Catholics Don't Exemplify Christianity...

[TrinityPower]

It wasn't a matter of her being against 7th Day Adventists...it was about anyone not being Catholic she had a problem with. She told another sister in-law the same thing because her other son became Lutheran

 

[TrinityPower]

Apparently Ravi is now the Pope

 

[Ravi]

It wasn't a matter of her being against 7th Day Adventists...it was about anyone not being Catholic she had a problem with. She told another sister in-law the same thing because her other son became Lutheran

So she is a bigot. How are you any different?

 

[Ravi]

Apparently Ravi is now the Pope

No, but I do know that a priest wouldn't officiate at a non catholic wedding. I've given you the benefit of the doubt. You were mistaken.

 

[Desperado]

And you are?

A Christian that understands the Bible....

and you are....?

Is that right? How 'bout that history?

Eh... the Bible and correct interpretation trumps history...
Where in the Bible does it say to pray to Mary?

The bible has it's own problems.
Bible Problems

 

[TrinityPower]

Catholics United for the Faith Catholic-Protestant Weddings Teaching the Catholic Faith

 

[TrinityPower]

So you are trying to tell me I didn't have two officiants? I do not have a foggy memory and I have pictures of both officiants together plus video so what exactly are you saying? The wedding wasn't at the Catholic church, they would not do that nor did I ask them to. The priest had to get special permission from the parish priest of that area plus someone else I believe to be allowed under their rules to participate.

Because Catholic doctrine on marriage is different, priests do not "co-officiate" in the sense that both perform the marriage. Canon Law does permit for one official to marry and the other one to give a blessing, but not co-officiate. However, special dispensations to this can be received. A usual exception may be when the father of one those being married is also a minister. It could very well be you and your husband received a special dispensation. Or, the more usual practice could have occurred where one officially married, and the other performed a blessing.

It is splitting hairs to me. There were two clergy they both participated. That is co officiating. I do not have the wedding certificate in my possession or I would check who signed it. It was not held in the priests church so he may not have signed off on it. That part of who signed it got a bit lost in the shuffle between wedding and reception. My assumption was they both did as they were both standing at the table. It still doesn't change that both clergy stood there and participated.

 

[Meriweather]

It is splitting hairs to me. There were two clergy they both participated. That is co officiating. I do not have the wedding certificate in my possession or I would check who signed it. It was not held in the priests church so he may not have signed off on it. That part of who signed it got a bit lost in the shuffle between wedding and reception. My assumption was they both did as they were both standing at the table. It still doesn't change that both clergy stood there and participated.

Sure, it may seem like splitting hairs, but it is a pretty big hair in the Catholic Church. The reason Canon Law does not authorize co-officiating at weddings (barring special dispensation) is because Catholic marriages do not recognize civil divorce when it comes to Catholics remarrying.

The Catholic Church holds that what God has joined together, no man can put asunder. While the Church recognizes that a married couple may do better apart, the marriage itself still stands in the eyes of God. That is why once a valid marriage contract occurs in the Catholic Church, there can be no re-marriage.

Non-Catholic ministers who do not agree with this Catholic doctrine are not apt to agree to co-officiate. A Catholic priest wouldn't 'co-officiate' without special dispensation. Either this occurred, or he was there not to officiate, but in a blessing capacity.

 

[BluePhantom]

Ok now where was I? Oh yes.....

Lack of literacy =/= lack of textuality.

Ahem....so you are suggesting that while there were virtually no schools and only 3% of the population could read and they were the rich, that Jewish peasants were well versed in the classics (Homer, Plato, etc). How? Who is going to teach it to them? Or are you suggesting that the family would get up at sunrise, go out and tend the fields or lay brick, or whatever...work all day long, come home, have a meal, and then with the small amount of time they had before it was time to go to bed, Dad (a Jewish peasant with no education) would sit the kids down and start teaching them Plato. He wouldn't teach them Jewish history. He wouldn't teach them Torah. he wouldn't teach them stuff that had real impact in their lives or had to do with their own culture...no...he would teach them Greco-Roman culture. The culture of the occupiers. The traditions of the occupiers. Dad, the uneducated, Jewish peasant was teaching them advanced Greco-Roman philosophy.

Good Lord! I am wondering just how far you will go to defend this little fantasy of yours. I would suggest you have been brainwashed but a pre-requisite for that is a brain.

 

[TrinityPower]

It is splitting hairs to me. There were two clergy they both participated. That is co officiating. I do not have the wedding certificate in my possession or I would check who signed it. It was not held in the priests church so he may not have signed off on it. That part of who signed it got a bit lost in the shuffle between wedding and reception. My assumption was they both did as they were both standing at the table. It still doesn't change that both clergy stood there and participated.

Sure, it may seem like splitting hairs, but it is a pretty big hair in the Catholic Church. The reason Canon Law does not authorize co-officiating at weddings (barring special dispensation) is because Catholic marriages do not recognize civil divorce when it comes to Catholics remarrying.

The Catholic Church holds that what God has joined together, no man can put asunder. While the Church recognizes that a married couple may do better apart, the marriage itself still stands in the eyes of God. That is why once a valid marriage contract occurs in the Catholic Church, there can be no re-marriage.

Non-Catholic ministers who do not agree with this Catholic doctrine are not apt to agree to co-officiate. A Catholic priest wouldn't 'co-officiate' without special dispensation. Either this occurred, or he was there not to officiate, but in a blessing capacity.

I understand what you are saying and people have their own definitions and values but there were two clergy, they both did their part to participate. The priest blessing or pronouncing is still participating. They took turns talking so they can call it what they want

 

[BluePhantom]

Ok hold on...I haven't even read the rest of your post yet, although I am looking forward to the entertainment value. The Temple was not destroyed in an effort to eradicate Judaism and establish paganism among the Jews. It was destroyed as a "fuck you" to the Jews for rebelling. As I said...the Roman's didn't give a fuck so long as the Jews paid their taxes and didn't start shit. Well guess what....they started shit, didn't they? And the Romans did what the Romans did best. They said "oh...you are going to get bitchy, well how do like THAT mother fucker?"

I never claimed otherwise. You're making shit up. The point was: who had it built?

Wait...wait...wait!!!!! Are you suggesting that the Romans built the Temple of Jerusalem or any part of it?!?!?!?!? This just keeps getting better and better!!! It would have desecrated the Temple for a Roman or any non-Jew to have any part of that at all including funding it!!!! This is precisely why Pilate met with the Sanhedrin on neutral ground. His mere presence in the Temple would desecrate it and if they went inside his palace they would desecrate themselves. This is why money had to be changed out during Passover...so Roman coins would not desecrate the treasury. OMFG what a total dolt!

 

[Meriweather]

I understand what you are saying and people have their own definitions and values but there were two clergy, they both did their part to participate. The priest blessing or pronouncing is still participating. They took turns talking so they can call it what they want

Absolutely. For those of us interested in the minute, there is a bit of curiosity in trying to correctly identify if your marriage was an example of special dispensation co-officiating; or, if one minister officiated and the other acted more in the capacity of giving a blessing. Personally, at this point, I am more than willing to agree that of all of us discussing this, you are in the best position to have the most accurate feel for what took place that day. If you say it appeared to you to be a special dispensation circumstance, I'd bet that you are probably correct. Just because special dispensations seldom happen, it does not mean they never do.

 

[TrinityPower]

I know he had to get permission from the archdiocese and the priest of the Catholic Church in juristiction for that geographical area. He declared he HAD to be there to witness it in an official capacity. He could not just sit in a pew. If it was a blessing then whatever but since he had to be included in the ceremony officially how would I think any different than it was co officiated. There was also the pushing of the child document. If my ex signed that thing which he told me he didn't, I think that makes a difference in the priest participation. I also assumed me having to sign a document if I had been baptized or not and had to have two witness sign a yay or nay on it had something to do with it. It doesn't really matter at this point except to my ex who still thinks once married always married I guess. His idea of marriage was not what I signed on for. Control and abuse were not in the agreement I signed

 

[Meriweather]

I know he had to get permission from the archdiocese and the priest of the Catholic Church in juristiction for that geographical area. He declared he HAD to be there to witness it in an official capacity. He could not just sit in a pew. If it was a blessing then whatever but since he had to be included in the ceremony officially how would I think any different than it was co officiated. There was also the pushing of the child document. If my ex signed that thing which he told me he didn't, I think that makes a difference in the priest participation. I also assumed me having to sign a document if I had been baptized or not and had to have two witness sign a yay or nay on it had something to do with it. It doesn't really matter at this point except to my ex who still thinks once married always married I guess. His idea of marriage was not what I signed on for. Control and abuse were not in the agreement I signed

If the archdiocese was involved, I would guess (and it is only guess) it was about a special dispensation. If your ex-husband still considers himself married to you, that also leans towards the marriage taking place under special dispensation.

 

[BluePhantom]

It's pseudography when it serves your purpose. Newsflash: It's all pseudography and already pointed out in post 111 via the time line. All of the writings occur long after the fact. You don't have anything. No historical JC. None of this happened.

Most of it is psuedepigraphy. Scholars still accept the undisputed epistles of Paul as being authentic. At the very least they appear strongly to have been written by the same guy where the Pastoral Epistles and the others clearly were not.

Regardless, this does nothing to establish your claim that Catholicism is the original form of Christianity. Catholicism was defined according to the Church under Constantine and subsequent Emperors. Yet the New Testament as we know it today is what they endorsed. If they are all pseudepigraphic, as you claim, and are completely historically inaccurate as you seem to be implying, then what you are saying is that Catholicism got it totally wrong because Catholic doctrine is based in large part on those books. If Catholicism got it wrong, then it means is is in contrast to what the disciples believed and taught, meaning it was not the original form of Christianity.

Hell, I'll even try to pretend that you completely ignored Hezer stating that to make the categorical distinction between literate city dweller and illiterate villager is wrong. I completely understand that's your MO. Appeal to your own authority, twist shit and lie and act like an all around douche bag.

Hezer's point was that simply because someone lived int he sticks it did not automatically make them illiterate and just because they lived in the city it did not automatically make them educated. That's a given and hardly needs stating. The point is that the overall estimate of literacy for Jews in Roman Palestine is anywhere from 3% - 10% depending on who you ask, but no matter where you were, the overwhelmingly vast majority of Jews were illiterate and uneducated. A person in their early teens in modern United States society is FAR more educated than the vast majority of people in antiquity.

 

[TrinityPower]

I know he had to get permission from the archdiocese and the priest of the Catholic Church in juristiction for that geographical area. He declared he HAD to be there to witness it in an official capacity. He could not just sit in a pew. If it was a blessing then whatever but since he had to be included in the ceremony officially how would I think any different than it was co officiated. There was also the pushing of the child document. If my ex signed that thing which he told me he didn't, I think that makes a difference in the priest participation. I also assumed me having to sign a document if I had been baptized or not and had to have two witness sign a yay or nay on it had something to do with it. It doesn't really matter at this point except to my ex who still thinks once married always married I guess. His idea of marriage was not what I signed on for. Control and abuse were not in the agreement I signed

If the archdiocese was involved, I would guess (and it is only guess) it was about a special dispensation. If your ex-husband still considers himself married to you, that also leans towards the marriage taking place under special dispensation.

His feeling about it is not about the rule of the church as much as it is about him feeling like he still has a say and is ultimately in control. He has a sibling that thinks that way as well but neglected to disclose pertinent info before marrying

 

[BluePhantom]

Well again, if we define the "earliest form of Christianity" as that which was taught by the first Christians (which seems reasonable) and we define a "Christian" as someone who believes that Jesus was the Messiah and believes in the physical resurrection of Jesus, then the first Christians were Mary Magdalene (in fact according to certain gospels she may have been the very first Christian), the disciples and their group of followers. Thus, what they taught would by definition be the earliest form of Christianity.

Who practices that today? Pfft...no one in its entirety. The Evangelicals certainly maintain the apocalyptic elements as do Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists, etc. But what the disciples taught would have been really Jewish not the ultra-conservative Christian viewpoints of the Evangelicals. I don't think any religion today practices the earliest form of Christianity.

I do think Catholicism can be rightfully called first. Here is why.

Several universities, Harvard, among them, claim to the the first in the United States. Would you argue that none of them are first because higher learning today is not the same as higher learning back then? No one doubts that both Church and University evolved, but there was a first.

The foundation of Jesus' teachings, what the early Church spread, and what the Catholic Church still proclaims is, "Repentance for the forgiveness of sins", "Love one another," and "Life everlasting", not "End Times" was the basis of Christianity. Sure, many Christians believed they were living in end times, but that was merely the time period in which the new faith was being taught, not its central teachings.

Well of course there were similarities and many of the central themes survived. There are even similarities between stoicism and Platonism and Christianity, but they are similarities based on coincidence and not design. For example both a Greek intellectual and Paul would likely advise a person to focus their attention on intellectual/spiritual issues, but their motivations would be totally different and the philosophy behind that advice would be polar opposites.

The Greek intellectual (depending on his specific point of view) would probably give that advice in the grounds that learning is the only real form of advancement. Perhaps he would discuss the Allegory of the Cave in explaining the importance for learning. Paul on the other hand was saying to focus on such things because they were all going to ascend to heaven any day now so why bother with concerns of the world? So there we have similar teachings, but for completely different reasons.

I disagree that apocalypticism was not one of the most significant elements in original Christianity. Paul's message is almost meaningless unless you put it in its proper apocalyptic context. It is all over his writings and plays a central theme.

To me the real question we should be asking is "does it matter?" If Christianity had not been Romanized, Germanized, Anglicanized, etc the reality is that it would probably still be a small sect of Judaism today. What application would it have for people in the modern age? I would argue that it wouldn't have application for anyone but Jews who maintain apocalyptic beliefs....and of course after 2,000 years of "oh it's coming in our lifetime"...well...you know.....it probably isn't going to be taken very seriously.

This is probably the exact reason why the Gospel of mark is so incredibly apocalyptic and the Gospel of John really glosses that over. When Mark was written people were still on board with "the end is near" but by the time John was written they were saying "well maybe it isn't". So it's actually, in my view at least, a good thing that original Christianity didn't survive for long. It is just not something that would have any meaning for the world today.

 

[Meriweather]

His feeling about it is not about the rule of the church as much as it is about him feeling like he still has a say and is ultimately in control. He has a sibling that thinks that way as well but neglected to disclose pertinent info before marrying

I don't know what your ex feels he is in control of, so I cannot comment on that. If he is in a Catholic marriage and chooses to honor that commitment, then he will decline to marry anyone else. As you are not Catholic, then Catholic commitments do not bind you.

 

[zaangalewa]

You understood my explanation - maybe. And what you justify or not is for me personally completly unimportant.

I understood your explanation. Your response was entirely unimportant. It is fantastic that one person from one sect castigates another as breaking a commandment when in reality...........it's all breaking the second commandment.

The second? And where exactly broke I the second commandement?

Thou shalt have no other gods before me

That's why the big JC is unacceptable to Jewish people. Hence, the justification.

That's the first commandement, not the second. I answered yet. To say "the big JC" is for example a break of the second commandement if your intention was to hurt with this expression. I could say more about the human dimension of god, but if you are a Jew - what I doubt about I guess you are an atheists or Muslim - then it's not necessarry to do so, because Christians are not Jews and Jews are not Christians, what makes it not impossible to be sisters and brothers in god.

Second if you're Jewish

¿?

which is where all of this allegedly stems from. Save it. I've already dealt with the justification several pages back. Although, I would be more than happy to indulge in the many dimensions of God on another thread as long as it isn't initiated as an attack. You set it up and I'll be there.

I guess you know why you spoke with me - I don't know.

 

[Ravi]

I know he had to get permission from the archdiocese and the priest of the Catholic Church in juristiction for that geographical area. He declared he HAD to be there to witness it in an official capacity. He could not just sit in a pew. If it was a blessing then whatever but since he had to be included in the ceremony officially how would I think any different than it was co officiated. There was also the pushing of the child document. If my ex signed that thing which he told me he didn't, I think that makes a difference in the priest participation. I also assumed me having to sign a document if I had been baptized or not and had to have two witness sign a yay or nay on it had something to do with it. It doesn't really matter at this point except to my ex who still thinks once married always married I guess. His idea of marriage was not what I signed on for. Control and abuse were not in the agreement I signed

If there was a dispensation given then you were married in the Catholic Church and it is understandable that your ex still considers you to be married still. Since you refused to agree to raise children as Catholic though, assuming there was a dispensation, perhaps the priest simply stayed as a family friend. If things were unclear to you you should have insisted on clarity.