scripture.


God bless.

rude
rude
rude

[color:"red"]MarriedForever [/color]



I don't read his stuff either ... but this time ... FH mis-directed a thread that would have helped me personally

and I object <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I also greatly welcome discussions about Catholic practices...

AND
welcome..other posters to say here's what we do...here's what we say etc..

But again foreverher..your Catholic Error Fog siren is screaming..

this post has NOTHING
and I mean N O T H I N G to do with purgatory...

yet there you are ..jamming your scriptural beliefs of Catholic error down people's throats...

to a mass of people who don't want to read it...

I know it's hard for you...
I do believe you mean well...
but people don't want to debate it....
they want to discuss what they believe..

if there was a thread here about Jewish belief..and they were discussing the Book Of Life...and heaven....it would be rude to attempt to tell them of their errors....

yet you do this over and over and over...
to the point that people don't even have the energy to say they are Catholic...

you cause some harm to this board in this arena...

and in your fog you see and believe you are doing lovingly..

but it isn't....

I implore you in Christs love to sit on your hands...
I don't know how else to say it....

you can use us to gather all the error information you will need in the world...

The thing is people don't want to fight with you about this....but you run us over every time we speak or ponder any thing Catholic outloud...

Just the other day I was dying to post about how Saint Peter appeared in my oatmeal.....
and just didn't have stomach to do so...


to mrs. w..your post about mr. w vision hits me to the core.....
I truly believe in the reality of evil on this planet...
in all forms...

scary scary stuff..

and tell your BIL to buzz off....must be great for him to know God's plan in all things...I personally think God has places in [email]He@@[/email] reserved for much other individuals....

ARK

I can come at this from a few different sides. I was a Catholic and as I said to Ant, I will leave open the door for a return to the Church at some time. I will be lead by prayer.
I am currently and have been for the last 8 years calling a non-denominational Church "home."
Catholics have very thin skin. I see it first hand in my dealings with some lay and leadership members each month. In fact, one of the rallying cries of the Church seems to be to cry "anti-Catholic" each time they are brought to task for things that offend. The cry has lost its effectiveness and was never genuine. It smack of the worst that our society has to offer these days... a failure to take responsibility for ones own actions.
The fact that FH calls into question... and he NEVER made demands (how could he!) that anyone see things his way.. things that he feels are problems within the Church is an expression of his true beliefs. I suggest that if you don't want dissenting views that you all take your discussion to a Catholic forum. Does FH come across too strong at times...yep. Does he feel that his interpretation of religion is correct...yep. Is he led by his beliefs to try and spread his view of Gospel to others...yep! Its part of belonging to an evangelical church. Heck... I have seen people outside of Catholic Churches handing out tracts to help bring their view of Scripture to practicing Catholics.... and I have no problem with this... any organization should not crumble under scrutiny or information.
IMHO, the Church is becoming similar to some of the more "cultish" churches out there.... with memebers being instructed to NOT read information which is critical of leadership or teaching. Some of that has been a terrible attempt by the Church to stifle important and accurate information getting into the hands of the members. Sounds a bit like cultish behavior to me. Jehovah Witness comes to mind... they came to my door offering me their info to read and on a return visit when I asked them to read something I had for them... they refused saying it was not permissable.
I do not believe that there is one church that has it right. I know from dealing with the leadership in the Philly region that the RCC is certainly not above question of criticism by anyone. A persons salavtion is in their heart and is defined by their relationship with God.
These boards have become a breeding ground for misinformation. I have been accused of advocating lies by a WS, turning to the "darkside" and becoming an advocate for WS... and at the same time have been accused with vitrol of not accepting any FWS. This has become a place where fact and reason are no longer important. Accuse FH of being overly zealous at times and I will agree. Accuse him of being insensitive at times and I will agree. Accuse him of having bad intentions....of being motivated by something other than trying to educate others about scripture (and BTW... he is VERY knowledgable concerning scripture)...accuse him of demanding others leave the Church...etc... and you have taken it too far.
FH gets slammed on these boards as much or more than a WS... and frankly it is misplaced, and rude, rude, rude.

I'd sure like to discuss my Catholic issues without these interruptions ... if you want to point out thin skin ... how about you start a Catholic-bashing thread so you can do it without disrupting a thread intended to support Catholic marriages?

your opinion about skin, and other things, may be a valid talking point
but don'cha'think that saying this on a thread where we'd like to discuss marriage/sacraments/etc as Catholics ought not be disrupted by insulting generalizations?

If this thread was intended to discuss the teaching of Buddha ... would you interrupt to tell them the relative thickness of their skin?

Pep

FH was given a different thread to discuss his arguements against Catholicism

but he'd rather disrupt what is supposed to be a marriage discussion

and I have slammed FH after months and months of keeping quiet on this issue .... but he really crossed the line here

Pep

Sorry Pep... but frankly I don't need you telling me where to post. I was invited into this discussion and frankly based upon my desire to see the Church improve and to possibly find a reason to return, I think it is okay that I am here. If you don't please put me on ignore.
Are you aware of ANY thread that does not go off on a tangent???? ANY? They all do and all evolve into something beyond the heading...some return...some don't.
And save your [email]Cr@p[/email] about a Catholic bashing thread... I have not and will not bash Catholics. I may at times slam the leadership... but never Catholics. Bwaaaaaaaaa.

God forbid that my presence increase the pain around here.

I don't feel that I'm the source of the negativity and hostility which have more or less ruined my threads. I feel that I was trying hard to create a gentle, caring, supportive environment for the discussion of issues which I am well aware are extremely delicate and painful. My desire to closely manage my own threads in order to create such a safe environment was challenged, slapped down, and ignored.

If other people feel that my presence is a source of pain I will return instantly and forever to lurking.

No... you are a facilitator of discussion. Don't lurk.

Ananasius,

You have very respectfully brought up very emotional issues.

In my case, my husband was going to confession while having an affair. He also was singing in the church choir. He told me a few times of going to confession at odd times -- like driving downtown on a Friday morning to go to confession. I was overwhelmed at the time -- having had major surgery for the complete collapse of my pelvic floor following the birth of our fourth child. I had to be in the hospital five days recovering from that surgery.

What I saw of his struggle at the time, now looking back, is that confession helped to lift the fog a little. He was telling someone else what he was doing. Still, most of his contact was with his lover. He had great pleasure with her, no one else knew what he was doing, and only for a painful few moments would he go to confession to tell another person what he was doing.

He was very abusive to me during the time of the affair. He threw me down once, he choked me three times, he spanked me in front of our children, and just 12 days after that pelvice floor surgery he broke my arm.

I believe, looking back, that he was unclear about who was to blame for what he was doing. After he broke my arm, he met with his lover and told her he felt embarassed. There is a connotation with ebarassment that you are dealing with a situation you find yourself in but for which you are not responsible. When he started anger management after breaking my arm, the focus was on shame. Shame is about feeling responsible for being a bad person. What confession focuses on is guilt, feeling bad for choices you have made and for which you are responsible.

Although confession did not get my husband away from his lover completely, he did have a two-month gap in his eight-month affair, and that gap started after he went to confession. I remember the weekend well. He seemed very different.

My husband chose evil, great evil, and part of the choice that he made was to decide "I had no choice but to have an affair." I believe that confession helped to clear the fog -- maybe not enough to end the affair but enough to create an occasional sense of guilt.

Cherishing

This board assembles people who've seen everything that can possibly go wrong in a marriage....and some who've succeeded in fixing them. I think they know a lot more -- through agonizing experience -- about how marriages work and fail than people who've been more-or-less happily married and faithful their whole lives.

I had the impression that each poster started his or her own thread which was focused on resolving the problems of that poster. I thought I might risk starting one of my own to explore an intellectual and speculative problem.

Which problem I am apparently incapable of explaining clearly!

I wish to learn about more subtle aspects of the dynamics of marriage. Essentially I have a hypothesis about my intellectual problem which I wish to explore. The posters here are the ones with the data.

I'm not looking at openly Catholic sources because of the problem of credibility. I want data from people who are NOT completely intellectual committed beforehand to the doctrines in question....in order to see to what extent these beliefs correspond with or differ from human nature in an area of which I have no experience.

[extraordinarily long reply by ForeverHers to my angry reaction to his questioning my integrity]

ForeverHers,

This should have been posted on "The Arguing about Religion Thread."

I apologize, but I will no longer reply to anything you post on this thread.

Participants in my thread, I know that the kind of help I am looking for is unusual for this board. I feel it impossible to get this help if ForeverHers continues to participate or if the other participants reply to him here. Please post any replies to ForeverHers on "The Arguing about Religion Thread."

Thank you.

Thank you for posting Cherishing.

I had a sinking feeling that you were the only one who had actually lived through the situation I described and that if you didn't come the thread would have been pointless.

Did you see Ark's concern about my activities? Is discussing this painful for you?

If it's OK to ask something....

One aspect of the Fog is the surprising devaluation of the whole M....I figure this is a self-justification. The unarticulated thought behind this effect seems to be: "The M was a mistake from the beginning so I had the right to an A...." Did this happen to you as badly as others report? Did the temporary fog-clearing perhaps help keep the memory of your M from transforming into a completely negative thing in your WH's mind?