Can you please give me an example? Honestly. I mean teachings, not language or structure, I mean what Catholics believe.

 

No, but only because we're getting really outside the bounds of this thread.

 

I'll simply add the the Council was and has been a complete disaster, but it's not entirely the fault of the Council; they weren't very careful when promulgating the documents and as a result, the Church spent much of the 20th Century trying to tear itself apart.

I'm sorry, normally I would have answered "No" to that question but the last couple synods have me hopping mad with bishops who have no gift for subtlety or discretion of speech. I'm just frustrated.

Can you please give me an example? Honestly. I mean teachings, not language or structure, I mean what Catholics believe.

 

I am guessing you are asking what Catholics believe that protestants do not?

 

One big one that separates Catholics (and Orthodox Christians and many other protestants) from Calvinistic protestants is the idea of once saved always saved. None Calvinists like Catholics believe one can fall out of a state of grace. The can go back to a state of grace through reaffirming their faith and repenting but it can be lost. Once saved always saved I believe would state that person was never saved in the first place.

I am guessing you are asking what Catholics believe that protestants do not?

 

One big one that separates Catholics (and Orthodox Christians and many other protestants) from Calvinistic protestants is the idea of once saved always saved. None Calvinists like Catholics believe one can fall out of a state of grace. The can go back to a state of grace through reaffirming their faith and repenting but it can be lost. Once saved always saved I believe would state that person was never saved in the first place.

 

No, InItToWinIt is asking me about my comment on Vatican II, a comment I never should have made. I didn't mean it and was typing in frustration.

"Why does the Church need to rule on whether a marriage was valid when it's considered to be canonically invalid prima facie? Seems like that's a bit confusing. So a Justice of the Peace wedding, with nothing inherently religious in the ceremony can bind two people in the eyes of the Church?"

 

When is a marriage canonically invalid prima facie? I was under the belief that with 99% of marriages, there is the assumption of validity unless a review of the tribunal determines there were detriments to the marriage going into it.

 

 

"I'm of two minds: the Catholic Church recognizes baptisms from all Christian denominations and considers them sacramentally valid."

 

Not necessarily. A valid baptism must 1) involve water (in cases of life and death you can be very liberal in finding water, ie if you literally can find water no where, I think you can lick your finger if that is all you can find) 2) it must use the Trinitarian Forumula and 3) ??? I forget #3

 

Anyways back to # 2. The Catholic Church states that baptism must use the Trinitarian Formula which is: "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" or while using water you would say: " 'Getslow', I baptize you in the name of the Father........". The reason for this is Matthew 28:19 where Jesus commands the apostles to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" There are some evangelical churches which only baptize in the name of Jesus which the Catholic Church feels does not fulfill Jesus's command.

 

 

"At the same time, if I follow all the procedures and rubrics to celebrate Mass but I'm not a priest, I'm not really celebrating Mass am I?"

 

Depends how you define celebrating. If the priest were to pass out once mass started and you decided to keep things going, transubstantiation would not occur and everyone at that mass would be obligated to attend another mass with a coherent priest if possible to relieve them of their Sunday obligation.

 

"I had no idea that the Church would consider extra-ecclesial marriages to be both valid and invalid at the same time. How does that work?"

 

A marriage is either valid or invalid, can't be both. There is an assumption of validity until the tribunal determines otherwise but it is valid until then.

 

I don't know if a marriage can be valid but illicit. Would have to read up on that.

No, InItToWinIt is asking me about my comment on Vatican II, a comment I never should have made. I didn't mean it and was typing in frustration.

 

Oh, oops.

Too bad Flaget Rocks is no longer on BGP. He (and his father) really knew their stuff when it came to church teaching.

I am not Catholic, but my grandparents are, they actually call themselves Marionites. Something I noticed from the article is that homosexuality is not being glorified by any means. The perspective is still that homosexuality and cohabitation is still sinful, but the church needs to treat those people with respect in order to bring them into the church and convert them.

 

I realize I just summarized it but I think this view is the one that the Bible has actually held for 1900 years.

When is a marriage canonically invalid prima facie? I was under the belief that with 99% of marriages, there is the assumption of validity unless a review of the tribunal determines there were detriments to the marriage going into it.

 

If a Catholic woman and a non-Catholic man were to get married by say, a Lutheran pastor who was a friend of the groom, it can be done, but it requires still going through the pre-sacramental classes with a priest and a dispensation signed by the local bishop. If they decide to go ahead and have the wedding without the dispensation, is the marriage valid in the eyes of the Church?

If a Catholic woman and a non-Catholic man were to get married by say, a Lutheran pastor who was a friend of the groom, it can be done, but it requires still going through the pre-sacramental classes with a priest and a dispensation signed by the local bishop. If they decide to go ahead and have the wedding without the dispensation, is the marriage valid in the eyes of the Church?

 

No. When one or both of the to be wedded are Catholic, then the bar is raised for validity. My posts above assumed neither were Marionite Papists. If one or both are Catholic, then dispensation is required from the diocese ordinary (bishop, archbishop or cardinal, who ever is the head of the diocese, I don't believe an auxiliary or coadjutor bishop can give dispensation) for the validity of the sacrament.

I was raised by super devout strict Catholic parents that were raised in super strict Catholic families.

 

Both of them followed the doctrine very seriously, and were walking texts books on all the specifics, and they did their best to pass this belief on to all of their 6 children.

 

I do not regret my intense exposure to it, and with no disrespect to them, because I truly believe that they taught it with love and down to their heart concern for our souls, I personally do not subscribe to any organized religions.

 

With no specific labels, I carry a personal sense of spirituality, and one that I cannot preach to others.

 

For me, simple truth is complex enough than to make it even more so with an abundant amount man-made concepts to go along with it to confuse the issue.

 

With that said, many people view their belief in the Catholic Church with just as much heart as they would the love of their family.

 

When a gay person for example grows up with Catholic teachings that mean a whole lot to them, it becomes a serious internal struggle for them if they are now divided by something they did not choose that doesn't coincide with their religious teachings.

 

For those gays that never truly wanted to leave the church, or are having that internal battle, as well as divorced Catholics etc..., I believe it's a good direction for the church to go in to be more understanding, compassionate, and accepting, and just downright real about it all.

 

I'd have to believe it is also a battle for the Church when they don't feel like changes in doctrine are possible as it would devalue teachings of the past, and they take the chance to confuse by their compassion and acceptance.

 

Obviously no matter which way they go it will be met with either praise or criticism, and it also can seem like mixed messages. They can't really win, but at least I think they ultimately do a better job of leading their people if they first can show them that they care about them, and respect and understand them.

Just for kicks here's an extremely conservative traditional Catholic organization from Los Angeles called "Tradition In Action".

 

I bumped into their website about a year ago, and sometimes check it out for a good laugh.

 

They've been against every pope since the Vatican II Council, and don't even recognize the pope as being the true pope.

 

No matter how conservative my parents were, there's no doubt that this group would make them snort with derision.

 

They have updates that go back to 2002. If you click on "The Latest Updates", be sure to then click on "Church Revolution in Pictures"

 

They manage to find fault with everything the church or the pope does, and it's a real hoot to see the spin they put on everything.

 

The pictures section can also be found on the home page menu as the 6th item.

 

The website is rather extensive and I've not been through it completely, but like I said a good laugh is to be had by all, and especially with their pictures section.

 

Tradition In Action @ TraditionInAction.org

You'd have to dig deep to find these from the "Tradition in Action" website, so just for kicks here's two photos that they try to make Pope John Paul II look like a big sinner.

 

Picture of Cardinal Wojtyla in casual dress camping with young women and men in Poland - Desacralization of the Papacy @ TraditionInAction.org

 

Cardinal Wojtyla in OGGI magazine with woman and child

An embracing Card. Dolan

 

Just another one of the many examples of the ridiculous from the "Tradition In Action" website.

Just for kicks here's an extremely conservative traditional Catholic organization from Los Angeles called "Tradition In Action".

 

I bumped into their website about a year ago, and sometimes check it out for a good laugh.

 

They've been against every pope since the Vatican II Council, and don't even recognize the pope as being the true pope.

 

No matter how conservative my parents were, there's no doubt that this group would make them snort with derision.

 

They have updates that go back to 2002. If you click on "The Latest Updates", be sure to then click on "Church Revolution in Pictures"

 

They manage to find fault with everything the church or the pope does, and it's a real hoot to see the spin they put on everything.

 

The pictures section can also be found on the home page menu as the 6th item.

 

The website is rather extensive and I've not been through it completely, but like I said a good laugh is to be had by all, and especially with their pictures section.

 

Tradition In Action @ TraditionInAction.org

 

If they don't recognize the Pope, they are not Catholic.