|
|
Post by bobzills on Mar 25, 2008 0:09:21 GMT -5
From what I know as a Catholic, and I could be wrong on this, Protestants generally accept the reality of divorce, as perhaps something which is to be avoided if at all possible, but with the idea of giving people a second chance. Before Vatican II, Catholics were opposed to divorce as they relied on the words of Jesus Christ: “. . . whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her” (Mk 10:1-12; Lk.16:18; 1 Cor.7:10-11).Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI elaborated on the evils of divorce in their encyclicals “Arcanum,” and “Casti Connubii.” However,m currently Catholic tribunal officials require that the couple get a divorce before they will accept an application for the annulment. It seems like this makes the Catholic tribunal complicit in promoting divorce, since they are saying that you have to get a divorce even before we judge the marriage to be invalid. About two thirds of American annulments are based on what appears to be dubious rationalisations for determining the mental capacity of an individual at the time of the ceremony. Just take a look at the statistics: in 1930, there were about 9 annulments granted in the USA, whereas, in recent years the annulment rate has been more than 60,000 per year in the USA. Is there really any real difference between the Protestant conception or approval of divorce under certain conditions, and the Catholic approval of marriage annulments on the basis of the most trivial of reasons. Except that there is a semantic differencem and the Church officials state that there never was a marriage in the first place and that they are really not annulling a marriage, because none ever existed. But is this an honest approach, or is it simply a way of circumventing the traditional Catholic teaching on the indissolubility of marriage by employing semantic smokescreens?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 25, 2008 7:47:05 GMT -5
I have not experience on Catholic Divorce processes, but I've heard them being almost as difficult as the Pre-Cana requisites.
This has been a big turn off to liberal Catholics and for some, a reason to leave The Church.
How it compares to Protestant divorce is that Protestants have Divorce "on demand". I don't think they have the reconcilliatory efforts that The Church offers.
Personally, I believe that once married, always married. It's a promise before God. But I also believe that The Church has the authority to discern whether or not a couple should be allowed divorce.
I think that The Church works hard to keep a couple married for their own sakes (the couples'). Something that serious should take work.
The differences? A whole lot more Protestants get divorced and get divorced easier than Catholics do. Protestantism is the Burger King of Christianity..."Have it your way."
|
|
|
|
Post by bobzills on Mar 27, 2008 15:02:43 GMT -5
A whole lot more Protestants get divorced and get divorced easier than Catholics do. Protestantism is the Burger King of Christianity..."Have it your way." This may have been true in the year 1930, but I think that the relative number of Catholic divorces today is pretty close to the relative number of Protestant divorces. For example, according to the Barna report, the percent of Lutherans who have been divorced is about 21%. And this is the same percentage given for the Catholics who have been divorced: 21%. Christians are more likely to experience divorce than are non-Christians," Barna Research Group, 1999-DEC-21 |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Mar 27, 2008 15:36:15 GMT -5
Um... this is what i see
Non-denominational ** 34%
Baptists 29%
Mainline Protestants 25%
Mormons 24%
Catholics 21%
Lutherans 21%
And i can say that my family the whole thing, i have like 10 cousins and 8 pairs of aunts and uncles and well, they are all still married. Only one divorce in the family and was because the other indivifual committed adultry. Now on my husbands side, all Baptists, no one is still married to their original spouce. I cannot pinpoint the reason why, but it is the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobzills on Mar 28, 2008 2:08:41 GMT -5
Um... this is what i see Non-denominational ** 34% Baptists 29% Mainline Protestants 25% Mormons 24% Catholics 21% Lutherans 21% And i can say that my family the whole thing, i have like 10 cousins and 8 pairs of aunts and uncles and well, they are all still married. Only one divorce in the family and was because the other indivifual committed adultry. Now on my husbands side, all Baptists, no one is still married to their original spouce. I cannot pinpoint the reason why, but it is the truth. At the present time, Catholic divorces are a bit lower in numbers, but they are catching up. And the Catholic divorce statistics are pretty similar to the Lutherans. Take a look at the statistics in 1930, when there were only 9 marriage annulments per year in the USA. Another thing to keep in mind, is that some Catholics stop going to Church after they have been divorced and do not call themselves Catholics anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 28, 2008 3:56:38 GMT -5
"If" Catholic divorces are anywhere near Protestant divorces, then that would make Catholics a lot more likely to divorce than Protestants statistically speaking. There are 225 million Protestants in this country. There are only 75 million Catholics. Donald Hughes, author of The Divorce Reality, said:
"In the churches, people have a superstitious view that Christianity will keep them from divorce, but they are subject to the same problems as everyone else, and they include a lack of relationship skills. ...Just being born again is not a rabbit's foot."
Hughes claim that 90% of divorces among born-again couples occur after they have been "saved."www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Mar 28, 2008 13:58:40 GMT -5
Hughes claim that 90% of divorces among born-again couples occur after they have been saved. Both being Saved, or just one? |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Mar 28, 2008 15:13:13 GMT -5
Most protestants are saved around the age of 7 correct?
And if they believe in once saved always saved, then it should not make a difference in the stats.
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Mar 28, 2008 16:56:16 GMT -5
7?!? Where did you hear that?
All the Protestants I know were Saved way after 7...my husband is the youngest I know of, and he was 11 or something. I was Saved at 17, my pastor at age 28, my best friend at age 18, etc, etc., lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Mar 28, 2008 17:41:57 GMT -5
Well, correct me if im wrong(please) because i do not know a whole lot about Baptists(in general) but dont yall make the walk up the isle to be saved, then do the baptism. Thats it right? Or are you baptised, then you are saved at a later date? I say this because i attending Service this easter sunday for my hubbys lil sis's baptism, she is only 7. And during the service when the preacher stands up there, makes everyone bow their heads and close their eyes and then invites those who want to be saved to come down to the stage. Well, there were like 4 7 or 8 year olds that went on down.  Please help me to understand this emily. |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Mar 28, 2008 19:49:45 GMT -5
Lol, not all Baptist churches are the same. At my church the only people who go up during alter calls are adults/young adults because all the kids are in Sunday School.
At the end of almost every service at my church, the pastor does an invitation to accept Christ as their Saviour. They do not need to come to the alter, but anyone is welcome to come pray, accept Jesus, or whatever at the alter during the last song. He stresses that you can be Saved anywhere, at the alter, at your seat, at home, etc. I was Saved in a movie theater's parking lot, my pastor was Saved in his car, my hubby was Saved in his bedroom, etc.
But then, yes, after one is Saved they are baptized in water. Baptism does not proceed accecting Salvation.
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Mar 28, 2008 20:11:08 GMT -5
Well, i guess 7 year olds do get saved?!
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Mar 28, 2008 21:13:29 GMT -5
They could if they have the mental capacity to understand what Christ did for us and to accept/deny Christ.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan on Apr 2, 2008 23:07:17 GMT -5
They could if they have the mental capacity to understand what Christ did for us and to accept/deny Christ. What happens in your theology if a child doesn't have that and dies?  |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Apr 3, 2008 0:05:20 GMT -5
Baptists dont believe that you have to be "Baptised" to reach heavan.
I asked my local baptist pastor and this is what he told me...
"Baptism in done in obedience to the command of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Salvation
comes the moment that you ask Jesus to forgive you of your sins and invite Him into your heart to be Savior and Lord. A person then is baptized, to give testimony of what God has done in his or her heart. No, you do not have to be baptized to go to heaven. Yes, you should be baptized because as a Christian you should want to obey Jesus and His commands."
Blessings,
Bro. David
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Apr 3, 2008 7:43:25 GMT -5
Redsox- I believe the innocent (the ones who don't have the mental capacity to accept/deny Christ) go to heaven. This includes babies, those with mental retardation, and my gpa who has Alzhiemers. He loved Jeus very much, now he doesn't know who Jesus...it is not God's character to banish my gpa to hell for getting sick.
Marcie- That's what my church teaches on baptism also.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 6, 2008 10:29:44 GMT -5
Hughes claim that 90% of divorces among born-again couples occur after they have been saved. Both being Saved, or just one? I believe it says both being saved as it calls them a "born-again couple" and refers to them as "after" them (both) being saved. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 6, 2008 10:36:36 GMT -5
According to The Law, parents have the authority to impose their religion upon their children and thus can indoctrinate them into Christianity. This is a continuation of Judeo practices. So, Christians have always baptized their infants (as all "households" were baptized in the New Testament) and besides, Jesus said that we are "not" to keep children from Him. Children are born knowing God and Jesus. It is the world that drives God out of children and teaches them sin. Children are born "into" sin, but not born sinners. That is why children, mentally retarted persons, etc...are spared judgment. A child "can" commit a sin (say hittng his sibling or stealing candy) from any age, but if they do this before they can be "taught" that it is wrong and been given a chance to redeem themselves, then they are not held liable for their actions. The age of reason varies (I believe for Catholics, it's around 12 depending on the individual child in question). Ultimately, it is our duty to "not" stop children from coming to Christ and to give them every weapon we can against Satan's attack on them...Baptism is the first sheild we can give them. That's why Bible Believing Christians have always, for 2,000 years, baptized their children as infants. Baptism replaces circumcision.  |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Apr 6, 2008 17:29:45 GMT -5
In my church, we only baptise after one accepts Christ. Baby's can't make the decision, so can't accept to be baptized. Baptism is an act of obidience to Christ. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 6, 2008 18:17:43 GMT -5
So, were the original Disciples "wrong" to baptize babies in The Bible?
|
|
Please help me to understand this emily.
