Cedarbay
New member
You know what I mean.
What would make you Catholic?
- Thread starter glassjester
- Start date
musterion
Well-known member
No. I can think of at least 2 definitions different people use for that word, and the conversation can go in different directions depending on which. But don't answer if you can't. It's okay. I understand.
Cruciform
New member
Even if he doesn't, the information is there for any genuinely interested and honest readers who might be following along.
I love augustine
turbosixx
New member
NO, but I will read scripture.
glassjester
Well-known member
You're reading this thread, even though it's not Scripture. Reading about Scripture is acceptable, isn't it?
Cruciform
New member
Your transparent excuse for deliberately avoiding relevant information---in fact, exactly the information you yourself requested---is noted.
Back to Post #302 above.
turbosixx
New member
I don't know if this is disbelieve but they won't want to hear it.
2 Tim. 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
turbosixx
New member
Sure. That's why I'm here to see if someone can help me to understand scripture better. If Cruciform would support his points with scripture and then explain why he understands it to support his point I would gladly read that. I think it's great for each of us to defend what we understand to be truth. If we can't then maybe we don't know the truth.
He uses other peoples work. I read one and pointed out error in it but he ignored it. He doesn't have the decency and respect for others to have a conversation. Isn’t that why we’re here.
glassjester
Well-known member
Agreed - that's why I am here!
Just a point worth mentioning: 6 posts up from here, Cruciform linked to scripturecatholic.com, which, as the url suggests, cites Scripture in support of Catholic doctrine.
Do you consider that worth reading?
turbosixx
New member
I've read things like that before and everytime I have questions and disagreements about what is said. That's why I think it's rude to say read HERE because I'm obviously not worth the time to discuss it with. I feel to understand ones point it's best to take it in small pieces and discuss and add more pieces.
glassjester
Well-known member
Was this where you left off?
Well, they don't. If you perceive a contradiction between the two, it's worth seeking a better understanding of the Church's teaching. Without fail, you will find the two to be in harmony.
If the sexual union between the two spouses would itself be immoral (ie, same-sex, incest), then there is in fact no marriage. It was never a valid marriage to begin with, and the supposed "union" ought to be dissolved.
And in each case, it is due to the fact that no valid marriage had actually existed. The two were never married.
Well, they don't. If you perceive a contradiction between the two, it's worth seeking a better understanding of the Church's teaching. Without fail, you will find the two to be in harmony.
If the sexual union between the two spouses would itself be immoral (ie, same-sex, incest), then there is in fact no marriage. It was never a valid marriage to begin with, and the supposed "union" ought to be dissolved.
And in each case, it is due to the fact that no valid marriage had actually existed. The two were never married.
turbosixx
New member
I'm gonna disagree here. Hopefully we can enter in healthy discussion about it.
Agreed but that is rarely the case for annulments done by the church. Scripture is sufficient to prove the two examples you listed as not being recognized by God. Both are sexually immoral.
I strongly disagree here. The marriage was recognized as valid up till the request and approval of annulment. Also the reasons the "church" gives for annulments are not for "sexual immorality".
For example, is this grounds for a marriage that the church vetted and performed to have never really happened:
Present condition (Canon 1102, sec. 2)
You or your spouse attached a present condition to your decision to marry and that condition did not exist, e.g., I will marry you provided you don't have any debt.
Also, it make me wonder how many marriages the church has performed that don't seek annulment that "never really were married". For example:
Past condition (Canon 1102, sec. 2)R
You or your spouse attached a past condition so your decision to marry and that condition did not exist; e.g., I will marry you provided that you have never been married before, I will marry you provided that you have graduated from college.
Let's say you find out your spouse lied and didn't graduate from college. Did the marriage happen or not?
Cruciform
New member
Then you should have gladly read all the sources I've cited thus far, since they accomplish precisely what you just described. Again, your transparent excuse for avoiding this information is noted.
So do you. Indeed, every single time you post an opinion, your offering information that you have ultimately heard, learned, absorbed, and derived from other human beings. The formulation of one's theological beliefs, after all, do not occur in a vacuum. :nono:
You demonstrated no actual "error," but merely offered the opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect in place of the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church. The mere fact that Catholic doctrine happens to contradict your preferred sect's opinions certainly does not mean that Catholic teaching is "in error."
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
HisServant
New member
And... as usual, none of your links actually address my statement.
You must be dumb as a box of rocks... or a bot.
and this is what we have come to expect from you
HisServant
New member
Huh? Cruciform's posted links never address the topic being discussed.. ever. So he either had a problem with the English language, is being intentionally obtuse or a computer bot.
It's like trying to debate with someone that lacks basic communication skills.
actually the attacks by the likes of you can be recognized by a computer
and
answered by a computer
they are all alike
and
frankly we get tired of answering them
HisServant
New member
Given that this board is primarily dedicated to Open Theism.... why does that suprise you and why do you think you should post here with immunity?
You are in enemy territory.... learn to live with it or leave.... no one here cares one iota about Roman Catholicism... yet you guys come here and cause unwanted trouble all the time.
And when you are called out for your idiocy.. you get offended.... its some of the more stupid behavior I have seen and makes people hate Catholics even more.