Feel free to move on, but the post immediately preceding my last one was another saying that a statement of belief without a qualifier indicating that it’s merely “as far as one is concerned” makes you unhappy. This is a standard you didn’t feel necessary to apply to your own assertions. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying you’re inconsistent. Being nitpicky on a topic and inconsistent is an unfortunate combination, that’s all.
You’re completely misreading this. If you’ve read the sequence of misunderstandings between me and Captain Amazing, and that’s what you’ve come away with, it’s too late and I’m too tired to bother to make sense of it for you.
It’s a pretty simple reading to make. The post I originally quoted was yours, correct? Asserting your beliefs without qualification in an exchange whose essence was your displeasure over someone else doing the same?
That is not the case now, as I know people who are allowed to marry in the Catholic church and are only told to try to raise the children Catholic. There was a time a Catholic and Non Catholic could not be married in a church but had to marry in the rectory.
No, the church doesn’t require a non-catholic to convert, My husband did not. But if he had been married before and devoriced and I would have wanted to marry him in the church, then he would have had to convert. That was 56 years ago so things have changed.
Monavis
Did he have to promise not to stand in the way of your raising the kids Catholic? That’s what I understood the non-Catholic’s agreement to be??
Exactly. That’s the context, alright.
IOW, “here’s what it looks like when someone else does it.” Or “have it your way.” Or “two can play at that game.”
That was the full meaning of that post.
Got it now? Sheesh.
Nope- he just had to know about my promise. This was in 1987- it may have been different before.
Oh, you were being ironic, eh? I should have surmised that by the affection you showed the Church elsewhere in the thread. My bad, of course. Of course.
Would you care to try that posting again? It still doesn’t make sense.
Well, I’m not exactly keen on that buncha child-molester-protecting cardinals, but that’s old news.
Maybe it doesn’t make sense to you but that is the way it was. There is a lot of things about the Catholic Church that doesn’t maske sense as well as a lot of other religions or beliefs.
The church believes it has the right to determine if a marriage was valid or not depending on the situation, in all cases,It teaches that it’s authority comes from Jesus and through the line of Peter.
Some of the rules have changed in the past 30+ years since I quit believing in the RCC and I have a lot of relatives who are RC and have observed their annulments and some who couldn’t get an annulment. But I do know the RCC does not tell other religions what to do or not.
Monavis
The post, itself, doesn’t make sense. The way you have composed the post doesn’t make sense. One cannot really address your points (if any) in that post until you express yourself clearly.
A, what? It was a perfectly accurate and clearly stated rendition of the rules as denoed by the RCC. What’s so confusing?
Clearly stated? Yeah, right.
Rather than engage in pointless insults, can you pick out specific lines which you do not comprehend. I’m sure several board members would be happy to explain thigs to you if you can ask actual questions.
The entire post of monavis which Sapo quoted is unclear.
Damn… I read half the thread title and thought it was going to finish “Catholics: Let’s talk about second base.”
The RCC states that: a Sacrament is an outword sign instituted by Christ to give Grace. Communion is a Sacrament in the RCC church. It claims to have the authority to decide what is a sacrament and what is not. It’s belief is that it came from Jesus to Peter and his successors( who they believe became Christ’s voice on earth).
If one doen’t believe that then it is a different story to that unbeliever.
Just as a countries ,state ,or family laws may vary and apply only in that Country etc. That is how the Catholic church’s rules are expected to be followed.
All though I do not believe in the RCC. I can understand it’s laws are for the Faithful and not necessary for other beliefs to follow. Although there are many beliefs that even Atheists have in common, such as murder is wrong, etc.
Monavis
Monavis, sorry for abandoning my thread for so long (intermitent connection issues and meatspace demands). Thanks for clarifying your post I found confusing. I just didn’t see how it connected to the OP. After re-reading with the help of your subsequent posts, I see what you were trying to get at.
Yes, the RCC laws are not meant to be binding to non-catholics, of course. I presume you meant that to be in response to the matter of catholic initiation being an indelible mark that someone else brought up to mark that catholics are forever catholics and thus should be somehow addressed by the RCC even if in a state of fallen from grace and not in the way to recovery. I guess then that a once-catholic non-catholic is somehow a non-catholic to whom the laws of the RCC somehow apply.
And I have now confused myself. I hope the effect is not extensive to the other readers. 
Yes, he had to promise to let me raise the kids Catholic. That was 56 years ago and I know a lot of rules have changed in theRCC.
Monavis