Pope Benedict XVI Resigning as Pope!!

Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by Lorac, Feb 11, 2013.

  1. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    12,044
    1,390
    113
    PDilemma- do you have some sources on that? I believe you, but I really thought an annulment was only required when the divorce resulted from a valid marriage, and a civil marriage isn't a valid marriage (though I think any Christian marriage is considered valid.)
     
  2. Vagabond

    Vagabond Well-Known Member

    3,805
    952
    113
    "This is a profound mystery¬óbut I am talking about Christ and the church." ;)
     
  3. Spiralgraph

    Spiralgraph Active Member

    603
    79
    28


    Some Non Catholics may participate and receive Holy Communion in a Catholic church, and Catholics may receive Communion in certain Protestant denominations. When I was in my church choir many years ago we sang songs from the Messiah in a Lutheran church with their choir and some of us received Communion there. Our priest accompanied us (and even celebrated Mass in the Lutheran Church's basement hall) A week or so later their choir traveled up to our church and they received Communion in our church and nobody was excommunicated.

    The times are changing in the Catholic church (but I admit at a snail's pace)
     
  4. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    12,044
    1,390
    113
    What non-catholics are you talking about? I know that non-Catholics may come to the alter during mass for a blessing, but they aren't supposed to take communion, the Catholic communion is closed.

    I know many protestant denominations are open to Catholics receiving their communion, but Catholics are not supposed to take it by their own beliefs.
     
  5. GarrAarghHrumph

    GarrAarghHrumph I can kill you with my brain

    16,417
    2,339
    113
    If they get married outside the church, they can get their marriage blessed by a priest, which can either be done in quite the formal ceremony inviting everyone, or done in private, takes 20 seconds. So she is in no way "stuck", as you said, with this choice. She is always, always welcome to make it right in the eyes of the church.

    The church will not say "no" because they are living together. In fact, the church would welcome them, because they'd be putting the situation right. This will not be an issue. Not at all, not in the modern era.

    I think you should talk to your priest about this. IMO, your not attending their wedding because you feel your church won't allow you to participate in it might drive your brother further away from the church, and that is not what the church wants. Perhaps talk this over with your priest, telling him all of this, and see what he suggests. I'd just hate for your behavior, although well intended, to drive your brother and his future wife away from the church. Just something to think about.
     
  6. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    12,044
    1,390
    113
    The church actually can deny it because they are not prepared for the sacrament. Most likely, the priest would tell the Catholic of the relationship to make a full penance and for the couple to live apart in preperation of the marriage. Many priests would interpret it like you said "put it right" by them getting married, but not all. It's like the priests who won't give Eucharist to Democrat politicians because they support abortion availability. Even though they didn't GET an abortion, by helping to make them available, the church sees them in state of sin and they are not eligible for a sacrament. Not all priests will interpret it this way, but those who do are supported by the catechism.
     
  7. Spiralgraph

    Spiralgraph Active Member

    603
    79
    28

    In my experience, it was Lutherans who received Communion. I think other denominations may be able to receive Communion as well, but offhand I can't think of which ones.
     
  8. Southpaw

    Southpaw Saint Smugpawski

    12,909
    3,824
    113
    OK, give me a couple of those Virgin Marys and a half dozen of those pączki shaped like John Paul II.
     
  9. bek

    bek Guest

    Whoa! I would never not attend the wedding. I just couldn't particpate. I would attend but I couldn't sing or be a part of the wedding. There are some Catholics who want perhaps not attend. But not me. I will go but not participate.
     
  10. allezfred

    allezfred Old and Immature Admin Staff Member

    44,075
    10,615
    113
    Now I understand. Nothing like the zealousness of a convert. :scream:

    I'll think you'll find it's not.
     
  11. PDilemma

    PDilemma Well-Known Member

    4,877
    828
    113
    Any wedding of two baptized persons is considered valid, the exception being if one party is Catholic and the marriage is outside the church and no dispensation has been given. (That can be rectified by the marriage being blessed by a priest as someone already explained) Baptism in the name of father-son-holy spirit is valid for Catholicism regardless of how, where and by who it is done. Converts properly baptized in any other denomination that baptizes in the name of the trinity are not re-baptized in order to convert; they are merely confirmed. My RCIA group (conversion class) had 13 people converting and only two of us had to be baptized. Any marriage is presumed valid until proven invalid in the annulment process simply because they don't take your word for it. If two never before married non-Catholic baptized people marry in a civil ceremony or other religious ceremony and later convert to Catholicism, it is a valid Catholic marriage. If a unbaptized non-Catholic marries in any kind of ceremony, later divorces and wants to remarry a Catholic, the first marriage would be deemed invalid. But it would have to be proven in the annulment process.

    I got all of this in RCIA because on the night we went over the sacraments of marriage and holy orders one of the engaged women who was converting asked endless questions about what constitutes a valid marriage and what the easiest grounds for annulment are. She also took copious notes on the answers. We all wondered what her intentions for her marriage really were and if we'd be called to provide information for her annulment case in the future. It was very strange.
     
  12. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    12,044
    1,390
    113
    PDilemma- isn't the exception that you mentioned exactly why I said that the marriage wouldn't be valid? One of the participants (the girlfriend) is Catholic, and dispensation has not been requested. So if the marriage is invalid, I don't think the church cares if there is a divorce, because to them, there is no marriage.
     
  13. PDilemma

    PDilemma Well-Known Member

    4,877
    828
    113
    The only reason the church would care is if the person wanted to remarry in the church. Then there would have to be an annulment process to ensure that the marriage was invalid as opposed to a priest merely taking the person's word. My friend who wanted to marry someone who was never baptized and divorced was told that the annulment process would be quick and simple--a matter of a month or so to be checked and processed, but her now-husband refused to do it. On the other hand, a friend who was married to a Catholic in a Catholic ceremony is trying to get an annulment and the process is about three years in and not done yet.
     
  14. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    17,067
    3,559
    113
    No they can't. It's against the rules. Except for some carefully delineated exceptions:

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_t...s_a_non_Catholic_but_baptized_adult_Christian

    ETA okay I noticed you said "some". It depends on what you mean by "some". You have to believe in transfiguration for one thing -- that the Eucharist has literally been transformed into the blood and body of Christ. And it is supposed to be an extraordinary circumstance as well.
     
  15. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    12,044
    1,390
    113
    transubstantiation :)

    I don't think Harry Potter does communion.



    It is my understanding some Lutheran's believe in consubstantiation, which isn't the same thing. I think there may be some Orthodox churches that can take Roman Catholic communion, but no Protestants, at least, they shouldn't.
     
    IceAlisa and (deleted member) like this.
  16. nlloyd

    nlloyd Active Member

    342
    132
    43
    While I don't agree with the theological positions you espouse Bek (official Catholic teaching), it is interesting to read your perspective because it represents that of a portion of Catholics I don't often encounter. I guess what those of us engaged in this discussion are talking about is different sources of authority for our beliefs (or lack of belief). Wesley's quadrilateral is quite useful here -- scripture, tradition, reason, and experience -- although there are also other possibilities. You, like many conservative Catholics, emphasize tradition with a particular focus on the Pope and other church leaders.

    If I was still a Christian, I would emphasize "imago dei," the leading of the Holy Spirit, the church as a hermeneutical community, and the bible as an account of peoples' not-always-successful attempt to discern God's way. I would see Christians as forging responses to contemporary social and ethical challenges - and these are only going to get more complex - using the reason, compassion, and creativity God has given them (their "made-in-the-image-of-Godness"), the guiding of the Holy Spirit who lives within them, reading the bible in the light mentioned above, and coming to conclusions together with other Christians in the churches to which they belong. The diversity of churches would not worry me too much because churches do make mistakes and when they recognise that, it is always good to see the different paths that others have taken.

    I respect the reasons that inform your decisions, but I also feel quite sad that the relationship with God that you value so highly, was removed from me and others because the cost of conforming to the Church's official teachings was too high.
     
  17. Moto Guzzi

    Moto Guzzi Well-Known Member

    1,782
    740
    113
    http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...8EDD203D52A00BE569068E&view=detail&FORM=VIRE1 "Two, four, six, eight, time to transubstantiate!" ;)

    My main memory of preparing for my first communion was the big fight with my older sister about wearing her first communion dress. My mother made her dress--it was white dotted swiss--and wanted me to wear it but my sister flatly refused and put up such a fuss about it my mother ended up making a new one for me. I was very happy to have something that wasn't a hand-me-down for a change. It was white organdy with layers of ruffles for the skirt, and I thought it was the most beautiful dress of all. I was so proud of my mother for making me a dress instead of ordering one like most of the mothers did. At the time I didn't know that my parents couldn't afford to buy a frilly dress for me. I was lucky my mother knew how to sew and how to make a little girl feel beautiful and special.
     
  18. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    17,067
    3,559
    113
     
  19. Angelskates

    Angelskates Well-Known Member

    12,826
    2,550
    113
    This is one of my major issues with Catholicism. There's people in between you and God, making the rules. What if God tells you something different to the Pope?

    From bek:
    And this is where we differ. I think if you're not sure about Scripture, you should look at what God, the Holy Spirit, says to YOU, NOW, not what He said to the Early Church throughout time (interpreted by humans, who are imperfect, compared to the perfect Holy Spirit). We didn't receive faith from the church, we received faith from GOD. What if God tells you something different to the Pope? Would you consider it wrong (or you instead of God), just because it differs from what the Pope says?

    What will you do when there is no Pope? He's resigning, and there will be a time in between Popes. What if something comes up?
     
  20. bek

    bek Guest

    Yes, they are fallible human beings. But I also am a fallible human being. And how can I not be sure that I'm not reading my own preconceptions, biases, wants and desires into Scripture?

    In terms of God, well it seems to me there quite a lot of Christians quite a bit convinced that the Holy Spirit is telling them one thing, and others convinced the Holy Spirit is telling them the exact opposite... The Holy Spirit doesn't contradict Himself. And one could argue maybe the Holy Spirit is just saying something different to each individual and that's fine. But what about the Church as a whole? Surely there are things that the Church as a whole is going to have to come to agreement on. And who decides on these issues? And who is going to decide on some of the essential questions about the Gospel?

    For example amongst Protestants there's some big issues about well can people lose their salvation-I because I know for a fact that Protestants don't agree on said subject. Do people have free will? You may think these are minor things but you know what people might live their lives differently based on the answers to these questions.

    Or things like Baptism? What is to be done with children of believers? Can they be baptized just like Jewish boys were circumcized? If children must be of a certain accountability than what is said age? Because Scripture after all does not tell us. You may say this baptism issue is nothing but I can tell you that in my undergraduate. There was a Christian group that was going around and the Pastor would preach on and on about how people who were baptized as babies, weren't really baptized. I was part of an interdenominational Methodist group at the time (even though I was Pentecostal) and he'd specifically get in on it when the folks in the Methodist group would come to watch their friends get baptized.

    And you know what, I can tell you said Pastor's words created quite a lot of hurt. And quite a lot of division too. Now one can argue is it really a big deal and I can see that point. But I can argue it is a big deal if Christians are not able to recognize each other's baptism.. Its a very big deal especially when Scripture says "there is one faith, and one baptism" So yes there's a big problem here.

    And for all of these issues I heard people get into their little Scripture wars for years. And I know people who I respected who I knew really loved Jesus have some disagreements.. And it was never that I didn't have my own opinion about the subject but rather a matter of how I can be sure my opinion is so right when someone over here is so wrong, when its the Holy Spirit who is guiding each of us????

    We Catholics take the early Church's beliefs in account so highly because they were closer to Christ's teachings and the apostles than you and are. We are 2,000 years away from Christ? But a lot of the early churches were much closer to the time period. Also there's the fact that Scripture didn't come to us in a neat package all bundled up. Jesus never handed us the Bible and said "there you go the Word of God".

    For the first couple of centuries there was actually some real discussion about what books belonged in Scripture and what books didn't? Do you think maybe now you can go and decided the book of James doesn't belong like Luther questioned because you don't like some of the words it says? And what about some of the books that were left out-why not add some back in? Or do you think that we take the Early Church decision on these books because we figure they were closer to the time period than we were. Closer to Christ closer to the Apostles and so maybe very well should by proximity they might have a better idea of which books of the Gospels were authentic and which ones aren't.

    So we Catholics would ask if you take them seriously on Scripture, than why do so many Protestants ignore their teachings/on other things. I .e argue they are completely wrong on everything else. Wrong on the decisions that were eventually made about baptism, wrong on the subject of Communion being Christ's Body? To me if these people are near unanimous about something, they by proximity to Christ should be heavily taken into account.

    I decided if I was clear on something, that I should look at what the early church said and I was mainly thinking of Communion because personally, I don't want to go with what I "want Communion to be" I want to go on what Christ wants communion to be. I don't want Baptism to be what I "want Baptism to be" I want to go with what Christ wants baptism to be.

    And even if Christ is say choose, I personally think these issues need to be resolved. Christ said I pray they may be one so the World will believe my Message' that's pretty serious stuff. Christians were commanded to be in agreement.

    In terms of my own personal life I believe God's going to tell me not the Priest what job I should take, who I should marry etc. But I don't think He's necessarily going to let me decide if priests should be married, how people are to be baptized etc.

    The Pope/bishops are there basically because if there's disputes there has to be means of resolving them. Period. And I think God wants this, us having a means to resolve are issues rather than fighting back and forth and dividing Christ's body. Because that's what I feel very strongly, its not really about ME.. Its about Christ's body as a whole.

    As for what will we do without the Pope. As I said before the pope doesn't really get into my Personal relationship with. When I have to make my day to day decisions that's between me and God. If the Church has a major issue well, the Church normally doesn't make a decision right away, rather a lot of prayer/study comes involved. Church councils can at times take a very long time. Somehow I suspect during that time the Cardinals can find a moment to elect a new Pope.

    The Church has managed for 2,000 years popes dying. I think we can handle one man resigning. And in fact that's one thing I like about what Pope Benedict is doing. He's illustrating the Papacy is an office- an office central to Church. But its not one man or about one personality.. He is not indispensible. No one is.
     
  21. Angelskates

    Angelskates Well-Known Member

    12,826
    2,550
    113
    Bek, I can answer your whole post by saying I don't believe all disputes need to be resolved. People disagree. Who cares? They love God, they believe they've done right based in their relationship with God. Even if they did completely the opposite of what I believe is true, it's not for me to say what God told them is wrong. I believe God can say different things to different people. I believe a passage in the Bible can be read through the Holy Spirit and be interpreted many different, and equally correct, ways for different people. I don't believe I need a, or the, church or a pastor to tell me right or wrong; I have God. Not that I always listen or interpret correctly, but I would trust what I feel from the Holy Spirit over anyone. That's not to say I don't ask for guidance sometimes, I do, but I ask for guidance from God first, then others, then God again. I don't care if my whole church disagrees, they don't know all the answers any more than I do. I'm non-denominational, but don't care what denomination you are, we can always agree to disagree - the fundamentals of my faith (that I believe Jesus died and rose again etc.) is what is most important, that we love God and one another, and that we continue to seek with open minds and hearts.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2013
  22. Spiralgraph

    Spiralgraph Active Member

    603
    79
    28

    Exactly. Since I'm only familiar with Catholic beliefs, that's why I typed " "some" I'm assuming that one time trip of my choir and the Lutheran choir qualified as an extraordinary circumstance. Whether or not other denominations accept the belief of transubstantiation is unknown to me..
     
  23. cruisin

    cruisin Well-Known Member

    17,561
    1,170
    113
    Bek, I admire your faith and respect your beliefs. But, for me, I must take into consideration that the Bible/Scriptures/etc. have all been written, translated, and interpreted by man. What is right? What is wrong? What has been changed due to political pressure and secular necessity? So, for me, to say that one denomination answers the questions more correctly than another, does not feel right.
     
  24. agalisgv

    agalisgv Well-Known Member

    24,050
    4,422
    113
    Well, in that instance you would probably want to emulate the Jewish traditions upon which each is based. Communion is basically the reciting of kiddush on Sabbath over the challah and wine. And baptism comes from mikveh immersion. If you want to practice baptism as it was done by the early church and experienced by Christ, it would be done in the nude as an adult. It would be done once for conversion, but then repeated for purification purposes.

    You won't find many Christian denominations who practice baptism in that way, and certainly not Catholics. So when you talk about going back to the early church and what Christ likely intended, well, you wouldn't be following many Catholic traditions then.

    Just sayin...
     
  25. agalisgv

    agalisgv Well-Known Member

    24,050
    4,422
    113
    To bek's point about re: the Holy Spirit, I'll relay this anecdote. I remember when I attended seminary, one of my fellow students felt moved by the Holy Spirit to preach a message. So he preached how God hated gays, and what an offense it was to compare the struggle of gays to that of African-American civil rights struggles. Now, he wasn't planning on preaching that, but the Holy Spirit convicted him to change his sermon to deliver that message.

    And so he did.

    I, too, was similarly moved by the Holy Spirit, and preached about the sin of the Church being evidenced in widespread homophobia, and how that has plagued our witness over the centuries. I preached about a few other church sins while I was at it. So, being moved by the Holy Spirit, some of the faculty members stood up and walked out during my sermon. The remaining faculty members, again moved by the Holy Spirit, nominated and awarded me the seminary's annual award in outstanding homiletics.

    So one person's Holy Spirit is another person's heterodoxy.
     
  26. purple skates

    purple skates Shadow dancing

    16,860
    4,759
    113
    I believe in this case it would be a Lack of Canonical Form (or Lack of Form), not an annulment. That's what I had to get when I went through RCIA before I could be confirmed (I was baptized Catholic but never had instruction as a child). In my case, I was married in a civil ceremony and then later divorced. IIRC, the Church didn't consider this marriage valid at all, since it was civil.

    I asked how my current marriage (married to a Lutheran by a Luteran pastor) would be viewed, and I was told that the Church considers it a valid marriage because of some sort of agreement with the Lutherans (I didn't follow up on that, so I'm not sure what that's all about), but that if my husband and I were to divorce and I wanted to remarry in the Catholic Church, it would require a Lack of Form not an annulment.

    The Lack of Form, btw, takes way less time than an annulment. I was able to get mine within a month, if I remember correctly. It was basically providing my marriage license and divorce decree, and getting my ex-husband to sign off on it (or in my case, stating that I didn't know where my ex-husband was). It was a rubber stamp kind of thing.

    http://www.archatl.com/offices/tribunal/drm_c.html
     
  27. numbers123

    numbers123 Well-Known Member

    30,765
    5,027
    113
    Also take into consideration that the "church" picked the books to be placed into the New Testament. There were many letters or books that could have been included, but the selection was determined by man/scholars.
     
    Simone411 and (deleted member) like this.
  28. cruisin

    cruisin Well-Known Member

    17,561
    1,170
    113
    Absolutely.
     
  29. bek

    bek Guest

    Well naked baptisms did happen remember that there were also a lot of catechumens in the early church. Then in around the 3rd century there was talk of postponing baptism for adults because baptism was thought to erase one's sins altogether and so being baptized later meant not having to do penance (etc, etc) later on... However infant baptism was still practiced and even one of the biggest proponents for it Tertullian admits infant baptism has apostolic origins. At the end of the day there were a high amount of emergency baptisms and it was decided on baptism for babies.... As for communion there is quite a lot of early church writings that say they took Jesus's words literally......And services were centered around it.. As for purification purposes, I know in Judaism it was but I'm not so sure about early church perhaps with some certain sects. But I recall in the 3rd century some not being baptized for awhile...

    And that's exactly my point. Honestly I use to be like Angel Skates thinking we all believed in essentials and its okay. But maybe it was my time in Seminary but there became a moment where I could accept this each one has its own opinion and its a-okay. For me the big thing is the fact that issues are dividing people.. For example Christians being unable to take Communion together because of disagreements and a Professor saying well each one just decides for themselves what it means... .Just didn't work for me....I felt like there was Truth, Communion Biblically is suppose to represent unity of Christians and Christians cannot even take it together... So for me that's pretty huge. And I felt the Catholic position well it could be either idolatry as well...Because really the Eucharist truly is Jesus in Catholic teachings.

    I agree with cruisin about humans coming together for those books. However as I said earlier I don't have in Christianity Jesus giving us book. Instead Jesus gave us (His life and resurrection) and then gave the message to the apostles. So for me for whatever reason God choose to leave the message to well humans. And He promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide said humans. For me the idea that God stopped guiding at some point... I cannot accept that... For me it became either Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

    A part of me feel Jesus died on the Cross that's it, leads to in someways kind of a watered down Christianity... Yes that is the central point but after that there are questions people have....And I also say once again what happens when you have a Pastor preach "once saved always saved" and you have people take said Pastor seriously.

    Truth matters in that sense. There may be some people who if they heard the Pastor preach a life of repenting before God. Perhaps there are people who would change their lives. Because how can people know what they don't hear. That's why I think theology really does matter.

    In the end there's my practicality which says there has to be a means of discerning the Holy Spirit in the Church. Rather than everyone has their opinion/everyone is right. And if this had been the prevailing opinion in Christianity early on, I doubt we'd have the New Testament. Even Jesus died on the Cross is Tradition. After all the Muslims would disagree with that, and question the authenticity of our Scriptures...
     
  30. Vagabond

    Vagabond Well-Known Member

    3,805
    952
    113
    :wideeyes:

    I learn something new every day!