The Catholic Church thinks that sexual activity/marriage/reproduction has a moral component, so therefore, it becomes their business too.
Well, actually I think everyone thinks there is a moral component to those things. That doesn’t make it an ouside party’s business. It’s not like it’s god you’re consulting with. It’s a plain old human.
But it isn’t. You are entering into a sacrament in the eyes of God, not just an agreement with another person. You don’t just agree to be faithful to that person through an agreement with them, but with conviction that it’s pleasing to God that you are faithful.
It’s a plain old human whose boss is God, though, and who is the authorized representative of the organization that speaks for God on earth. So, since it’s God’s business, it’s the church’s business.
While I’m not sure if it’s a RCC view, a general Christian concept is that a follower of Jesus gives his life to Him. In such a union both people have also given their lives to Christ, they no longer own their own life, as their own life has died. As such there may be some reproductive expectation - IMHO this is between God and the couple, but historically the RCC like to impose itself in there too.
You forgot the “allegedly” before “speaks for God.”
And as far as “a plain old human whose boss is God” is concerned, how does that distinguish him from anyone else, if God is real? Is God not your boss and mine as well?
Well, but for both the priest and the couple engaging in premarital counseling before they get married in a Catholic ceremony, it’s not “alledgedly”…they’re all in agreement that the Catholic Church is righ, and that the Catholic Church does speak for God in that regard.
For the record, this explanation isn’t making me feel less creeped out.
OK, you should have said “in the eyes of all parties involved” rather than “allegedly.” I’m fine with that.
I’m perfectly content saying what I said.
anyone else has any thoughts about the OP?
As I understand it the RCC considers it to be The spokesman for God through the succession of Peter when Jesus was quoted as saying to Peter ( whose name was changed from Simon) meant rock. On this rock I build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it etc. What you bind on earth etc. So when the Pope speaks excathedra he is speaking for God.
The apostles Creed was to be the beliefs Christians should follow.
Of course there are differences of opinions that is why so many broke away from the RCC.
The church only makes rules for it’s members not other Christians. Before Vatican 2 Catholics couldn’t eat meat on Fridays but they did not expect other denominations to follow, so it was a sin only for RCC members.
Monavis
I’d say to look at it as 3rd class, the 2nd class would be the normal congregation and first class the ones who let the rest know what God has said.
Sure, but I’m not Catholic. And technically, these thoughts come from further posts which suggested that you personally put a whole lot of emphasis on the whole Communion and Eucharist thing.
On the one hand, I think you overemphasize the importance of taking Communion to being part of the Body of Christ. I want to tell you that it’s just a symbol. (Well, a sacrament, too, but . . . )
On the other hand, symbols are important to people. I know a woman who attended a United Methodist Church where Communion is served at an Open Table and all who wish to recieve are welcome (whether you are a member of this church, any church or no church) for several years and then swithed to a local Baptist Church which made her children happier. Now that said children are graduating from high school, Mom is planning to go church-hunting again. The number one reason is because the Baptist church won’t let her take Communion unless she is baptized as an adult. She refuses. It goes against what she has believed all her life about infant Baptism. But starting her children on a good spiritual foundation was important to her, and she will encourage her son to stick with the Baptist Church as long as it makes him happy. (He has been baptized twice, now, once as an infant, and once as an adult).
And so, on the one hand, I think that I value parts of the service other than Communion a lot more than Communion. Music is my major decider at this point.
But if I found myself at a church that otherwise seemed perfect but did not serve Communion at an Open Table, I’m not sure whether I’d wish to attend it–whether I could easily meet their qualifications or not.
Note that the phrasing is “open to.” As I understand it, the likely sterility or near-sterility of one party, the fact the woman has passed menopause, etc., are not bars to sacramental marriage in Catholicism – like Sarah in Genesis, they have only to be open to the idea that God may miraculously grant them a child – not necessarily have much of a probability of conceiving one.
Officially, Catholicism considers that every act of marital sex should be potentially procreative. In practice, that seems to be diluted substanially, the degree varying from place to place and on whom you ask.
I’m still not comprehending Kalhoun’s phobia. People who believe sometimes (horrors!) actually do things which reflect their beliefs!
GASP
Those wild-eyed crazed fanatics!
In the Catholic Church, it is not a symbol. Its being a sacrament is not just a parenthetical aside. It’s a miracle. A miracle that happens at every Mass and we get to be there to take part in it. That’s huge. Now, it happens at every Mass so I tend to choose the church based on the priest(s) and the music as well, but don’t discount the amazingness of the Eucharist.
And as far as being baptized twice, sounds impossible to me. The second one sounds like a symbol rather than a sacrament.
2nd Class was, indeed, being very generous. It is more of a consolation prize.
OK, if that’s what you say, then I say you’re wrong. Nobody in the RCC speaks for God. That appalling moral wreck of a church speaks for nobody but itself and its own repressive desires.
I don’t get this “miracle” bit. What miracle?
If this is the whole Transubstantiation thing-y then I don’t get that either. And really, it doesn’t matter. I have objections both theological and practical to the Catholic Church. I’m not saying it’s evil or horrible or anything, but it isn’t what I’m comfortable with either.
Being baptized twice is not impossible. I don’t think it’s common, though. Whether it’s a symbol or a sacrament is hard for me to judge. In my understanding, if you were baptized in accordance with the Methodist Church, the Catholic Church or most other mainstream churches–EXCEPT the Baptist Church–it will be accepted as a valid baptism should you someday wish to change churches. But the Baptist church has it’s idiosyncracies about Baptism, so if you wish to join a Baptist church and you were previously baptized into another church, you will need to be baptized again. (And vice versa).