(NOTE: FOR SOME REASON, THE LAST COMMENTS ARE NOT SHOWING UP IN FIREFOX, BUT ARE IN IE.)
About the Roman Catholic church and divorce and remarriage!
The more I learn, the more I realize that (as Moonshadow pointed out), the dogma/doctrine of annulment runs in the opposite direction. We can examine this dogma (or is it doctrine?) against Scripture. We know that that Scripture is my final authority (and considered here as the only infallible rule of faith and conduct). In examining traditions/dogma/doctrine of other denominations/religions I examine against Scripture to see if "it's in there".
From what I understand, getting an annulment means that you have to:
- make different "categories" of marriage (sacramental vs. "not") - which I don't find in the Bible. The website I linked to referred to "true marriage", meaning that some marriages are not true, a concept that I cannot find in the Bible.
- make a case before the church that your marriage before God never existed.
Having entered into a marriage contract (which is in the Bible and is considered "marriage"), you are married. Or (according to the Roman Catholic church) maybe not.
If you find yourself in a "not a marriage" (for lack of a better term) it's because of
- psychological reasons
- misrepresentation or fraud
- Refusal or inability to consummate the marriage (inability or refusal to have sex)
- Bigamy, incest (being married to someone else, or close relatives)
- Duress (being forced or coerced into marriage against one's will or serious external pressure, for example a pregnancy)
- Mental incapacity (considered unable to understand the nature and expectations of marriage)
- Lack of knowledge or understanding of the full implications of marriage as a life-long commitment in faithfulness and love, with priority to spouse and children.
- Psychological inability to live the marriage commitment as described above.
- Illegal "Form of Marriage" (ceremony was not performed according to Catholic canon law)
- One/both partners was under the influence of drugs, or addicted to a chemical substance.
Which of these is actually Scriptural? As one who believes that Scripture is the final and only infallible source of faith and conduct, we can examine each of these reasons against Scripture to see if they are Scripturally sound.
The first thing to look for is any place in the Bible where a marriage is labeled "not a marriage" before God. I don't find one.
- Christ, while talking to the woman at the well, said that she had had several husbands - were these all annulled? Jesus considered them valid marriages, or He would have said something different. But He didn't, He called them marriages.
- Consider Onan, who married Tamar in a Leverite marriage and didn't fulfill his end of the bargain. The Bible never tells us that it was not a valid marriage.
- Because it's the law of our land (in the USA), bigamy and incest would have the marriage not be valid to start with (without the judgment of the church). No annulment should be needed, because it was an illegal marriage. Inthe Bible, Jacob married his first cousins and the marriage was never considered anything but a marriage. In the New Testament, living with your father's wife was condemned and church leaders are prohibited from plural marriages.
- Canon Law; Scripture doesn't give a form for marriage (meaning that it must be done in a church and/or by clergy). In the Old Testament, the Law said that if a woman in captured in war, a man shaves her head, waits a period of time and then has sex with her. I suppose you could call that a "form", but it also contradicts the Roman Catholic exception for "duress" - at least for the woman). There was no ceremony in a church.
- question: if a man becomes impotent, can the wife get an annulment?
The New Testament gives us two reasons for a Biblical divorce. In the Bible, we are never told that there must be additional paperwork by the "church" in order to remarry. In the Bible, a Biblical divorce comes with the right to remarry.
The Roman Catholic Church considers a marriage valid when:
- It is celebrated in a ceremony according to church law
- both parties are free to marry each other
- each party intends from the beginning of the marriage to accept God's plan for married life, as taught by the church
- each party has the physical and psychological ability to live out the consent and commitment initially given to the marriage.
Again, let's examine this against Scripture. The Bible never tells us that a "valid" marriage must be celebrated in a ceremony.
That both parties are free is a Biblical concept.
Intentions don't appear to matter (again consider Onan) and (other than the ability to consumate the marriage) physical or psychological reasons don't appear in the Bible.
My conclusion is:
If you are divorced for Biblical reasons, the divorce is Biblical and the marriage DID exist. A person is free to remarry. You don't need an annulment.
If you are divorced for unbiblical reasons, there is still hope an forgiveness (read this). But the marriage still existed and you still don't need an annulment.
(One thing, though...I know a woman who married a man in prison and that was never consumated. Even according to our court system, that was called an annulment by the law.
- NOTE: Any debate on this post MUST be on a Biblical basis. We can examine the doctrine of annulment against Scripture or we can not discuss it.
phd4jesus
"I’m referring to one allowing a fornication loophole and another a “sexual immorality” loophole, yet another a “chasity” loophole. They’re close, but not the same."
This is based on several factors: the kind of translation, the date of translation, and how best define a word during translation. But you have to keep in mind that both the KJV and the NASB are word-for-word translations that are separated by appoximately 300 years. One is old english, one is current english. The NIV is a though-for-thought translation rendered last century.
The fact that the former three translations (KJV, NASB, and NIV) are from original manuscripts and not a translation of a translation as you stated for the NAB would suggest that they are likely more accurate. This is exemplified by your comment containing the definition of porneia. The KJV, NASB, and NIV translate this word much better then the NAB, which uses very "broad" wording (i.e. "unless the marriage is unlawful").
Tony
Carrie:
How do you know in this case, when you read the original Greek, that when God said "porneia", He was taking about illicit sexual intercourse and not idolatry or eating the meat sacrificed to idols?
If you are trusting what someone else told you He meant, then I guess it's ok.
Carrie
How do you know in this case, when you read the original Greek, that when God said “porneia”, He was taking about illicit sexual intercourse and not idolatry or eating the meat sacrificed to idols?
Did I miss something?
Is the other 90% of the RCC's reasons for annulment based on idolatry or eating meat sacrificed to idols?
Ellen
How do you know in this case...He was taking about illicit sexual intercourse and not idolatry or eating the meat sacrificed to idols?
honk.
Ellen
Let's stay focused in on:
Tony, where in the Bible does the Bible state that there is marriage and "marriages that are not marriages"?
Ellen
Elena's reading and commenting on her own blog (which is fine)...I'm planning on starting a series on marriage this weekend (starting with what Biblically constitutes a marriage).
Maybe she can wait until then to judge.
Tony
phd:
This is based on several factors: the kind of translation, the date of translation, and how best define a word during translation. But you have to keep in mind that both the KJV and the NASB are word-for-word translations that are separated by appoximately 300 years. One is old english, one is current english. The NIV is a though-for-thought translation rendered last century.
Indeed. As I said previously, my favotite rendition is the Douay-Rheims which is much more poetic, as opposed to the NAB which is much more accurate.
Also, you have to take into account that the different Gospel renditions (Matthew and Luke) may have had different audiences (one focused on the Jews, and the other on the gentiles). When that is the case, the individual Gospel writers may use different words in the rendering of the story to help with the clarity of understanding of the audience in question.
The fact that the former three translations (KJV, NASB, and NIV) are from original manuscripts and not a translation of a translation as you stated for the NAB would suggest that they are likely more accurate. This is exemplified by your comment containing the definition of porneia. The KJV, NASB, and NIV translate this word much better then the NAB, which uses very “broad” wording (i.e. “unless the marriage is unlawful”).
Sure, and it's in parentheses which I found confusing. I'll do what I normally do when I run into these sorts of questions, I'll go to my pastor. He's very good with Scripture, and he'll be able to point me to difinitive documents that will clarify what the translation means. Want me to let you know when I find out?
I said: How do you know in this case…He was taking about illicit sexual intercourse and not idolatry or eating the meat sacrificed to idols?
Ellen said: honk.
Translation from silly goose to English: "I really don't know how to respond to this, so I'll insult the poster".
Ellen
Just call me "SamIAm"
Ellen
The noun wild-goose chase has one meaning:
Meaning #1: the fruitless pursuit of something unattainable
I'm pursuing what I think is unattainable...Tony, where in the Bible does the Bible state that there is marriage and “marriages that are not marriages”?
Anything else is a wild-goose-chase, sending us (or trying to) on another track...
Come to think of it, "Red Herring" is the term that Elena used to describe my exploration of the "one-flesh" nature.
"Red Herring" might fit better.
I apologize for using "wild goose chase" and "honk"
Ellen
Tony, where in the Bible does the Bible state that there is marriage and “marriages that are not marriages”?
Ellen
Translation from silly goose to English: “I really don’t know how to respond to this, so I’ll insult the poster”.
silly goose (me) 😉
Tony, maybe my mistake with you is that I don't feel animosity from you. I get so that the "honk" thing is more like poking fun, not insulting.
There are those that I "feel" animosity from and I wouldn't play those games with that person. I won't say "hatred", that's a strong word and I know what it feels like and it takes more than this to aim that accusation at another.
If banter isn't up your alley, I stand corrected.
phd4jesus
Sorry Ellen for side-tracking things. I'm going to just follow along and wait for Tony to answer your question:
"Where in the Bible does the Bible state that there is marriage and “marriages that are not marriages”?
Tony
This has become really one sided for me where I get cross examined, and others refuse to answer questions. I think I'm going to bow out of this one, and go on to something more productive.
phd, we had a nice conversation going. Very enlightening, and gave me some stuff to research. Thanks.
A few things to think about.
Where is "the internet" in the Bible?
Where is "stem cell research" in the Bible?
Where are "green eggs and ham" in the Bible?
Ellen
Tony, I'm only trying to ask one question...and I've been asking it.
Where is "the internet" in the Bible?
Where is "stem cell research" in the Bible?
Where are "green eggs and ham" in the Bible?
Where is theology in those things?
Remember the definition of "Sola Scriptura"?
Scripture alone is our only final and infallible source for everything we need to know for salvation and righteousness.
Ellen
Tony, rather than clutter up this post, I've already said that I'd address some of these things in their own posts.
jswranch
[i]JSW : 1. As God designed the world, man and woman become one body, one flesh. (Gen2:20-24) A body cannot be split back in half while remaining alive.
Ellen: As for the second half of your statement, you’re wrong, Biblically.[/i]
So there is a biblical statement saying half a body (waist down or left half removed) will remain alive?
[i]JSW: 2. We are joined in covenant to our spouses (Mal2:14)
Ellen: Covenants can be broken.[/i]
So then you agree marriage is a covenant? Wonderful.
[i]JSW: 4. Just as Christ cannot be separated from his church (Eph 5:32), so is the profound covenant of marriage.
False dichotomy.
God separated from His wife. We know that Biblically, this New Covenant will be the last one, but it has nothing to do with the indissolvability of human marriage.[/i]
When did God break the covenant with His wife? Show the verse that actually says this. How is this a false dichotomy? Re-read all of Eph 5:21-32. The NT, especially Apocalypse of John, always shows Jesus as the groom and the church as the bride in the same way we view marriage.
[i]JSW:5. Spouses are joined until one dies, then remarriage is allowed
Ellen: Right. If they are married, the wife cannot marry another. If they are divorced, they are not married.[/i]
Marriage is from God. Divorce is a declaration from man affecting the ownership of property, children, living conditions, and entitlements. What man does, cannot break what God has joined. They can get a legal divorce, but that does not mean they are free to remarry. Such concept arose for the first time after the reformation.
God joins the two. Does the power of the State of Florida separate them?
[i]JSW 6. God HATES divorce!! (Mal 2:16[j])
Ellen: as I said, when translaters go back to the ancient texts, the ESV is the most accurate.
“For the man who hates and divorces, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers[a] his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”[/i]
Read your own ESV. Especially, check out the ‘[a]’ you quoted. That is a footnote in the ESV. Looking to the bottom of the page of the ESV: “..or For the LORD, the God of Israel, says that [b]he hates divorce[/b], and him who covers.”
[i]JSW: 11. God charges the divorced to remain unmarried (1 Cor 7:11).
Ellen: The wording used is “should not”, not “cannot”. Can we agree that God also charged Christians not to bear false witness, but that it happens?[/i]
Sure, we can agree on this. However, liars, like adulterers can go to hell.
[i]JSW: 12…Jesus is permitting the dissolution of an unlawful marriage, not a release from a covenant.
Then Jesus was calling His Father a sinner.[/i]
How so? If you marry a man you meet, then later find he lied about having 3 other wives with kids, were you ever spiritually married to this man? No. If you (say an adoptee) marry a man, only to find out years later he is your twin brother, were you ever spiritually married? No.
For Ellen and all others,
On 'pornia,' yes it has lots of meanings. Which one did Paul mean? Tough question. I turn to those folks who were the disciples/successors of the Apostles for the answer.
Carrie
This has become really one sided for me where I get cross examined, and others refuse to answer questions. I think I’m going to bow out of this one, and go on to something more productive.
Tony,
Why can't you just admit that you have no scriptural support for annulment.
No one is asking you to find the actual word "annulment" in the Bible, but just show scriptural support for the concept of saying a marriage was not legitimate after the fact.
This is why the RCC not only has false doctrines but no credibility. They have unbiblical doctrines (like annulment) to get around their superficial support of biblical doctrines (marriage).
Carrie
John,
I'd like to tackle some of your comments (btw, work on your tagging) but these comments are getting long and Ellen has a new post.
Perhaps Ellen will tackle these on the new post.
I'm moving up.
Ellen
So there is a biblical statement saying half a body (waist down or left half removed) will remain alive?M|
IF this were anything other than an allegory, if this were a true, physical fact, not an allegory, we would see that if one half dies, the other half would also.
I've also demonstrated from Scripture that this is not a permenant "one-flesh" - or every Jew that ever went to a prostitute would have been joined to her for life. Scripture which you have ignored.
When did God break the covenant with His wife? Show the verse that actually says this. How is this a false dichotomy?
# Isaiah 50:1
Thus says the LORD:"Where is your mother's certificate of divorce,with which I sent her away?Or which of my creditors is itto whom I have sold you?Behold, for your iniquities you were sold,and for your transgressions your mother was sent away.
Jeremiah 3:8
She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the whore.
False Dichotomy. Scripture says that this covenant will last, therefore human marriages cannot be dissolved. It's like saying that Christ is sinless, therefore humans cannot sin.
They can get a legal divorce, but that does not mean they are free to remarry. Such concept arose for the first time after the reformation.
And Moses (as demonstrated by the Law).
And Paul (in the case of abandonment by an unbeliever).
And Jesus (in the case of sexual immorality).
You blame Biblical fact on the reformation. That's why there needed to be a reformation.
God joins the two. Does the power of the State of Florida separate them?
No - they make the decision; they separate them. Just like they made the commitment to marry and just as they made the covenant.
Just as (when they made the covenant) the state made it "legal", when they break the covenant, the state makes it "legal".
Read your own ESV. Especially, check out the ‘[a]’ you quoted. That is a footnote in the ESV. Looking to the bottom of the page of the ESV: “..or For the LORD, the God of Israel, says that [b]he hates divorce[/b], and him who covers.”
Right. So don't be faithless and make a divorce necessary. Don't be faithless. Does God hate divorce, or the sin that leads up to it?
Sure, we can agree on this. However, liars, like adulterers can go to hell.
Then it's divorce, not "annulment".
Either God, the Father entered into an unlawful marriage, which He would have called an "annulment", which would not have needed a writ of divorce...
Or...
Disolving of a marriage for cause involves 1) a write of divorce and 2) the ability to enter into another covenant (God is part of the Trinity, Jesus is one with the Father, Jesus is entering into a covenant with the church).
On ‘pornia,’ yes it has lots of meanings. Which one did Paul mean? Tough question. I turn to those folks who were the disciples/successors of the Apostles for the answer.
Okay...do you want to let Tony know that YOU are the one that brought up the Roman Catholic church - since Tony is the one that accused us of being "obsessed".
Just like Elena and Tony accused us of hatred, yet Tony was the one (on his blog) that first said, "I hate those..."
Ellen (happy to be a SamIAm, if it means standing under Scripture)
Ellen
Carrie, I've got a series started...I think the one addressing all of these things will be finished for tomorrow.
Carrie
Tony, maybe my mistake with you is that I don’t feel animosity from you. I get so that the “honk” thing is more like poking fun, not insulting.
I'm glad you made this point Ellen as I feel the same way. Making little jokes and poking fun is meant to laugh a bit.
I feel absolutely no animosity towards anyone whose opinions I oppose here so I am often baffled by their reaction. My guess is that there must be animosity coming from them and they therefore assume it is coming from my side also. There is nothing farther from the truth.
Tony
Remember the definition of “Sola Scriptura”?
Where is "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible?
Ellen
http://mzellen.com/2006/07/27/sola-scriptura-first-essay/
Tony
If a principle leads to an impossible conclusion, we know the principle must be false.
I hope that everyone will agree with me on this one. Sola Scriptura claims that the Bible alone is the only infallible authority on matters of faith and morals. So far, so good; but here comes the problem: Since, according to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, I am not allowed to take into consideration any information on faith and morals that's not part of Scripture, I then cannot know--apart from Scripture--just which books belong in Scripture. But here's the rub. How do I even know what Scripture is without appealing to some authority outside of Scripture?
If I cannot know aside from Scripture which books belong in Scripture, then I have no way of knowing what is truly God's Written Word, i.e. whether what I'm claiming is Sacred Scripture really is Sacred Scripture. Therefore, all arguments like, "The Bible says so" fall flat. If a Protestant is going to tell me, "The Bible ALONE," then he better be prepared to tell me what the Bible IS!
Tony
If a principle leads to an impossible conclusion, we know the principle must be false.
I hope that everyone will agree with me on this one. Sola Scriptura claims that the Bible alone is the only infallible authority on matters of faith and morals. So far, so good; but here comes the problem: Since, according to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, I am not allowed to take into consideration any information on faith and morals that's not part of Scripture, I then cannot know--apart from Scripture--just which books belong in Scripture. But here's the rub. How do I even know what Scripture is without appealing to some authority outside of Scripture?
If I cannot know aside from Scripture which books belong in Scripture, then I have no way of knowing what is truly God's Written Word, i.e. whether what I'm claiming is Sacred Scripture really is Sacred Scripture. Therefore, all arguments like, "The Bible says so" fall flat. If a Protestant is going to tell me, "The Bible ALONE," then he better be prepared to tell me what the Bible IS!
http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/demar.htm
Ellen
Tony, Been there, wrote about that.
Carrie
I guess by this bait and switch tactic, Tony, can we assume you have no biblical support to show for annulment. Nor can you tell us how God defines marriage.
Carrie
Tony,
By your same logic your "men" cannot tell what is scripture or not without God's intervention (whether you want to call it guidance or inspired or whatever).
Therefore, the only ultimate source to tell us what books should be in the Bible is God.
That is who we have trusted in to give us our Bible.
In order to put us at the complete mercy of your "men" you will have to prove that those "men" could have determined what books belonged in the Bible in the ABSENCE of God.
Until then I will continue to put my full faith and trust in my all-powerful, Holy God and his God-breathed scripture and not your "men".
Tony
Ellen, can you link to where you did that?
Ellen
Both of those links work, Tony, I just checked.
Tony
I guess by this bait and switch tactic, Tony, can we assume you have no biblical support to show for annulment. Nor can you tell us how God defines marriage.
Ok, Carrie. You want to play the "show me" game? Show me "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible. Show me the Biblical support for that.
The problem with it is you can't. Simply because it isn't there. I have tried to explain to you that you can't use the Bible as an complete authoritative compendium of God's word simply because someone decided what the Bible is.
Where in the Bible did they find the information to determine what was in the Bible before the Bible was compiled?
I know God is outside of time, but you aren't. Nor are those who decided on and produced that particular book.
I'm really not expecting a logical, reasoned response from you based on prior experience. I expect some snide remark, and/or some insult toward the Catholic church.
Elena
By your same logic your “men” cannot tell what is scripture or not without God’s intervention (whether you want to call it guidance or inspired or whatever).
Therefore, the only ultimate source to tell us what books should be in the Bible is God.
True enough.
However, you don't believe in the book of mormon do you? Because you don't believe that the men who give us the book of Mormon had the authority to interpret and guide scripture.
The reason you have a bible today is because you believe that the men in the councils who determined the canon of scripture (which is not included in the scripture itself) had the authority to do so. That canon stands today except for the Protestant Branch of Christianity who believed that Martin Luther had the authority to take books out of the canon.
Tony
By your same logic your “men” cannot tell what is scripture or not without God’s intervention (whether you want to call it guidance or inspired or whatever).
Therefore, the only ultimate source to tell us what books should be in the Bible is God.
Exactly!!! It is God working through the Apostles and their designees.
Now if the men in whom you placed your faith regarding the authenticity of the Canon stated other proclamations which were part of the deposit of faith and were wrong, wouldn't it call into question the divine inspiration for the selection of the Canon?
In other words, if they were wrong about that, couldn't they have been wrong about Scripture?
In order to put us at the complete mercy of your “men” you will have to prove that those “men” could have determined what books belonged in the Bible in the ABSENCE of God.
Actually I don't. Those men, by definition, could not have determined the Canon in the absence of God. This is the whole premise of my faith.
If they could have selected the Canon in the absense of God, then the Bible would be a sham. Much like the Book of Mormon, and the writings of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
My faith is this:
Jesus instituted a Church ("ecclesia" in the original Greek).
Jesus placed the 12 (actually the 11) in charge of the Church. He built his Church upon "Rock" ("Cephas" in Aramaic).
Those apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit who appeared to them on Pentacost.
That same Holy Spirit guides the Church to this day.
Those saints decided the Canon. They also spoke definitively with regards to faith and morals.
If they were wrong about the faith and morals which they did not write down, could they have been wrong about the Scripture that some of them wrote, inspired by God, and others chose, guided by the Holy Spirit.
Until then I will continue to put my full faith and trust in my all-powerful, Holy God and his God-breathed scripture and not your “men”.
Who chose your Canon? Who produced the Bible that Martin Luther took into the reformation with him?
Tony
Ellen said (in the other link):
The church did not write the Scripture, the church received the Scripture and as early as the writing of 2 Peter it was being acknowledged that the apostolic writings were Scripture.
Who in "the church" received the scripture, and from whom.
Ellen
I have no problem with saying that it was the councils (ironically under the jurisdiction of the Eastern church) who formalized the Canon. I have no problem saying that they received it from the entirety of the early church, who used the writings extensively and used them authoritatively as Scripture. I have no doubt that God protected His Word and sovereignly guided it through the ages.
That doesn't mean that Rome is infallible.
Who produced the Bible that Martin Luther took into the reformation with him?
Evidently not Luther, since he would have left out James and the Revelation of John.
Ellen
I’m really not expecting a logical, reasoned response from you based on prior experience. I expect some snide remark, and/or some insult toward the Catholic church.
Wow...talk about expecting the worse and not giving the "benefit of the doubt."
What you are doing is turning the personal. Please don't.
Carrie
Now if the men in whom you placed your faith regarding the authenticity of the Canon stated other proclamations
This is the difference b/w you and me, I don't place my faith in men.
We have gone through this before and Ellen has written about it and she and I are on the same page.
God wrote the books of the Bible and no matter how crazy you may think it is, God was able to put the canon together.
The fact that he used men for the canon process does not mean that the men were infallible or inspired or whatever special label you would like to think. God has used everyday men throughout the ages to accomplish his will, that doesn't elevate them to the level of God.
I’m really not expecting a logical, reasoned response from you based on prior experience.
Again, this is why I said you were fascinating and it is the same reason we never agree.
You need to find your authority in men, I find it in God. Therefore, since my reasoning is based on the authority of God and not man you will never "get it".
Because you don’t believe that the men who give us the book of Mormon had the authority to interpret and guide scripture.
There are many reasons I don't believe in the BOM, none of them make your arguement though.
I also do not believe that the RCC has the authority to interpret and guide scripture. Now we are back to Rome as the all powerful hive which is still not biblical.
The reason you have a bible today is because you believe that the men in the councils who determined the canon of scripture (which is not included in the scripture itself) had the authority to do so.
Again, I believe God had the authority and hundreds of years later I feel comfortable that his will has been accomplished.
Elena
We have gone through this before and Ellen has written about it and she and I are on the same page.
LOL! I think everyone can agree on that!
God wrote the books of the Bible and no matter how crazy you may think it is, God was able to put the canon together.
I think everybody can agree on that too.
Interestingly though, as has been said before, God didn't send the finished canon, with leather binding and gold gilded pages (KJV of course) down from heaven as Jesus was ascending. He gave us the bible through the hand of man, first through the writers and then through the church councils. You really cannot historically deny that part because it is true.
The fact that he used men for the canon process does not mean that the men were infallible or inspired or whatever special label you would like to think.
They were when they were writing or when they were compilin! They had to be given that special grace as they were putting the bible together or else the bible is no more special than any other collection of books in the library! It either was protected from error while it was being produced or not and if it was then the guys who were doing the actual work had to have that special protection too.
BTW, we don't think that every bishop or every pope is infallible or inspired everytime they open their mouth either. Only under certain specific conditions and topics.
God has used everyday men throughout the ages to accomplish his will, that doesn’t elevate them to the level of God.
Well we all agree on that Carrie and I don't think any Catholic who has ever spoken with you here or on your blog has said that the Gospel writers or the church canonists were God or on the same level as God.
You need to find your authority in men, I find it in God.
That's ridiculous. Of course Catholics (including Tony) find their authority in God. Catholics however believe that God has given special authority and graces to certain men. That's biblical too whether you choose to skip over those certain verses or not. So let's quit insulting Tony that you are more superior because you look to God and he doesn't. IT's not true and now you've been told.
I also do not believe that the RCC has the authority to interpret and guide scripture. Now we are back to Rome as the all powerful hive which is still not biblical.
Well it is biblical but you just skip over or misinterpret those verses.
Again, I believe God had the authority and hundreds of years later I feel comfortable that his will has been accomplished.
Indeed it has and will continue to be worked out on earth, through His servents here.
Ellen
Indeed it has and will continue to be worked out on earth, through His servents here.
Right. All of those who are in His body.
God has used everyday men throughout the ages to accomplish his will, that doesn’t elevate them to the level of God.
Elena, I don't believe that you elevate them to the level of God...but I can see how that understanding can occur.
- There are few churches who claim that their teaching authority is perfectly infallible and that the CANNOT be wrong in their interpretation.
- there are few churches who claim the infallible authority to add to the authority of Scripture (note that I did NOT say "add to Scripture")
- there are few churches whose leaders claim the same authority over their flock as Scripture has.
- there are few churches who give their traditions (you know it as "Holy Tradition") the same authority as Scripture. As Tony put it, "Scripture relies on Tradition and Tradition relies on Scripture. They are the left and right "wing" if you will of the Holy Spirit, completing God's word."
- What I am reading is that there is no Biblical support for annulment, but because it is the magisterium teaching it, there doesn't need to be Biblical support.
Christ is the "Living Word" - "In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word was with God and the Word was God." You cannot separate God from His Word.
When we read that men (magisterium) teach with the same authority as Scripture, it is difficult make a distinction as to authority.
Which has more authority - the magisterium (in teaching mode) or God's very Word?
Elena
Indeed it has and will continue to be worked out on earth, through His servents here.
Right. All of those who are in His body.
Absolutely. I even believe that my stillborn son was part of His plan to work out His will. Nonetheless throughout the scriptures God does choose certain men and women spefically to lead the people. That is very biblical.
Ellen
Which has more authority - the magisterium (in teaching mode) or God’s very Word?
Elena
When we read that men (magisterium) teach with the same authority as Scripture, it is difficult make a distinction as to authority.
Scott Hahn, professor of theology, former Presbyterian minister, Gordon Conwell Seminary graduate said something to the effect that the Catholic Church is either all that she claims to be, or it is an elborate deception. He was convinced through scripture study that it was the former.
With regard to annullments, as I pointed out on my blog, even Protestants disagree on divorce and marriage issues. Without an interpreter of sacred scriptures you get... well Protestantism. It's not either the Magesterium or the Scriptures, they work in harmony together and compliment each other. It's not an either/or situation.
Ellen
Surely, then - you can see how we can think that you elevate the magisterium to the level of God (who is inseparable from His Word), if you cannot (or will not) say which has more authority?
Carrie
So let’s quit insulting Tony that you are more superior because you look to God and he doesn’t. IT’s not true and now you’ve been told.
Tony said on my blog "The authority of Scripture is based on the authority of those who decided the Canon.". Even Atlantic chided him for that comment.
Yet he still seems to find all his authority in men.
If you need men to tell you what God has said in his Word, men to forgive you your sins, men to be "infallible" to decide your canon, men to give you the sacraments NECESSARY for salvation, then you seem to be putting men in the place of God.
When "men" are necessary for all of the above things, then you are no longer looking to God, but looking to men for your salvation.
It is no surprise when you allow other "men" to interpret all scripture for you they ultimatley end up telling you they are in complete charge.
God doesn't share his glory, that is biblical.
Elena
Surely, then - you can see how we can think that you elevate the magisterium to the level of God (who is inseparable from His Word), if you cannot (or will not) say which has more authority?
It's a faulty question. God's word is authoritative. Not all of God's word is contained in what we now call Sacred Scripture.
From the Catechism:
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48
87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.
108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living".73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74
Ellen
Asked and (not) answered.
Ellen
I want to make a note here (for those who can read it). The last couple of comments are not showing up on my firefox browser, but ARE in IE.
Elena, if the Bible says one thing, and the magisterium appears to say something different, who is right?
Elena
Tony said on my blog “The authority of Scripture is based on the authority of those who decided the Canon.”. Even Atlantic chided him for that comment.
Perhaps he could have worded it better, but the gist of it is one must believe that the writers of scripture and the councils who put the bible together had the authority to do so, or else the bible is no different than any other collection of books.
If you need men to tell you what God has said in his Word,
Without that interpretation, you have the disagreements that have caused the many splinters of Protestantism. I have a topic on my blog right now where Protestants including Martin Luther could not agree on points concerning marriage and divorce. Without an interpreter you have chaos.
men to forgive you your sins,
Christ forgives our sins through the authority he has given to the priests. Again, very biblical.
men to be “infallible” to decide your canon,
Uh... well they decided your canon as well Carrie. It has been said that Protestants wouldn't have a bible to beat over the heads of Catholics if the Catholics hadn't given it to you first! Even Martin Luther acknowledged and thanked the Catholic Church for the bible.
men to give you the sacraments NECESSARY for salvation, then you seem to be putting men in the place of God.
Which would be true if God hadn't given them the authority. But he has - again it is very biblical.
When “men” are necessary for all of the above things, then you are no longer looking to God, but looking to men for your salvation.
Nonesense. I believe that God has given His authority and special graces to these men. They are merely instruments for God. Which, by the way is why I will never ever become a Protestant because I do know that authority does not exist in that branch of Christianity.
It is no surprise when you allow other “men” to interpret all scripture for you they ultimatley end up telling you they are in complete charge.
OK Carrie, please find me the exact quote from the catechism that teaches Catholics that the men in the church are in complete charge instead of God. I'll wait.
God doesn’t share his glory, that is biblical.
Oh absolutely I agree. Anyone who thinks being a member of the clergy is a glamour and glory gig is nuts. If it is done in a Christ like fashion it is one of the hardest jobs in the world. I have two sons who might just be contemplating the priesthood, and I while I am open to the will of God in their life, as their mother I am concerned about such a heavy burden.
Carrie, just for the heck of it why don't you read something on Father Damien from Molokai, and Then late Padre Pio and then get back to me about how "glorious" their lives were.
Elena
Ellen give me an example of the bible "appearing to say one thing and the Magesterium another."
Carrie
87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.
When you have to accept of of your teaching about God with docility from someone else (ie you cannot question them) then you have become reliant first and foremost on those people.
If the sacraments are required for salvation as your church teaches, then you NEED the magisterium to dole out your salvation.
If God has chosen (according to your church) to give the sacraments NEEDED for salvation through men, then you need men for your salvation.
God didn't put the gift of salvation bought with the blood of his precious son in the hands of men to administer. That is not what his Word teaches.