Question for Catholics re: marriage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


I think I see them asmore similar because I am not Catholic, but because I'm married to one, I'm held to their standard. At least according to the priest who told me I was living in sin.

-OP

It strikes me as unusual that this priest and your friends all know about the marriage in the Protestant church. Is this in a small town or something? No one has ever asked me about where I was married.

[Anonymous]

They were at the wedding (I think I said that earlier).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm in an invalid marriage as my husband was previously married. He's not Catholic so he's in not hurry to go through the annulment process. I still go to Mass but I don't take communion.

Good, you'd be breaking the rules of the church if you did - and turned away at the communion rail if the priest knew your situation. It's good that you know your place within the church and are not one of those people who approach the rail knowing that they are not in a state of grace.

There isn't a "communion rail" at Catholic church and Catholics do not refer to it in the manner that you are. ("Approaching the rail", "turned away from the communion rail" etc)

I believe you have posted that exact same thing in other threads about Catholicism so maybe tuck this tidbit away for future reference.

??? There still are a number of churches with a communion rail- admittedly most were ripped out after Vatican 2.

Get out more in your diocese- you'll see some.

+1 Lots of rails in older churches and abroad

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They were at the wedding (I think I said that earlier).

All very odd. I do wonder why they're talking to you instead of DH? Are they worried about divorce?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Catholics already had their ISIS moment. It was called the Inquisition.

The Anglicans burned people at the stake at recently as the seventeenth century. Somehow, I'm not worried about my Episcopalian neighbors.

The term "Anglican" didn't come into common usage until late 19th century. Also you are forgetting the millions the Catholics murdered via the Crusades, the Inquisition, St. Bartholomew's day massacre, Bloody Mary, and on and on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


The term "Anglican" didn't come into common usage until late 19th century. Also you are forgetting the millions the Catholics murdered via the Crusades, the Inquisition, St. Bartholomew's day massacre, Bloody Mary, and on and on.

No, but it was indeed the English Established Church that burned Bartholomew Legate and Edward Wightman in 1612. It was the Massachusetts Puritans who killed Quakers, and it was John Calvin who burned Michael Servetus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


The term "Anglican" didn't come into common usage until late 19th century. Also you are forgetting the millions the Catholics murdered via the Crusades, the Inquisition, St. Bartholomew's day massacre, Bloody Mary, and on and on.

No, but it was indeed the English Established Church that burned Bartholomew Legate and Edward Wightman in 1612. It was the Massachusetts Puritans who killed Quakers, and it was John Calvin who burned Michael Servetus.

And the Puritans, Independents, and Cavlinsts are notwheere close to being "Anglican".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And the Puritans, Independents, and Cavlinsts are notwheere close to being "Anglican".

You're mistaken. The Puritans (as distinguished from the Separatists) carefully maintained their union with the Established Church. Independents (say in Salem or, especially, in Rhode Island) were far more tolerant. Calvin is a founding philosopher for Protestantism in general, including the Anglicans. Read the 39 articles, for instance. Or we could notice that it's a bit late to revive the religious wars of the 17th century; I think even the rules about the succession to the English throne have dropped their anti-Catholic restriction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the Puritans, Independents, and Cavlinsts are notwheere close to being "Anglican".

You're mistaken. The Puritans (as distinguished from the Separatists) carefully maintained their union with the Established Church. Independents (say in Salem or, especially, in Rhode Island) were far more tolerant. Calvin is a founding philosopher for Protestantism in general, including the Anglicans. Read the 39 articles, for instance. Or we could notice that it's a bit late to revive the religious wars of the 17th century; I think even the rules about the succession to the English throne have dropped their anti-Catholic restriction.

Anglicans aren't Calvinist. I'm not sure where you got that idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anglicans aren't Calvinist. I'm not sure where you got that idea.

I don't mean to revive the old arguments, but the principle of justification by faith is eloquently set out in Calvin's Institutes. I suppose you could trace it to Luther instead; is that what you're suggesting?

[Anonymous]

My marriage is the same as yours - performed at an Episcopalian church with no Catholic priest, I was raised Episcopalian and my husband was raised Catholic. His parents, who are so Catholic that they used to be a priest and a nun, did not care about this.

Your friends are freaks.

[Anonymous]

Life is too short and too harsh to waste your time with small-minded people. Don't slam the door, though; they might come around in time.

I cannot see God splitting hairs like this. Not my God anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Life is too short and too harsh to waste your time with small-minded people. Don't slam the door, though; they might come around in time.

I cannot see God splitting hairs like this. Not my God anyway.

There is one god -- people can't choose their own god.

Well, there are many religions, so in a way, people do choose, but they obviously all can't be right. Many of them must be inventing a god that suits them. pp has a god who does not split hairs, but other people believe in a god that has very strict rules about things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Life is too short and too harsh to waste your time with small-minded people. Don't slam the door, though; they might come around in time.

I cannot see God splitting hairs like this. Not my God anyway.

There is one god -- people can't choose their own god.

Well, there are many religions, so in a way, people do choose, but they obviously all can't be right. Many of them must be inventing a god that suits them. pp has a god who does not split hairs, but other people believe in a god that has very strict rules about things.

nope

no God - all made up

That's why we have different religions - sprouting off from each other or closely linked based on geography - to give us some purpose for living.

MAN-made b/c men have always been in charge

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I think I see them asmore similar because I am not Catholic, but because I'm married to one, I'm held to their standard. At least according to the priest who told me I was living in sin.

-OP

It strikes me as unusual that this priest and your friends all know about the marriage in the Protestant church. Is this in a small town or something? No one has ever asked me about where I was married.

This story is falling apart.
OP is trying to say a Catholic priest had the opportunity to tell a non-Catholic during a discussion about where she was married that she was "living in sin"?

Are you and your weird friends hanging out socially with the local Catholic priest and discussing your marriage? Just stop already