Switching faiths

[edb19]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/02/25/religion.survey.ap/index.html

There is some really interesting information in the above article.

I realize that statistics need to be taken with a big grain of salt, but IMO there are some surprising numbers here.

[MrJim]

From the article:
The Roman Catholic Church has lost more members than any faith tradition because of affiliation swapping, the survey found. While nearly one in three Americans were raised Catholic, fewer than one in four say they're Catholic today. That means roughly 10 percent of all Americans are ex-Catholics.

The share of the population that identifies as Catholic, however, has remained fairly stable in recent decades thanks to an influx of immigrant Catholics, mostly from Latin America. Nearly half of all Catholics under 30 are Hispanic, the survey found.

On the Protestant side, changes in affiliation are swelling the ranks of nondenominational churches, while Baptist and Methodist traditions are showing net losses.

Many Americans have vague denominational ties at best. People who call themselves "just a Protestant," in fact, account for nearly 10 percent of all Protestants.

Although evangelical churches strive to win new Christian believers from the "unchurched," the survey found most converts to evangelical churches were raised Protestant.

[Rhamiel]

My Mom is a Methodist, and from what I have seen that denomination is falling apart. I did not know the Baptists were having troubles too.
Even though a lot of people are leaving the Catholic Church, we are also getting a lot of converts, I am not going to say that it evens out, but between converts, people who are raised Catholic and stay Catholic and immigrants I think we are doing ok in America

[MrJim]

My Mom is a Methodist, and from what I have seen that denomination is falling apart. I did not know the Baptists were having troubles too.
Even though a lot of people are leaving the Catholic Church, we are also getting a lot of converts, I am not going to say that it evens out, but between converts, people who are raised Catholic and stay Catholic and immigrants I think we are doing ok in America

Within any group I would suppose some weeding out doesn't hurt ;)

You and mom get along ok?

[Rhamiel]

meh, she does not like to do anything with my church but me and my Dad help out at her church whenever they need it, so I kind of resent that. But we get along well for the most part

[edb19]

I'm not sure that Baptists are "having trouble" with membership, but can't say for sure. The Baptist churches I'm familiar with are either maintaining their numbers or growing slowly but steadily. I know my pastor doesn't teach on "church growth." He holds with the belief that God will grow His church in His time - we just continue to preach Christ and Him crucified.

I do know that some of the more liberal mainline Protestant churches (PCUSA, UCC) have lost numbers over the past few decades.

Actually one of the things that most surprised me from the article is the numbers of JW's leaving their affiliation (never sure what to call them - denomination??) I know in my community we've seen several new Kingdom Halls in just the past few years.

The thing that really saddened me - the apparent willingness to refer to the church as a marketplace. God doesn't need us to "market" Him - and maybe that's a big part of the problem. We worry more about marketing than His word. And once the current "fad" becomes old hat, what will we incorporate next?

[MrJim]

the American Baptist church I'm at seems to be declining in numbers, rarely over 50 in attendance anymore, some mornings only low 30's...

[Rhamiel]

In Ohio it seems to be growing or atleast keeping the people they have, from what I see in central and southern Ohio anyways, I live in Columbus and go to school in southern ohio

[edb19]

the American Baptist church I'm at seems to be declining in numbers, rarely over 50 in attendance anymore, some mornings only low 30's...

That's what my church runs too - but we're growing over the past 7 years since we started (I think we originally had about 20 people - including children). As the children have grown - most have joined the church (a couple - like my son - attend different churches with their spouses), we've had several new families join, a couple of families moved away from our community (otherwise I think/know they'd still be with us).

Can't speak for American Baptist (my church is Reformed Baptist) but my pastor says historically RB churches are smaller - don't typically see RB churches with hundreds, much less thousands, of attendees/members. Church size like ours is the norm.

Another thought - maybe those who attend the more conservative churches are more discerning - are looking for more than having their ears tickled. Better to trust in our sovereign God and His plans than to worry about "numbers." (not saying anyone here is doing that - just a general observation)

One more idea - we are, after all, a remnant. Should any of this surprise, much less overly concern, us?

[MrJim]

That's what my church runs too - but we're growing over the past 7 years since we started (I think we originally had about 20 people - including children). As the children have grown - most have joined the church (a couple - like my son - attend different churches with their spouses), we've had several new families join, a couple of families moved away from our community (otherwise I think/know they'd still be with us).

Can't speak for American Baptist (my church is Reformed Baptist) but my pastor says historically RB churches are smaller - don't typically see RB churches with hundreds, much less thousands, of attendees/members. Church size like ours is the norm.

Another thought - maybe those who attend the more conservative churches are more discerning - are looking for more than having their ears tickled. Better to trust in our sovereign God and His plans than to worry about "numbers." (not saying anyone here is doing that - just a general observation)

One more idea - we are, after all, a remnant. Should any of this surprise, much less overly concern, us?

As long as the folks are faithful then no, it shouldn't concern us. Numbers though seem to be the "sign" that you are "doing it right":doh:

We are starting a new Wed eve bible study and the intro for the author of the study guide, James MacDonald, is that he's pastor of some multi-thousand member congregation, as though that's the measure of authority...

[ladyt28]

Our church is steadily growing and that is always good to see but the overall trend doesn't surprise me. Our country puts so much stock in "self help" trends leading people to believe they don't need God, they can be all the blessing they need....og course until it fails miserably but by then, another self-help guru has come along. And then there is the belief that a lot of people have that churches are only interested in tithing (and, God help us, some are actually that way) so with incomes dwindling and belts tightening, these people don't understand how God could help them in this area as well.

[icedtea]

I was brought up Catholic only because it seemed to be a family tradition; your parents are, so you must be too.
I left around age 16.
At 19, I met Jesus and years later found a non denominational church, which I prefer. Foursquare and Assemblies are pretty much the same as non denom.
I won't go to a church which has closed communion.

My parents were only nominal anyway. I never had to keep meat free or anything, they never lived as christians.

[edb19]

I was brought up Catholic only because it seemed to be a family tradition; your parents are, so you must be too.
I left around age 16.
At 19, I met Jesus and years later found a non denominational church, which I prefer. Foursquare and Assemblies are pretty much the same as non denom.
I won't go to a church which has closed communion.

My parents were only nominal anyway. I never had to keep meat free or anything, they never lived as christians.

I grew up in a churched family - and would probably be a member of the same denomination if they hadn't changed so much.

The Reformed Baptist church I'm a member of is very similar in doctrines and tenets that I grew up with. I don't consider it so much that I switched faith as that I came home to what I grew up with.

[rrguy]

Thanks for sharing that.
The last poll I seen showed 70% of all polls are inaccurate? lol

I am not saying that one is. I have at least heard of the same things happening as the poll says from churches splitting, then a new one starting up. People leaving the church they grew up in, who now go to a different one or none.

Part of it is IMO people look for what suits them vs whats serves God. I hear more people liking a church cause it has this & this, VS wow this is just like the church I grew up in? lol

[rrguy]

I was brought up Catholic only because it seemed to be a family tradition; your parents are, so you must be too.
I left around age 16.
At 19, I met Jesus and years later found a non denominational church, which I prefer. Foursquare and Assemblies are pretty much the same as non denom.
I won't go to a church which has closed communion.

My parents were only nominal anyway. I never had to keep meat free or anything, they never lived as christians.

I hear that allot about closed communion, some people actually get rather upset. Yet I respect someone who believes during communion you are about to receive the Body & Blood of Jesus, not to allow communion to one who does not believe the same?

I am sure I met Jesus along time ago, I just did not realize it.

[icedtea]

Yes, but the churhces I've belonged to left that up to the honesty of the person in church.
Also, one didn't have to wait a period of time or go through classes to receive.
I am sure Jesus didn't make people do that back then.:)

[Izdaari]

^ Former mainline Baptist, former Disciples of Christ, now Assemblies of God.

AG is one of the churches that's been growing. Guess we're doing something right.

:clap:

[icedtea]

Been to many Assemblies. They lifted my faith when i visited their church in Provo many years ago. A light in a dark place.;)

[stephenc]

Yes, but the churhces I've belonged to left that up to the honesty of the person in church.
Also, one didn't have to wait a period of time or go through classes to receive.
I am sure Jesus didn't make people do that back then.:)


It's my personal gripe, atm. I haven't seriously thought about dropping out, but I've given this issue a lot of thought and prayer.

Denying people communion on, well, technicalities, and even on grounds of sin seems just to me to be all wrong.

[edb19]

I guess it's what is meant by closed communion.

We celebrate the Lord's Table weekly - my pastor makes it very clear (as does Scripture) that it is for believers only. He doesn't require them to be a member of our church and, yes, we trust when a guest says they are a regenerate believer. We don't want someone participating in the Lord's Table simply because it is part of "going to church."

I wouldn't take communion in a EO, RCC (probably not a few others either - ie. Lutheran) church because their views of the Lord's Table are different than mine. Even if they welcomed me, I'd decline out of respect for their different beilief set.

[edb19]

I'm so excited to see folks participating in a non-fellowship thread - this is great.:clap: :clap: :clap:

[icedtea]

I wouldn't take communion in a EO, RCC Even if they welcomed me, I'd decline out of respect for their different beilief set.
They would not want you to receive if they knew you were not! No declining would be necessary.

[Albion]

I hear that allot about closed communion, some people actually get rather upset. Yet I respect someone who believes during communion you are about to receive the Body & Blood of Jesus, not to allow communion to one who does not believe the same?

I am sure I met Jesus along time ago, I just did not realize it.

Except that that isn't the RCC's policy.

You were responding to Howard Dean talking about the RCC, and the RCC closes communion to anyone who is not a member of the RCC (with a very few, usually emergency, exceptions). You could belong to one of the many other churches which also believe in the Real Presence and you'd still not be allowed by the RCC to commune.

[icedtea]

I don't want to derail, but they do trust you. I went to one last summer, after 30 years of being away, carrying my baptism certifictae, and photo of my Holy communion. The priest didn't want to see it, he believed me. And he was right, things had changed. Confession was different also!

[Rhamiel]

not to get off topic, but why would you want to commune with a Church that you do not think is right, also if a Catholic is in a state of mortal sin he or she should not take communion either

[icedtea]

Long story. Pm me if you wish to know. Lets just say I convinced myself enough to 'pass' and no ill effects.

[Simon_Templar]

my views on open vs. closed communion...

The Catholics and the Orthodox as well as some Lutherans, see communion as a sign of unity in the sense that it means all who take communion agree with each other.

Thus they view that agreement must come before communion.

In this view, taking communion with some one that you disagree with doctrinally would be 'partaking of communion in disunity' and would be a violation of Paul's teaching.

In otherwords, their unity is ultimately based on doctrinal grounds and communion is a reflection of that.


I disagree with this view, as does the Anglican Church in general (and some Lutheran Churches). I believe that the true unity of Christianity is nothing other than Jesus Christ himself. The fact that people have doctrinal disagreements is irrelevant so long as they hold to the basic core of truth that unites them to Jesus Christ.

I STRONGLY STRONGLY disagree with the idea that you can admit any person as united to Christ, but divided from me and my Church because of doctrine. Either you are united to Christ and thus united to me, or you are not.

I don't see anything in scripture which makes the unity of believers contingent upon doctrinal disagreements. So long as a person has the core of truth necessary to make them a believer and a member of Christ, I don't have a right to exclude them based on their lack of understanding or their disagreement with non-essential doctrines.

The question may arise, what is an essential doctrine... the short answer is if you can admit a person as being a true Christian despite being wrong about a given doctrine, then that doctrine is not essential.

There are many doctrines which are very important, but are not essential. Among these I would place the understanding of real presense in communion.

Real presense is not found in any of the creeds and virtually all Churches which hold real presense, will still admit Christians who do not as real brothers... thus the doctrine of real presense, while true, and very important, and extremely beneficial... is not essential.

[edb19]

They would not want you to receive if they knew you were not! No declining would be necessary.

In all the times I've visited a RCC church (for example) I've never heard them say members only - and I've seen folks who I know are not of the RCC tradition participate in the Eucharist. Since I know "members only" I stay in my pew.

[icedtea]

My. I should clear up, re-looking at the op title.
I never switched faiths; I went to a church when young because my parents made me. I was not of the catholic faith.
I can say I was not a christian.
So I've never switched faiths.

[edb19]

My. I should clear up, re-looking at the op title.
I never switched faiths; I went to a church when young because my parents made me. I was not of the catholic faith.
I can say I was not a christian.
So I've never switched faiths.

we have sort of strayed from the OP haven't we? Not that I'm complaining - I'm just glad to see some good, friendly discussion going on:thumbsup:

[Rhamiel]

In the begining of the missle it is written that only Catholics in good standing should take communion, on Christmas and easter and at weddings I have heard it pointed out sometimes that non-catholics should not take communion, if I bring a guest. who is not catholic, to mass I ask them not to take communion

[edb19]

In the begining of the missle it is written that only Catholics in good standing should take communion, on Christmas and easter and at weddings I have heard it pointed out sometimes that non-catholics should not take communion, if I bring a guest. who is not catholic, to mass I ask them not to take communion

I knew they had to say something somewhere

[edb19]

something else Reformed Baptists don't do (at least none that I'm familiar with) is Ash Wednesday services. My d-i-l is of the RCC tradition - she took my 3 year old grandson to the Ash Wednesday Mass at her 6 year old's parochial school.

Logan (the younger) wasn't overly impressed
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43460434&postcount=150

I told Kellie she'll have to be careful on Palm Sunday - all of a sudden I have an image of sword fights with the palm leafs.:doh:

[Rhamiel]

Methodist and other "mainline" protestant denominations have ash wendsay, that is cool that your grandson went to it

[edb19]

Methodist and other "mainline" protestant denominations have ash wendsay, that is cool that your grandson went to it

The church I grew up in (Presbyterian) celebrated the various days of Holy Week - I don't remember ashes, but I do remember an Ash Wednesday service, as well as Maundy Thursday, & Good Friday.

One thing my church did that I liked (and took part in), from the time of the Maundy Thursday evening service until the start of the Good Friday service there were always folks in the sanctuary praying (Mark 14:32-41)

Kellie's good about taking the boys to Mass every week - and if they don't go with her, they go to church with me. Lukas is very interested in learning as much as he can about God - lots and lots of questions (darn good ones too)

[Rhamiel]

Kellie's good about taking the boys to Mass every week - and if they don't go with her, they go to church with me. Lukas is very interested in learning as much as he can about God - lots and lots of questions (darn good ones too)
it is amazing how children ask great questions about our Lord

[edb19]

it is amazing how children ask great questions about our Lord

my favorite Lukas story where he was asking about the Lord

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=19744485&postcount=24

[stephenc]

[QUOTEIIf a Catholic is in a state of mortal sin he or she should not take communion either[/quote]

It could be the choice of words; I'm denied communion in my Church because my going on 11 years of marriage to a Protestant (you've heard this before) is a "continuing state of mortal sin".

See; here's the beef; I don't see it that way. How can I? We happened to have a different priest, a different church. So any repentence I make would be utterly false and hypocritical, wouldn't it?

I just can't help this; but I firmly believe one is a Christian first. The denominational technicalities strike me as simply cooked-up.

[icedtea]

yes.:holy:

[stephenc]

...so you'll see I'm caught in the middle; either perform an insincere act of repentence for my "sinful" marriage, or no eucharist.

[stephenc]

Neither does this state of affairs much endear her to the Roman Faith, I might add..something along the lines of would Christ deny anybody bread at the last supper, because...well, what, exactly? She's baptized, confirmed and married in the name of th Holy Trinity.

[Izdaari]

If a Catholic is in a state of mortal sin he or she should not take communion eitherIt could be the choice of words; I'm denied communion in my Church because my going on 11 years of marriage to a Protestant (you've heard this before) is a "continuing state of mortal sin".

See; here's the beef; I don't see it that way. How can I? We happened to have a different priest, a different church. So any repentence I make would be utterly false and hypocritical, wouldn't it?

I just can't help this; but I firmly believe one is a Christian first. The denominational technicalities strike me as simply cooked-up.
I agree, but it makes me wonder why you still consider yourself a Catholic. It seems like maybe the Anglican church would be a better fit for what you've come to believe.

And then again, the Republican Party would be a better fit for Zell Miller, but as an old time Southern Democrat, he just can't bring himself to do it.

[stephenc]

I agree, but it makes me wonder why you still consider yourself a Catholic. It seems like maybe the Anglican church would be a better fit for what you've come to believe.


Heh...it's not the easiest ship to jump, luv. There's a lot of stuff I still prefer about the church I was baptised into; but one is, of course, nor permitted to "pick and choose". Still, I'm milling on this a lot. Have been for quite a time. Answers not there yet; but people here will be the first to know.

[Albion]

Neither does this state of affairs much endear her to the Roman Faith, I might add..something along the lines of would Christ deny anybody bread at the last supper, because...well, what, exactly? She's baptized, confirmed and married in the name of th Holy Trinity.

I guess my thinking runs along the lines of those Izdaari posted.

I wouldn't recommend changing churches only to find one that approves of your situation. But I also can't imagine why you allow yourself to be held hostage to any church when you say that this is your POV: I firmly believe one is a Christian first. The denominational technicalities strike me as simply cooked-up. Well yes I can. You are like millions of others who really in their hearts believe what I've just quoted from you but deep down are held back by years of having been taught that there is one true church and only one, that all the others are pretenders. It's not true and you've got to get past it.

[stephenc]

I guess my thinking runs along the lines of those Izdaari posted.

I wouldn't recommend changing churches only to find one that approves of your situation. But I also can't imagine why you allow yourself to be held hostage to any church when you say that this is your POV: I firmly believe one is a Christian first. The denominational technicalities strike me as simply cooked-up. Well yes I can. You are like millions of others who really in their hearts believe what I've just quoted from you but deep down are held back by years of having been taught that there is one true church and only one, that all the others are pretenders. It's not true and you've got to get past it.


Yes, well, why don't I?

It's not quite so simple to answer that. Let's say that it's an internal conflict along the lines of what you wrote in your second sentence.

Sort of finding myself in the middle ground between Catholicism and Lutheranism; but then again there really isn't one, is there?

[Albion]

Yes, well, why don't I?

It's not quite so simple to answer that. Let's say that it's an internal conflict along the lines of what you wrote in your second sentence.

Sort of finding myself in the middle ground between Catholicism and Lutheranism; but then again there really isn't one, is there?

Well, there might be, depending upon what you think places you in the middle. What aspects of each make you seem to be in the middle?

However, I think you see the issue clearly about changing churches. It's not one that comes easily given how we were raised to think of the church.

[Rhamiel]

I think you see the issue clearly about changing churches. It's not one that comes easily given how we were raised to think of the church.

I am sorry, but I think that is a little condesending, it is as if you are saying Catholics only think about their Church the way they do because they were raised that way. I think Catholics look at the Church in a very Biblical way, Jesus started with a group of people, it was a visable group that had leaders, the apostles, and that the original group is still around to this day

[Albion]

it is as if you are saying Catholics only think about their Church the way they do because they were raised that way.

Many do. That doesn't mean that every Catholic does or that the only thing that keeps a Catholic loyal to his church is that he's been told that all others are just phony knock-offs that God will take care of in due course. But many do think that way because they've been taught to...and then struggle with it for the rest of their lives.

I think Catholics look at the Church in a very Biblical way, Jesus started with a group of people, it was a visable group that had leaders, the apostles, and that the original group is still around to this day

That's what I was referring to.

[Simon_Templar]

Heh...it's not the easiest ship to jump, luv. There's a lot of stuff I still prefer about the church I was baptised into; but one is, of course, nor permitted to "pick and choose". Still, I'm milling on this a lot. Have been for quite a time. Answers not there yet; but people here will be the first to know.
I'm confused, I was told by other Catholics previously that it was not considered a sin for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic...???

[Rhamiel]

it is not a sin for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic

[Simon_Templar]

it is not a sin for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic
So why is he denied the Eucharist for being in a state of Mortal sin because of his marriage to a protestant? I feel like I'm missing something

[Rhamiel]

umm... I think he was married in a non-catholic Church or did not get premission from a Bishop first, I am sorry, I am not sure what happened. Also from what I understand, I thought you could still have your marriage blessed?

[Albion]

So why is he denied the Eucharist for being in a state of Mortal sin because of his marriage to a protestant? I feel like I'm missing something

This probably isn't the best way to explain, but I think it's more a matter of being in defiance of the Church's regulations than of having committed a Mortal Sin per se. A sin could be resolved with contrition, confession, etc. but the marriage is ongoing. So long as it is continuing as a violation of policy, the consequences continue.

It's like a reporter who's been jailed for not telling her sources to the judge. She stays UNTIL she reveals them and thereby gets the contempt of court decree lifted. If she were instead jailed because of a violation of the law, there would be a specific sentence.

[icedtea]

Yeah, my father never could take communion, til finally he tried and got an annulment to his first wife, who had his 30 something year old son.
It was just rules and regulations, from my perspective.
He finally then went and got married in the church and took communion and never went back again.
I am glad I am out of it (no offense)

[stephenc]

umm... I think he was married in a non-catholic Church or did not get premission from a Bishop first, I am sorry, I am not sure what happened. Also from what I understand, I thought you could still have your marriage blessed?


I never did get a straight answer on this from the priest; but I understood it such that the marriage was non-sacramental. That said, he also told me that "mortal sin" would be the only reason to deny anyone the Eucharist. So if I put 2 and 2 together, my marriage must be a "mortal sin"; or are there other charming categories that I've not had explained to me.

A lot of embarassed humming and hawing over this issue; but I respect my priest's honesty in telling me that such are the rules.

But my self-righteous whining aside; if one dwells on it objectively for a bit, you can start to ask yourself on what authority the church wraps the likes of me and many, many others up in red tape and denies them Eucharist. It does rather put a big question mark beside the term "Catholic", as meaning inclusive.

An ordinairy, reflective, member can't see everything in the way of the Catholic Church being immediatley and obviously in line with Gospel teaching. But this is precisely what the Church insists on, you're not allowed to question this, and this is the cause of creeping doubt; at least in the likes of me.

Well, we still hanging on. I like the priest; I like the congragation. But yes, I'm all for "Mere Christianity", I'm afraid. Jesus' as truth rather than a "religion".

[Albion]

I never did get a straight answer on this from the priest; but I understood it such that the marriage was non-sacramental. That said, he also told me that "mortal sin" would be the only reason to deny anyone the Eucharist. So if I put 2 and 2 together, my marriage must be a "mortal sin"; or are there other charming categories that I've not had explained to me.

It no doubt is considered a sin, but not just a sin. If you had cursed, for example, you could confess it and be absolved. But in this case, the marriage goes on. The Church's POV is that you have to resolve that or you aren't really repenting of that sin, just as she'd say if you confessed that you stole a diamond ring from a neighbor, and are now sorry about doing it--but you still intend to keep the ring.

[Simon_Templar]

I never did get a straight answer on this from the priest; but I understood it such that the marriage was non-sacramental. That said, he also told me that "mortal sin" would be the only reason to deny anyone the Eucharist. So if I put 2 and 2 together, my marriage must be a "mortal sin"; or are there other charming categories that I've not had explained to me.

A lot of embarassed humming and hawing over this issue; but I respect my priest's honesty in telling me that such are the rules.

But my self-righteous whining aside; if one dwells on it objectively for a bit, you can start to ask yourself on what authority the church wraps the likes of me and many, many others up in red tape and denies them Eucharist. It does rather put a big question mark beside the term "Catholic", as meaning inclusive.

An ordinairy, reflective, member can't see everything in the way of the Catholic Church being immediatley and obviously in line with Gospel teaching. But this is precisely what the Church insists on, you're not allowed to question this, and this is the cause of creeping doubt; at least in the likes of me.

Well, we still hanging on. I like the priest; I like the congragation. But yes, I'm all for "Mere Christianity", I'm afraid. Jesus' as truth rather than a "religion".
were you married in a Catholic Church with the permission of your bishop?

[stephenc]

were you married in a Catholic Church with the permission of your bishop?


No. Ecumenical church; Lutheran Priest. It was a step towards the middle from both sides; my wife is Pentacostal.

[Rhamiel]

I would think you could just get a priest to bless your marriage, say you are sorry, not for the marriage but for having it outside the Church... it upsets me that this is hurting your faith, the Church should be more helpful to you, it is like they are not even trying

[Simon_Templar]

No. Ecumenical church; Lutheran Priest. It was a step towards the middle from both sides; my wife is Pentacostal.
So, in that case, what the Catholic Church actually objects to is not the fact that you married a protestant, or that you contue to be married to a protestant but that your marriage itself was not blessed by the Church and therefore is not completely valid in their eyes.

To be honest, I don't personally understand the Catholic position on this issue. According to the Catholic Church the proper minister of the marriage sacrament is the bride and groom themselves, not the priest (or so I've been told) thus I don't understand why they consider a marriage to be invalid, or "unsacramental" if it is not performed by a Catholic Priest in a Catholic Church? It doesn't seem to make sense to me.

However, if the real issue is not who you married or your ongoing relationship, but rather simply that the ceremony wasn't "done right" according to the Church, why not get it fixed? Its not like you'd be repenting of your marriage, at most you'd be repenting of holding your ceremony outside the Church with a Lutheran Priest.

[stephenc]

Thanks for the good advice; and you're both right. It's not impossible for me to "get it fixed" by bringing my wife to meet the Catholic bishop or something. As such, the practical side of this question may not be a biggie. But it does run rather deeper than that.

See, I've talked to the priest quite a bit. He's a friendly and helpful sort of chap, and I think it actually upsets him a bit that he had to "go by the book" on me. And that's a bit where the rub is; I feel the human relationship priest/parishoner (in my case; but let's generalize at the same time) being jepordized by "one size fits all" cathecismal regulations.

Don't get me wrong; I don't mind a church having rules. People visibly drunk or taking the p. obviously shouldn't be given Eucharist, etc. But there's a step from that to the certainty that the Church pronounces on matters worldly and spiritual, that the members simply have to go along with. I know it causes pain. You just have to skim OBOB for a bit to see the frustrations being vented; not at Christ or Christianity, but at the interpretations of Christ's teaching being done for us.

So here's the point; it gets in the way. I want above all to be a good Christian, to know and to love Jesus, to learn how to love and help my fellow men. To endure as a Christian. Faith, as such, is there.

So maybe I'm making too much fuss over nothing, right? But along with being a Christian, I have to, at the same time, wrap my head around these regulations that I'm not able to feel certain about. A package deal; and I don't want to be a fake or a hypocrite, but honest in my faith, and it can be tough.

I'm very sorry that it upsets you, Rhamiel, honestly. I really don't want to do that.

I admire and envy anybody who can see absolute truth in every aspect of Catholicism. But in my position, I'm struggling with that right now, OK?

[Rhamiel]

I ment I was upset for you, not at you

[Simon_Templar]

Thanks for the good advice; and you're both right. It's not impossible for me to "get it fixed" by bringing my wife to meet the Catholic bishop or something. As such, the practical side of this question may not be a biggie. But it does run rather deeper than that.

See, I've talked to the priest quite a bit. He's a friendly and helpful sort of chap, and I think it actually upsets him a bit that he had to "go by the book" on me. And that's a bit where the rub is; I feel the human relationship priest/parishoner (in my case; but let's generalize at the same time) being jepordized by "one size fits all" cathecismal regulations.

Don't get me wrong; I don't mind a church having rules. People visibly drunk or taking the p. obviously shouldn't be given Eucharist, etc. But there's a step from that to the certainty that the Church pronounces on matters worldly and spiritual, that the members simply have to go along with. I know it causes pain. You just have to skim OBOB for a bit to see the frustrations being vented; not at Christ or Christianity, but at the interpretations of Christ's teaching being done for us.

So here's the point; it gets in the way. I want above all to be a good Christian, to know and to love Jesus, to learn how to love and help my fellow men. To endure as a Christian. Faith, as such, is there.

So maybe I'm making too much fuss over nothing, right? But along with being a Christian, I have to, at the same time, wrap my head around these regulations that I'm not able to feel certain about. A package deal; and I don't want to be a fake or a hypocrite, but honest in my faith, and it can be tough.

I'm very sorry that it upsets you, Rhamiel, honestly. I really don't want to do that.

I admire and envy anybody who can see absolute truth in every aspect of Catholicism. But in my position, I'm struggling with that right now, OK?
I'm certainly not saying that the RCC is absolutely right on everything :) as you will note, I aren't RCC ;)

However, as you have said you don't want to leave the Church, and as such, I would never encourage you to do so. I was just looking for a practical solution that would fix things from the Church's point of view, without violating your conscience.

As an Anglican I have a lot more freedom in the particulars. As my priest likes to say "we follow the rules, except when we don't".
That has its strengths, but also its weaknesses as you will see in the current troubles of the Anglican Communion which revolve around people redefining everything as they see fit, in their own image.

The Catholic position is more rigid, but that also has its strengths as well as its weaknesses. The weakness you are experiencing because you are getting punished unjustly by regulations that can't be relaxed when maybe they should be.
The strength is that you aren't going to find the RCC doing all the nutty downright unchristian things that the AC is.

so basically it comes down to this. There are some Catholics who think the Church can do no wrong. I've met one or two Anglicans who had that attitude as well, but by and large most Anglicans are more practical. I have found this true among many of the more wise Catholics I've run across... you realize that the Church isn't perfect in the here and now. It has faults, it makes mistakes.
You accept that fact, deal with it as best as you can and continue on where God leads, trusting that ultimately God will see justice done and God will right the wrongs in the Church.

[stephenc]

I ment I was upset for you, not at you


OK.

I thank you for it, Rhamiel.

[stephenc]

I'm certainly not saying that the RCC is absolutely right on everything :) as you will note, I aren't RCC ;)

However, as you have said you don't want to leave the Church, and as such, I would never encourage you to do so. I was just looking for a practical solution that would fix things from the Church's point of view, without violating your conscience.

As an Anglican I have a lot more freedom in the particulars. As my priest likes to say "we follow the rules, except when we don't".
That has its strengths, but also its weaknesses as you will see in the current troubles of the Anglican Communion which revolve around people redefining everything as they see fit, in their own image.

The Catholic position is more rigid, but that also has its strengths as well as its weaknesses. The weakness you are experiencing because you are getting punished unjustly by regulations that can't be relaxed when maybe they should be.
The strength is that you aren't going to find the RCC doing all the nutty downright unchristian things that the AC is.

so basically it comes down to this. There are some Catholics who think the Church can do no wrong. I've met one or two Anglicans who had that attitude as well, but by and large most Anglicans are more practical. I have found this true among many of the more wise Catholics I've run across... you realize that the Church isn't perfect in the here and now. It has faults, it makes mistakes.
You accept that fact, deal with it as best as you can and continue on where God leads, trusting that ultimately God will see justice done and God will right the wrongs in the Church.


There's a lot of truth in what you're saying. Maybe it's just a personality thing...I just don't wanna be dishonest in a sort of "oh, well, I don't buy that but I'll go along with it anyway" sort of way.

But I realize of course that we have to accept certain things; but maybe, y'know, just a bit more freedom of interpretation would endear my church to me more...