Divorce or premarital Sex?

[irishpipes]

This doctrine, which has no basis in Scripture, first appeared in the early 9th century A.D., was formalized at the Council of Trent (A.D. 1545-63), and was reaffirmed at the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).

RACooper already addressed this somewhat, but I'd like to add that the Catholic Mass does not come from scripture entirely, we also rely on tradition. There is a great reason. The bible was not canonized until the 4th century, which is 300 some years after the Catholic Church began. Some traditions go back to before the time of the Bible. Also, the Catholic Church canonized the bible, so to suggest that the Catholic religion is contrary to the Bible is incorrect.

Further, most of the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic or Greek, and then later translated to Greek then Latin and much later to German, English, etc. Some liberties have been taken in these translations. (Anyone who has studied a foreign language or is multi-lingual will understand that some words have no translation.) So, Catholics do not rely solely on an English Bible, as to do so would be incorrect.

Finally, the doctrine of transubstantiation absolutely has basis in scripture. Jesus often spoke in parables to make his points. At the last supper, however, Jesus clearly stated that, "this IS my body and this IS my blood, do this is memory of me." He couldn't have been more clear. The eucharistic prayer in the Catholic Mass is based entirely on the words of Christ at the last supper. Catholics believe that when a priest, in the context of Mass, prays these words over the bread and wine, the intervention of the Holy Spirit indeed changes them into the very Body and Blood of Christ, as we believe He intended with His words at the last supper. Catholics would argue that you don't get much more scripturally based than the last supper.

[irishpipes]

So one of the major things Catholics seem to really "enjoy" (for lack of a better term) is also a 'man-made' idea basically

In response to this I would also add that it seems that you are suggesting that the only "real" or "true" religion would be one in which God Himself came down and created. That way there would be no question as to how things should be done, etc.

So, I would say that Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of heaven, and told him that whatever he should bind on earth would be bound in heaven, and whatever he should loose on earth would be loosed in heaven. Jesus also stated the "you are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church." Catholics interpret this to mean that the church as instituted by Christ through Peter is not man-made at all, but divinely inspired through Christ's will.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by xo_kathy
Totally off the sex/divorce topic, but I find this so odd. I hear of so many Catholics who say there are lots of things they don't agree with, but they "choose" it anyway. Now, I understand it might be a little hard to decide "Never mind, Jesus isn't the savior" and convert to a non-Christian religion - though I know people do. But often the things that Catholics don't "like" about their religion are things I think of as being more "liberal". So I guess I often wonder what it is that the other, more liberal denominations DO stand for that the Catholic folks don't like. Hmmm, GeelyPenguin would be a good mind to pick about this...

You paged?

The biggest reason I have remained Catholic over any other religion is that I am incredibly opposed to evangelism. It's not appropriate. The first time my boyfriend (son of a very conservative Protestant minister) came to a Mass with me the priest gave a sermon about how Catholics evangelize through their actions rather than their words. He was absolutely boggled by that because he grew up in a home where you were expected to tell everybody about Jesus all the time.

I would be really happy to answer specific questions that you have.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
I would be really happy to answer specific questions that you have.

Say you're having sex and you don't finish, is it a sin for either partner?

-Rudey
--In my book it's always a sin if the guy doesn't finish.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by Rudey
Say you're having sex and you don't finish, is it a sin for either partner?

-Rudey
--In my book it's always a sin if the guy doesn't finish.

Oh Rudith...

[xo_kathy]

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
You paged?

The biggest reason I have remained Catholic over any other religion is that I am incredibly opposed to evangelism. It's not appropriate. The first time my boyfriend (son of a very conservative Protestant minister) came to a Mass with me the priest gave a sermon about how Catholics evangelize through their actions rather than their words. He was absolutely boggled by that because he grew up in a home where you were expected to tell everybody about Jesus all the time.

I would be really happy to answer specific questions that you have.

Oh yes, and we had a little chat in another thread about that a while ago.

I'm Presbyterian. While we are supposed to spread the word of Christ, it is no different than how Catholics do it really. A lot of volunteering and check writing and good actions, but no corner standing and preaching. On top of that, we don't "preach" to the members about birth control, abortion, etc. I know there are stances on it, but I've never heard a minister say even a speck about it from the pulpit nor seen it in any material sent to me from the church. AND, we were just a few votes away (seriosuly, I think 2 or 3) at the last General Assembly from approving ordaining openly gay ministers. We're considered VERY liberal in our views. So it always strikes me as interesting that someone like you - who I consider to have very similar politcal/social beliefs as my own - would choose to stay a Catholic.

Not judging, yo, and not say you need to convert to Presbyterianism, just putting it out there! But if you do want to convert, I can write you a rec. But you only really need one if you choose a church in the South, but it never hurts in the Midwest either!

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by xo_kathy
Oh yes, and we had a little chat in another thread about that a while ago.

I'm Presbyterian. While we are supposed to spread the word of Christ, it is no different than how Catholics do it really. A lot of volunteering and check writing and good actions, but no corner standing and preaching. On top of that, we don't "preach" to the members about birth control, abortion, etc. I know there are stances on it, but I've never heard a minister say even a speck about it from the pulpit nor seen it in any material sent to me from the church. AND, we were just a few votes away (seriosuly, I think 2 or 3) at the last General Assembly from approving ordaining openly gay ministers. We're considered VERY liberal in our views. So it always strikes me as interesting that someone like you - who I consider to have very similar politcal/social beliefs as my own - would choose to stay a Catholic.

Not judging, yo, and not say you need to convert to Presbyterianism, just putting it out there! But if you do want to convert, I can write you a rec. But you only really need one if you choose a church in the South, but it never hurts in the Midwest either!

LOL, I am writing recs right now, which makes that extra funny. Am I on crack or were you Catholic before? I really thought you were but I could have it mistaken.

I think part of what has made it "easier" for me to stay Catholic is that I was raised in a fairly liberal archdiocese (Milwaukee) which has not been as Hell and brimstone as other archdioceses are. At Easter Mass at my parent's church this year, the priest gave a lengthy homily on the importance of a living will. At no point did he say that we should write in a specific manner, merely that we all should have one.

I am also very uncomfortable with the idea of solo scriptura - RACooper got at this before a little bit. I'm not saying you do this at all, but many Protestants do not grasp the fact that the Catholic Church predates the Bible. My boyfriend's family constantly says that isn't true, and that it's the "Christian" church which predates the Bible.

I dated a Presbyterian in high school once, he was probably the most religiously normal boy I've dated, besides the Catholic ones.

I hope that made sense, if not, I'd be happy to expound. I know I'm very far to the left of a lot of other Catholics on GC.

[xo_kathy]

Originally posted by irishpipes
At the last supper, however, Jesus clearly stated that, "this IS my body and this IS my blood, do this is memory of me." He couldn't have been more clear.

Right, but as you said, he often spoke in parables and used symbolism so why in other areas of the bible does the Catholic church say it's symbolism, but for this part it's literal? Also, as the link provided before pointed out, Christ also "identified the drink as “this fruit of the vine” (v. 29)." So he was saying it literally was wine. He couldn't have been more clear.

Also, if you're going to go off the "it's in there so it's true" then why did he not say "and in order for it to REALLY be my flesh, your priest hundreds of years from now will need to say these words for it to be so"? AND, if he didn't say "BTW, only Catholics (or the church Peter is gonna lead after I die) can do this" why does the church keep me from taking it? I'm actually trying to be funny, not snippy, but I just don't think it's a valid argument.

Also, we've all read The Davinci Code. The Catholic church today is a FAR cry from good old Peter's chruch. And while I realize that is a work of fiction, it brought out tons of historical discussion when it was first published and we do know that today's Catholic church is quite different than Peter's divinely inspired one.

[xo_kathy]

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
Am I on crack or were you Catholic before? I really thought you were but I could have it mistaken.

Yes. Yes you are on crack. Might help with the rec writing at least!

I was baptised by a Catholic priest in the clubhouse of my parent's townhouse complex. But I was raised in the Presbyterian church with my mom. I have attended many a mass with dad's side though. And, shhhh, I take communion every time I go...

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally posted by irishpipes
Finally, the doctrine of transubstantiation absolutely has basis in scripture. Jesus often spoke in parables to make his points. At the last supper, however, Jesus clearly stated that, "this IS my body and this IS my blood, do this is memory of me." He couldn't have been more clear. The eucharistic prayer in the Catholic Mass is based entirely on the words of Christ at the last supper. Catholics believe that when a priest, in the context of Mass, prays these words over the bread and wine, the intervention of the Holy Spirit indeed changes them into the very Body and Blood of Christ, as we believe He intended with His words at the last supper. Catholics would argue that you don't get much more scripturally based than the last supper.

I believe what Jesus meant when he said "this is my body and this is my blood, do this is memory of me" is that as you consume the bread and wine you are letting me in your hearts. You are commiting to having in him in your heart. That the bread and wine are you commiting to keep Jesus in your heart. That is what my preist told me, not that we actually consume a part of jesus' physical self.

[irishpipes]

today's Catholic church is quite different than Peter's divinely inspired one.

The people in the Church have changed, the doctrines have not.

Also, your inability to receive the Eucharist is not to exclude you. It isn't because you are unworthy - just spiritually unprepared. In fact, many, many Catholics are not "eligible" to receive the Eucharist. Catholics must be in a state of grace in order to receive the Eucharist. Many Catholics are not and therefore should not receive. Non-Catholics cannot be in this state of grace. I could go into what a state of grace is, but I am a horrible typist and it would take forever. Let me just do an ultra-summary by saying that a Catholic must have the proper instruction before a sacrament can be received (so that it is fully understood.) Additionally, no unconfessed mortal sin can be on a Catholic's soul before receiving the Eucharist. I am sure I will hear the collective sounds of many heads exploding at the concept of confession. Another favorite attack target of Catholic bashers.

[ilovemyglo]

Originally posted by a.e.B.O.T.
I believe what Jesus meant when he said "this is my body and this is my blood, do this is memory of me" is that as you consume the bread and wine you are letting me in your hearts. You are commiting to having in him in your heart. That the bread and wine are you commiting to keep Jesus in your heart. That is what my preist told me, not that we actually consume a part of jesus' physical self.

Which is why you aren't Catholic and I am.
That is why there are so many religions and sects out there- because we all have different beliefs.

And Jesus never said specifically "Dont give blow jobs to the boys baseball team" (or after for that matter) but we know it is a sin.

Catholics believe that Jesus said "this is my body and this is my blood" and he meant THIS is my body and my blood... flesh and blood... and yes we believe the holy ghost comes down and through mass is able to transform the hosts and wine into the body and blood of Christ. This is one HUGE difference between Catholicism and many other religions, like Episcopalian. Close, but not quite- kind of like Diet Catholic. *as my Episopalian friends say"

[irishpipes]

Right, but as you said, he often spoke in parables and used symbolism so why in other areas of the bible does the Catholic church say it's symbolism, but for this part it's literal? Also, as the link provided before pointed out, Christ also "identified the drink as “this fruit of the vine” (v. 29)." So he was saying it literally was wine. He couldn't have been more clear.

When Jesus spoke in parables, He always followed them with lieral interpretation to ensure that His meaning was clear. He does no such thing at the Last Supper, nor gives any other indication that He was being symbolic.

Interestingly, the "fruit of the vine" is still an important distinction in the Catholic Church today. The altar wine which is used in the consecration MUST by "fruit of the vine" - it cannot be apple wine or other such that is not grown on a vine.

[irishpipes]

Also, if you're going to go off the "it's in there so it's true" then why did he not say "and in order for it to REALLY be my flesh, your priest hundreds of years from now will need to say these words for it to be so"? AND, if he didn't say "BTW, only Catholics (or the church Peter is gonna lead after I die) can do this" why does the church keep me from taking it? I'm actually trying to be funny, not snippy, but I just don't think it's a valid argument.

Also, to ask why Jesus did NOT say certain things is argumentative. I mean, Jesus did NOT say "go and write a bunch of books and bind them into a Bible." Yet, not only did we do just that, but all Christian religions rely heavily, if not exclusively on that Bible. I can't refute or affirm things Jesus did NOT say, only what He did, as my faith has interpreted it over the past 2000+ years.

[christiangirl]

Originally posted by ilovemyglo
To Christiangirl-
Fornication isn't a sin- sex outside of marriage yes, but fornication is still fornication even with a wedding ring on.

So if fornication is not pre-marital sex per se, then is there another word for what we're talking about. I didn't realize that fornication and adultery can be the same thing in different circumstances, I just looked up the definition of both.

Everything else you said made me think. You might just be right. I don't reiterate my views all the time, my friends know where I stand I don't have to say it anymore. But I'll have to work on that, I might give off that vibe, too. To be fair, I should ask them, I don't think I do, but they might have a different answer.