The message of the book of Romans(2)
Lamarr Edwards
initiative of Grace.
Paul uses the term "Grace" 22 times in this letter.
It refers to Gods free acceptance of human beings apart from any
achievement.
Paul proclaims that Grace is a gift (3:24) that brings believers
justification or righteousness (5:16) and eternal life (5:21) Although
it rules out all works or achievements as the basis for human salvation
(11:6), it is not a license for irresponsible action (6: 1,15)
It becomes the atmosphere in which Christians now stand (5:2) that
allows them to live in peace with God, and have hope.
No other term does a better job of capturing Pauls core conviction That
Christians' only hope and grounds for salvation is Gods loving
initiative to save them apart from any achievement of their own."
A Guide to the Book of Romans, Dr. John C. Brunt, Chairman, Dept. of
Theology, Walla Walla University, Pacific Press, 1996
Teresita
shmo...@webtv.net says...
>
>" The universal provision for salvation comes to humans through Gods
>initiative of Grace.
>Paul uses the term "Grace" 22 times in this letter.
>
>It refers to Gods free acceptance of human beings apart from any
>achievement.
Even human beings who don't achieve attendance at an SDA kingdom hall on
Saturday or what have you.
Paul
"Teresita" <tere...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:aos8r...@drn.newsguy.com...
Teresita,
I mean no disrespect, but sometimes you appear fixated on Adventist theology
even more than some of us Adventists. Nothing in this post was even related
to what you have posted. Why?
Paul
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Frank M.
Perhaps you are getting some things confused. SDAs attend a church much
like any other Protestant denomination albeit, on Saturday instead of
Sunday. You are perhaps confusing them with the cult of Jehovah's Witnesses
whose churches are called Kingdom Halls. Believe me their theologies are
worlds apart.
In Christ,
Frank
EW
"Frank M." <spam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:czns9.3944$071.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> Perhaps you are getting some things confused. SDAs attend a church much
> like any other Protestant denomination albeit, on Saturday instead of
> Sunday. You are perhaps confusing them with the cult of Jehovah's
Witnesses
> whose churches are called Kingdom Halls. Believe me their theologies are
> worlds apart.
>
Frank,
I don't understand your use of the word "cult" in your negative reference to
the JWs. I'm quite sure they feel they are worshipping God as best they
can -- or they wouldn't do so at all! Perhaps you think that the practice
of your religion is better than others', right? If so, what gives you that
feeling of superiority, other than the self-authority of saying that your
interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one?
EW
Frank M.
"EW" <ewyatt...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:aov69j$qat38$1...@ID-36342.news.dfncis.de...
founder Charles Taze Russell and the continuing authority of the Watchtower.
The authority of Russell and Watchtower is believed to be equal or superior
to the Bible. I would number the JWs and the Mormons as cults of
Christianity based on similar reasons.
Why do you feel the need to question my use of the word "cult?" Perhaps you
think that your understanding of religion is superior to everyone else's.
If so, what gives you that feeling of superiority, other than the
self-authority of saying that no interpretation of the Bible is the correct
one?
In Christ,
Frank
Doug
those who leave are shunned, and those who convert are ordered to sever ties
with family members who don't. I worked with a guy who's wife became a JW, and
the story he told was truly a nightmare. He ended up losing his wife, his
kids, his job, and his house because he wouldn't convert. There are plenty of
stories like his out there. That makes them a cult.
Doug
Ruth Rush
Have you read the book, "The Mystery of Romans" by Mark D. Nanos ?
Also I didn't see your "The Message of the book of Romans (1).
Ruth
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Oct 18, 2002, 4:30pm (EDT-3) From: shmo...@webtv.net (Lamarr Edwards)
Lamarr Edwards
for you in the next day or two.
No, I have not read the book you mention. LE
Lamarr Edwards
SDA"s worship on the sabbath, in churches, JW's worship on sunday, in
kingdom halls. LE
Lamarr Edwards
arminians, and have some very unique beliefs, however personally, I
wouldn't refer to them as a cult. LE
Lamarr Edwards
with "worldly" people.
They take as the authority for this Pauls position about associating
with "nonbelievers" and a couple of other statements he makes that
compels them to be very clannish.
Although they are quite friendly with non JW's, they do not develop
close relationships with them.
Those that have left the denomination are truly their boogeymen (or
women!). They are shunned. They may attend "services", but no members
will speak to them. This holds true for any who have left or been
disfellowshipped, and this carries right into families.
They easily forgive those who want to come back however.
Your story re the converted wife is a little surprizing to me. In
discussing this type of situation with them, in the past, they again
quote Paul where he talks about a believer married to a non believer,
and essentially says that it must be accepted.
However, with the pressures they would put on one spouse, to attend
their various meetings and do their "missionary work", I could see
problems in a marriage. I have no doubt that if there would be problems
in this kind of a marriage, that the whole congregation would rally
round the member, and really agitate the situation.
I have heard of the same conflicts in mormon non mormon marriages, and
catholic non catholic marriages, I have not looked at these accusations
in any detail, so I take no position on them. LE
Lamarr Edwards
of their founders as some kind of an authority.
You are correct however in that they have some form of faith "in the
society".
It is extremely difficult to pin them down on the matter. Does the
society speak with the authority of scripture?, they say no.
Does the society interpret scripture for its members, apparently so.
However, don't all denominations have some form of organizational
committees or councils that make certain statements about what beliefs
the denomination believes ?
Adventism is in either a form of meltdown, or purification, depending
ypon your viewpoint, about its teachings and beliefs. Many within the
church have various beliefs, not always in harmony, which I think is a
productive situation.
However, there are many who have left, to create a more Adventist than
true Adventist congregation, you see their influence here.
The JW's to prevent such a situation, al.low you to believe whatever you
want, but you dare not express anything out of harmony with the position
of "the society". You either must recant, or be cast out.
One thing that I have found interesting about the JW's is that they do
not claim infallibiliity for "the society". What they do claim is that
if the society is in error, the society will admit that error in time,
as the true interpreter of Gods word. Thus, they avoid some of the
problems that the Adventists might have with EGW and the view of some
that she is an infallible prophet.
Anyway, sorry to be wordy, but I have studied the JW's for some years,
and find their belief structure most interesting. I also find very
interesting that they grew out of what would become Adventism.
Because of its tolerance, and encouraging growth in the area of
reexamining beliefs, I find Adventism to be very healthy, although the
process makes them very scrappy.
The JW's, by design, deny this kind of growth, being out of step, is
never tolerated by them.
That doesn't mean that all of their views have no validity. I have
found some of their beliefs to make some sense. LE
ResLight
>
> What defines them as a cult is their belief in the authority of their
> founder Charles Taze Russell and the continuing authority of the
Watchtower.
Russell was not the founder of the JW organization, nor did he believe in
such an organization, nor did he believe in what is being taught by the JWs.
Rutherford formed the JW organization after Russell died, forcing a split
between the Bible Students who did not accept Rutherford's new organization
and teachings and those who did not accept them. Thus the Bible Students
have continued in existence to this day totally separate from the JWs.
http://reslight.addr.com/l-russell.html
http://reslight.addr.com/l-jws.html
> The authority of Russell and Watchtower is believed to be equal or
superior
> to the Bible.
While Russell did say that the *Studies in the Scriptures* "are practically
the Bible topically arranged", he goes on to say: "This is not, therefore,
putting the SCRIPTURE STUDIES as a substitute for the Bible, because so far
as substituting for the Bible, the STUDIES, on the contrary, continually
refer to the Bible; and if one has any doubt as to a reference or if one's
recollection should lapse in any degree, one should refresh his memory, and,
in fact, should see that his every thought is in harmony with the Bible --
not merely in accord with the SCRIPTURE STUDIES, but in accord with the
Bible." -- Both quotes from the same article that appeared in the ZWT of
September 15, 1910. entitled: *IS THE READING OF "SCRIPTURE STUDIES" BIBLE
STUDY?*
http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/r4684.htm
> would number the JWs and the Mormons as cults of
> Christianity based on similar reasons.
>
The true cult (true worship) teaches that you must belong to Christ to be of
seed of Abraham, and that one must worship the Father, Yahweh, in spirit and
truth. -- John 4:24; Galatians 3;29.
I once posted the following in another newsgroup concerning the usage of the
word "cult" as applied to the Bible Student movement:
Main Entry: cult
Pronunciation: 'k<
Function: noun
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration,
from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL
Date: 1617
Usage: often attributive
1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents 3
: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of
adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its
promulgator
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film
or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual
fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
The basic meaning of the word "cult" is "worship."
Definition #1 certainly applies to the Bible Students, as they do believe in
worshiping Almighty God. This is in agreement with Jesus also.
Accepting the definition of religion as a form of worship, definition #2
also applies, as Bible Students adhere to the Bible for guidance in
religious beliefs, ritual, etc. Likewise Jesus advocated a form of worship,
worship in spirit and truth.
Definition #3 would apply, as it could apply to any religious group, for I
suppose that every religious group has some other religious group that
regards them as unorthodox or spurious. It would certainly apply to the
teachings of Jesus, as the Jewish 'orthodoxy' of that time wanted to kill
him for what he believed.
Definition #4 applies, as Bible Students believe that God through Christ and
church will heal all the nations as set forth in the Bible, although Bible
Students as a group do not believe that is the mission of the church in this
age. This Jesus also believed.
Definition #5 applies, as Bible Students believe in great devotion to God
through Jesus. Jesus definitely advocated devotion to himself and obedience
to his commands.
Christian love,
Ronald
http://reslight.addr.com/biblestudents.html
Teresita
shmo...@webtv.net says...
>One thing that I have found interesting about the JW's is that they do
>not claim infallibiliity for "the society". What they do claim is that
>if the society is in error, the society will admit that error in time,
>as the true interpreter of Gods word. Thus, they avoid some of the
>problems that the Adventists might have with EGW and the view of some
>that she is an infallible prophet.
Which of these infallible EGW quotes are true?
"When obliged to declare the message, I would often soften them down, and make
them appear as favorable for the individual as I could. . . It was hard to
relate the plain, cutting testimonies given me of God" ("Testimonies," Vol. I.,
p. 73).
"I take back nothing. I soften nothing to suit their ideas, or to excuse their
defects of character." ("Testimonies," Vol. V., p. 19)
Doug
>catholic non catholic marriages, I have not looked at these accusations
>in any detail, so I take no position on them. LE
>
Actually, Catholic to non-Catholic marriages are becoming the norm. I only
have one brother and one sister who married Catholics, out of 6 siblings
married. And I'm not married to a Catholic. The Church allows it, and says
that the spouse shouldn't be pressured to join the Church.
Doug
Russell G.
of context. In context they are more than likely true.
It would be like me taking the quote from the Bible
regarding Judas' death and then mixing it with another
quote.
"He went out and hanged himself."
"Go thou and do likewise."
Are both true? Yes. Do they both relate to one
another? Definitely not.
God bless,
Russell G.
"Teresita" <tere...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ap1eh...@drn.newsguy.com...
Cynthia
"Doug" <happy...@cs.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20021021014052...@mb-ca.news.cs.com...
: I think the JW's would fit the definition of a cult based on the fact
I'm sorry for having to copy and paste your other post here, but it
didn't appear in my server, I got it off Newzbot:
Doug wrote:
"Actually, Catholic to non-Catholic marriages are becoming the norm. I
only
have one brother and one sister who married Catholics, out of 6 siblings
married. And I'm not married to a Catholic. The Church allows it, and
says
that the spouse shouldn't be pressured to join the Church."
I do not see how you can think things are so easy Doug, according to the
CCC and the Catholic encyclopedia it's not. Maybe it's because you and
your brothers and sisters were Catholic and just took it for granted
that these things were no big deal, since you did not have to give in
and compromise as your spouses did.
My Brother a former SDA is married to a Catholic and before they could
get married he was asked to sign papers that any children from their
marriage would be raised Catholic. He also had to jump through alot of
other hoops. They could not get married outside where they wanted,
because the marriage had to be on sanctified ground. Conversion of the
non Catholic is expected to follow. My brother is not Catholic, but
attends Mass now. All of the children are baptised Catholics, and have
had their first communion except for my niece, the baby, she's not old
enough yet.
I am curious, are your Children baptised and being raised Catholic, or
Seventh day Adventist? Where does your wife go to Church? Do you attend
the Seventh Day Adventist Church with her? How do you resolve this
difference in beliefs?
~ Cindy
From the CCC:
1635 According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage
needs for liceity the express permission of ecclesiastical
authority.[135] In case of disparity of cult an express dispensation
from this impediment is required for the validity of the marriage.[136]
This permission or dispensation presupposes that both parties know and
do not exclude the essential ends and properties of marriage and the
obligations assumed by the Catholic party concerning the baptism and
education of the children in the Catholic Church.[137]
1637 In marriages with disparity of cult the Catholic spouse has a
particular task: "For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his
wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband."[138]
It is a great joy for the Christian spouse and for the Church if this
"consecration" should lead to the free conversion of the other spouse to
the Christian faith.[139] Sincere married love, the humble and patient
practice of the family virtues, and perseverance in prayer can prepare
the non-believing spouse to accept the grace of conversion.
From the Catholic encyclopedia:
Mixed Marriage
(Latin Matrimonia mixta).
Technically, mixed marriages are those between Catholics and
non-Catholics, when the latter have been baptized in some Christian
sect. The term is also frequently employed to designate unions between
Catholics and infidels. From the very beginning of its existence the
Church of Christ has been opposed to such unions. As Christ raised
wedlock to the dignity of a Sacrament, a marriage between a Catholic and
a non-Catholic was rightly looked upon as degrading the holy character
of matrimony, involving as it did a communion in sacred things with
those outside the fold. The Apostle St. Paul insists strongly on
Christian marriage being a symbol of the union between Christ and His
Church, and hence sacred. The very intimacy of the union necessarily
established between those joined in wedlock requires a concordance above
all in their religious sentiments. Holding this doctrine, it was but
natural and logical for the Church to do all in her power to hinder her
children from contracting marriage with those outside her pale, who did
not recognize the sacramental character of the union on which they were
entering (see Marriage). Hence arose the impediments to a marriage with
a heretic (mixta religio) and with an infidel (disparitas cultus). As
regards marriage with an infidel, the early Church did not consider such
unions invalid, especially when a person had been converted to the faith
after such marriage. It was hoped that the converted wife or husband
would be the means of bringing the other party to the knowledge of the
true faith, or at least safeguarding the Catholic upbringing of the
children of the union. This held even for Jews, though the Church was
naturally more opposed to wedlock between them and Christians, even than
with pagans, owing to the intense Jewish hatred for the sacred name of
Christ. By degrees, however, the objection to a marriage between a
Catholic and an infidel grew stronger as the necessity for such unions
decreased, and so in the course of time, more by custom than by positive
enactment, the impediment of disparitas cultus making such marriages
null and void began to have force. When the Decretum of Gratian was
published in the twelfth century, this impediment was recognized as a
diriment one and it became part of the canon law of the Church.
(Decretum Grat., c. 28, q. 1.) From that time forward, all marriages
contracted between Catholics and infidels were held to be invalid unless
a dispensation for such union had been obtained from the ecclesiastical
authority. Marriages, however, between Catholics and heretics were not
subject to the same impediment. They were held as valid, though illicit
if a dispensation mixtæ religionis had not been obtained. The opposition
of the Church to such unions is, however very ancient, and early
councils, legislated against marriages of this character. Such
enactments are found in the fourth century Councils of Elvira (can. 16)
and of Laodicea (can. 10, 31.). The General Council of Chalcedon (can.
14) prohibits such unions especially between members of the lower
ecclesiastical grades and heretical women. While the Western Church
forbade these marriages, it did not declare them invalid. In the Eastern
Church, however, the seventh century Council in Trullo, declared
marriages between Catholics and heretics null and devoid (can. 72), and
this discipline has since been maintained in the Greek Schismatical
Church. The latter has also shown itself opposed to marriages between
members of the Orthodox Church and Catholics, and in Russia various laws
were passed ordering that such marriages be not permitted unless the
children of the union are to be brought up as schismatics.
The advent of Protestantism in the sixteenth century renewed the problem
of mixed marriages in a heightened degree. The danger of perversion for
the Catholic party or for the children, and the almost certain
unhappiness awaiting the members of such unions caused more stringent
legislation on the part of the Church. This was emphasized by the
impediment of clandestinity enacted by the Council of Trent. We say
enacted by the Council of Trent, because from the twelfth century the
validity of clandestine marriages had been recognized by the Church.
This was not, however, the original discipline, for it had anciently
been looked on as proper for Christians to contract marriages only in
facie Ecclesiae (Tertullian, De Pudic. c. 4). Marriages contracted
otherwise were held as null and void by various decrees of the Roman
Emperors of the East and capitularies of French Kings, and the same is
evident from the False Decretals. The Council of Trent therefore in
declaring all matrimonial unions between Catholics and non-Catholics
null and void, unless entered into before the ecclesiastical authority,
was rather inaugurating a return to the old discipline existent before
the twelfth century than making an entirely new law. By its decree the
Council requires the contract to be entered into before the parish
priest or some other priest delegated by him, and in the presence of two
or three witnesses under penalty of invalidity. Marriages otherwise
contracted are called clandestine marriages. The Church did not find it
possible, however, to insist on the rigour of this legislation in all
countries owing to strong Protestant opposition. Indeed, in many
countries, it was not found advisable to promulgate the decrees of the
Council of Trent at all, and in such countries the impediment of
clandestinity did not obtain. Even in countries where the Tametsi (q.v.)
decree had been published, serious difficulties arose. As a consequence
Pope Benedict XIV, choosing the lesser of two evils, issued a
declaration concerning marriages in Holland and Belgium (Nov. 4, 1741),
in which he declared mixed unions to be valid, provided they were
according to the civil laws, even if the Tridentine prescriptions had
not been observed. A similar declaration was made concerning mixed
marriages in Ireland by Pope Pius, in 1785, and gradually the
"Benedictine dispensation" was extended to various localities. The
object of the Council of Trent in issuing its decree had been partly to
deter Catholics from such marriages altogether, and partly to hinder any
communion in sacred things with heretics. By degrees, however, the Popes
felt constrained to make various concessions for mixed marriages, though
they were always careful to guard the essential principles on which the
Church found her objections to such unions. Thus Pius VI allowed mixed
marriages in Austria to take place in the presence of a priest, provided
no religious solemnity was employed, and with the omission of public
banns, as evidence of the unwillingness of the Church to sanction such
unions. Similar concessions were later made, first for various states of
Germany, and then for other countries.
Another serious difficulty arose for the Church where the civil laws
prescribed that in mixed marriages the boys born of the union should
follow the religion of the father and the girls that of the mother.
Without betraying their sacred trust, the popes could never sanction
such legislation, but in order to avoid greater evils they permitted in
some states of Germany a passive assistance on the part of the parish
priest at marriages entered into under such conditions. As to a mixed
marriage contracted before a non-Catholic minister, Pope Pius IX issued
an instruction, 17 Feb., 1864. He declared that in places where the
heretical preacher occupied the position of a civil magistrate and the
laws of the country required marriages to be entered into before him in
order that certain legal effects may follow, it is permitted to the
Catholic party to appear before him either before or after the marriage
has taken place in prescence of the parish priest. If, however, the
heretical minister is held to be discharging a religious duty in such
witnessing of a marriage, then it is unlawful for a Catholic to renew
consent before him as this would be a communion in sacred things and an
implicit yielding to heresy. Parish priests are also reminded that it is
their strict duty to tell Catholics who ask for information that such
going before a minister in a religious capacity is unlawful and that
they thereby subject themselves to ecclesiastical censure. Where,
however, the priest is not asked, and he has reason to fear that his
admonitions will prove unavailing, he may keep his peace provided there
be no scandal and the other conditions required by the Church be
fulfilled. When a Catholic party has gone before an heretical minister
before coming to the parish priest, the latter cannot be present at the
marriage until full reparation has been made. For the issuing of a
dispensation for a mixed marriage, the Church requires three conditions;
that the Catholic party be allowed free exercise of religion, that all
the offspring are to be brought up Catholics and that the Catholic party
promise to do all that is possible to convert the non-Catholic. It is
not to be supposed, however, that even when these precautions have been
taken, this is all the suffices for the issuance of a dispensation. In
an instruction to the Bishops of England, 25 March 18698, the
Congregation of the Propaganda declared that the above conditions are
exacted by the natural and divine law to remove the intrinsic dangers in
mixed marriages, but that in addition there must e some grave necessity,
which cannot otherwise be avoided, for allowing the faithful to expose
themselves to the grave dangers inherent in these unions, even when the
prescribed conditions have been fulfilled. The bishops are therefore to
warn Catholics against such marriages and not to grant dispensations for
them except for weightly reasons and not at the mere will of the
petitioner. The latest legislation affecting mixed marriages is that of
the decree Ne temere which went into effect 18 April, 1908. By this
decree all marriages everywhere in the Latin Church between Catholics
and non-Catholics are invalid unless they take place in the presence of
an accredited priest and two witnesses, and this even in countries where
the Tridentine law was not binding. By a later decree, Provida, The Holy
See exempted Germany from the new legislation. (See Clandestinity:
Disparity of Worship; Dispensation; Sacrament of Marriage).
APPENDIX: LATER DECISIONS OF THE HOLY OFFICE
Since the article on this subject was written, the following decisions
have been issued by the Congregation of the Holy Office, 21 June, 1913.
The dispensation from the impediment of disparity is never to be granted
except with all the explicit guarantees or safeguards. If granted, it is
not valid, and the ordinary can declare the nullity in such cases,
without recourse to the Holy See for a definitive sentence. The
prescription of the Decree "Ne Temere" on the asking and receiving by
the parish-priest, for the validity of marriage, of the consent of the
parties, in mixed marriages in which due guarantees are obstinately
refused by them, henceforth does not apply, but strict observance is to
be paid to preceding concessions and instructions of the Holy See on the
subject, especially of Pope Gregory XVI, Apostolical Letter, 30 April,
1841, to the Bishops of Hungary.
Paul
concerning them. It caused me great distress to see others troubled or
grieved. And when obliged to declare the messages, I would often soften them
down, and make them appear as favorable for the individual as I could, and
then would go by myself and weep in agony of spirit. I looked upon those who
seemed to have only their own souls to care for, and thought if I were in
their condition I would not murmur. It was hard to relate the plain, cutting
testimonies given me of God. I anxiously watched the result, and if the
persons reproved rose up against the reproof, and afterward opposed the
truth, these queries would arise in my mind: Did I deliver the message just
as I should?
Could there not have been some way to save them? And then such distress
pressed upon my soul that I often felt that death would be a welcome
messenger, and the grave a sweet resting-place.
I did not realize that I was unfaithful in thus questioning and
doubting, and did not see the danger and sin of such a course, until in
vision I was taken into the presence of Jesus. He looked upon me with a
frown, and turned His face from me. It is not possible to describe the
terror and agony I then felt. I fell upon my face before Him, but had no
power to utter a word. Oh, how I longed to be covered and hid from that
dreadful frown! Then could I realize, in some degree, what the feelings of
the lost will be when they cry to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us, and
hide us from the face of Him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath
of the Lamb." Revelation 6:16. {CET 79.1}
Perhaps the entire quote above will clear things up for you. This type of
nonsense does not win you any points. If you have objections to your
Adventist relatives take it out on them. If you wish for true debate then
be honest in what you quote.
Paul
"Teresita" <tere...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ap1eh...@drn.newsguy.com...
Teresita
>Perhaps the entire quote above will clear things up for you. This type of
>nonsense does not win you any points. If you have objections to your
>Adventist relatives take it out on them. If you wish for true debate then
>be honest in what you quote.
Err, hate to do this, but I'm very sensitive. I think you can go sit over there
with John W in Lake Ignora.
Doug
>I'm sorry for having to copy and paste your other post here, but it
>didn't appear in my server, I got it off Newzbot:
>
>Doug wrote:
>"Actually, Catholic to non-Catholic marriages are becoming the norm. I
>only
>have one brother and one sister who married Catholics, out of 6 siblings
>married. And I'm not married to a Catholic. The Church allows it, and
>says
>that the spouse shouldn't be pressured to join the Church."
>
>I do not see how you can think things are so easy Doug, according to the
>CCC and the Catholic encyclopedia it's not. Maybe it's because you and
>your brothers and sisters were Catholic and just took it for granted
>that these things were no big deal, since you did not have to give in
>and compromise as your spouses did.
>
What makes you say that? That's quite an assumption. I don't want to go into
the details of my marriage here on the internet for the whole world to see, but
I can assure you it's not the case. It's not easy at all. The emphasis I
intended was that the non-Catholic spouse should not be pressured to join the
Church. Of my brothers and sisters, only two were married in the Catholic
Church. Of those, one married an atheist. That fact has been difficult for
my sister. They've been married about fifteen years now. Their son is being
raised Catholic, but it's hard to do that when Dad doesn't attend Church and
doesn't support a religious upbringing in any way. The other spouse I haven't
met. My sister lives a long way from me and I wasn't able to attend the
wedding. They haven't been married very long.
Of the others, I have one brother who eloped with his spouse. He now realizes
that as a mistake. He was away from the Church and had had refused
confirmation, but has since returned, and his wife has converted was well.,
praise the Lord! She actually received the sacrament of confirmation before he
did. They have since had their marriage blessed by the Church. This brings up
an interesting point. Under Church law, as long as both spouses intend a
life-long union and intend to have children within that marriage, the marriage
is valid. It doesn't matter what denomination either or both spouses are.
It's a valid marriage. Marriage is a sacrament that the spouses confer upon
each other, and the priest is merely a witness. Valid is not the same as
licit. Licit means that the proper form of the wedding has been followed. It
follows Church Law. This normally means that it has been conducted in the
presence of a priest or deacon, the proper ritual has been followed, and it has
been held in a Church. So my brother's marriage wasn't licit, but it was
valid. On the other hand, if one of my sisters married within the Church, but
her spouse had deceived her, such as not intending the marriage to be
permanent, or not being open to children, such a marriage, while licit,
wouldn't be valid. She could obtain an annullment from such a marriage. There
are numerous other factors involved, which I don't presently have time to get
into. It could take a long time to write and to read.
My other brothers and sisters are no longer practicing any religion at all.
Their marriages were civil ceremonies. We do not shun them, however, and we
don't refuse to accept their spouses. We love them, we love their spouses, and
we love their children. We pray for their conversion. Catholicism is not
forced upon anybody. Emotional blackmail is coersion, and is not to be used.
Either they accept it or they don't, and if they don't, they are still to be
loved, just as if they had accepted it.
>My Brother a former SDA is married to a Catholic and before they could
>get married he was asked to sign papers that any children from their
>marriage would be raised Catholic. He also had to jump through alot of
>other hoops. They could not get married outside where they wanted,
I would like to point out that your brother had to agree to all of this before
the marriage took place. Had he not agreed to it, either they could have not
gotten married, or they could have gotten married outside the Catholic Church.
It's not something he "had" to do, but something he chose to do.
>because the marriage had to be on sanctified ground. Conversion of the
>non Catholic is expected to follow. My brother is not Catholic, but
>attends Mass now. All of the children are baptised Catholics, and have
>had their first communion except for my niece, the baby, she's not old
>enough yet.
>
A couple of points. It's not the ground that's considered important, but the
setting. Marriage is considered a sacrament. Therefore the setting must be
sacramental. This means a church building. Second, if your brother attends
Mass, it's his choice to do so.
>I am curious, are your Children baptised and being raised Catholic, or
>Seventh day Adventist? Where does your wife go to Church?
For a long time, neither of us went to Church at all. When we married I was
going to college and working two jobs. I wasn't a good Catholic then. I had
refused confirmation as a teen ager, and was just looking into returning to the
Church. She soon became pregnant, and with no medical insurance, I ended up
working three jobs while continuing to go to school. Don't ask me how I did
it. I don't know. It involved 20 hour days, seven days a week. by the time
my wife was pregnant with our second child, I was still going to school, and
again working three jobs. This time, I worked 20 hour days five days a week,
and 24 hour days 2 days a week. I went completely without sleep two nights a
week for many months. It's all a blur to me now. Needless to say, my faith
suffered. I never went to Church now. Neither did my wife, although she did
not work. I later came to think that many things that happened during that
time happened because she wanted to keep me from returning to the Catholic
Church, whether it was a conscious decision or not. For example, I tried to
keep a rosary in my pocket at all times, so I could pray the Rosary whenever an
opportunity arose, and I never kept them anyplace else, but four of them
disappeared. To make a long story short, after eight years of marriage, I
finally returned to the Church, recieved Confirmation, and got my kids
baptized.
Do you attend
>the Seventh Day Adventist Church with her? How do you resolve this
>difference in beliefs?
>
I have never attended a Seventh Day Adventist Church. Neither she nor my
in-laws have ever invited me to attend. They have merely condemned
Catholicism, without offering me any other way to Christ. I think they didn't
offer me any other way to Christ because they couldn't answer my objections to
their attacks, even though my knowledge and faith in Catholicism was very weak
at the time, so weak that I wasn't actually a practicing Catholic. My wife is
not a Catholic, and is usually unwilling to discuss religion with me. We've
been married eleven years now. This year, she entered the RCIA program,
entirely on her own. Whether she'll choose to enter the Church, I do not know.
It's between her and the Holy Spirit. She hasn't attended an SDA Church in
many years. She started attending Mass this year.
The rest will have to wait. It's late, I'm tired, and I have to get up early.
Doug
Cynthia
To clarify one thing , yes my brother is responsible for his own
choices. I do not agree, but that doesn't stop us from loving each
other, or interfere with my friendship with my sister-in -law We have a
large opinionated family, (there are seven more brothers and sisters)
and we discuss and debate everything, somehow no one ever gets angry.
This is the only subject that is off limits, in our family now, he made
that clear after he actually committed himself to doing what he had
promised to do before they got married, so it helps to understand how
others feel and think. You supplied a answer with more detail than I
expected, but I very much appreciated it. Thank you for taking the time
to answer.
God bless,
Cindy
"
Paul
that you wish to be treated with. Be kind, honest, and open and you will
find many people responding in kind. Don't expect to be treated sensitively
if you are going to constantly jab and poke at others. This is the very
thing you find offensive about Seventh-day Adventists. You have become just
like what you hate.
Paul
"Teresita" <tere...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ap2j4...@drn.newsguy.com...