Free Republic

I've been in the same situation (worrying at the expense of working or even in my case worshipping) and it's not good for anyone to be torn that way, to say the least. Best of luck in your search, and God bless. Progessive "marketing" can very easily go too far, and I hope I didn't encourage you to doubt your instincts in that regard.

I'm certainly not mocking you, and I apologize if you took it that way. I am also not trying to create a diversion. I thought we were discussing the appropriateness of holding religious discussion groups or lectures in bars. I agree with you that bars are inappropriate venues for worship services (see my post #64). I see no problem with discussions, though, and I'm trying to figure out what you find problematic with them. Is it that such groups may begin and end their meetings with a prayer (thus crossing the line and becoming worship services)?

I know what you mean about music, there's some bad stuff out there. My pet peeve is songs that have the congregation sing the "part" of God. They send a weird mixed signal similar to the one you mention (e.g., are we lifting ourselves up? or each other? etc.)

Of course everyone who is saved in the end is saved by God. But I don't see how the potential for misguiding people is increased in a bar versus a streetcorner or a church for that matter. There are lots of wrongheaded preachers out there, and they will misguide people whereever they go. The good ones wont, even in bars and sewers.

I think it would certainly be disrespectful (not to mention distracting for all concerned) to hold a worship service, Mass, or something along those lines in a crowded bar, but I think all we're talking about is some form of witnessing or theological lecture. Are you saying that higher matters should only be discussed in church (or under a bushel basket, for that matter)? That when someone holding a beer in a bar or a flashlight in the sewer mentions the sacred, every Good Christian present should quickly change the subject to sports or sewage, out of respect for God?

Did it say, "See, I believe and I can still hold a beer"?,

If you see this as some kind of contradiction or hypocrisy on the minister's part, you obviously come from a strain of Christianity that regards consumption of alcohol as a sin.

As for making faith more "inviting," I see a vast difference between pandersing by changing the message and presenting the same message in venues that might draw more people in. The question is, how many 20-30 year old single people will show up at a theology lecture held in a church basement, versus how many will show up at the exact same lecture held in a popular bar?

Of course, if you belive that teetotaling is essential to being a Christian, then you'll see Theology on Tap or its protestant copycats as pandering to drinkers.

Wasn't the United States. Was two different nations: The Union and the Confederacy.

The "Union" was the United States of America, the same government we pay taxes to today. The "Confederacy" was either a band of misfits and traitors or a legitimately independent country, depending upon whom you ask.

I thought of that, then rejected it. America was too fractured to be called America at that time. It was two nations: The Union and the Confederacy.

If we were two nations (the USA and the CSA), then Jeff Davis should count. But the US, not suprisingly, didn't treat him as a foreign leader. He was held by the military for awhile, then released to the civil authorities who indicted him for treason (a crime which foreigners obviously can't commit), released him on bail, and eventually null pros'd him (avoiding the rather sticky question of whether he actually was a foreigner when he led the CSA -- a question which would have been decided by a Virginia jury).

More recently, in addition to Noriega, we also captured Karl Doenitz, who replaced Hitler as Chancellor of Germany after Hitler's suicide. He was tried by the allied war crimes tribunal at Nuremburg and spent 10 years in Spandau Prison.

Pardon me for asking at this late hour of day (10:33 a.m.), why did we call Senators? Shouldn't it have been the House representatives?

It's in the Senate now, as of 10:28 p.m. on 10/20/03, according to the Florida legislature's website. No calls to the Senate were wasted, and any further calls from constituents might help.

Cold Water alert: - Can the legislature's moratorium supercede an existing court order, or will it only prevent any procedures "currently pending in Florida" (i.e., not begun) and (obviously) prevent any future attempts at initiating new ones? I SMELL WIGGLE ROOM FOR MIKEY, becuase Terri's procedure isn't PENDING, it's IN PROGRESS. Judge Greer and Mikey will take any loophole they can find. Cynical me is also wondering if they legislators don't already know they can't stop it, but are grandstanding for the state. I can only suggest that you have to watch these guys closely, the lawmakers and Mikey's death squad.

I have not seen the language that passed the House, but if it gives the Governor the authority to stay the court order, as the bill title suggests, it should work for now. There is no sneaky difference between "pending" and "in progress," as you suggest, (they mean the same thing), but the current fix is likely only temporary. It will allow her to be fed soon and to take Holy Communion, if the bill passes the Senate and Bush signs it and exercises his authority under the act. I don't know how temporary the temporary stay is, but I hope the sponsors gave themselves enough time to find a legislative solution to the unusual guardianship proplem presented. A few months, at least.

- With all due respect, why wasn't this special session called last Thursday, or even Wedesday, or even last Monday?

It was apparantly called earlier in the month, to deal with some budget matters. It's to their credit that they took this more important matter up on the first day of their special session.

Just so you know where I stand overall, though....GOD SAVE TERRI, PLEASE.

I'm praying too.

It looks like the bill (HB 35E), which gives Gov. Bush the authority to grant a temporary stay to the court order, passed the Fla. House 68-23 earlier this evening.

http://www.myfloridahouse.com/billInfo.aspx?bid=12713

I doubt it will. It probably won't get into his scatalogical obsessions either. And from the review, it sounds like the filmmakers take Luther's denial of responsibility for the consequences of his beliefs (peasant riots, immediately, and modern, more horrible consequences) at face value.

On the other hand, the relationship between Luther and the Ustinov character could be interesting -- a tyrant using Luther's beliefs as justification to seize total control over his subjects, who are left without recourse to a Church disposed against tyranny. And Luther, cheering him along, saying he didn't mean that everyone could interpret the Bible for themselves, only that the Church can't interpose itself between individuals and the all-powerful state (as long as it's Lutheran, that is).

I looked at the movie's website, and it seems to be yet more protestant revisionist history. Luther the hero, standing up against the evil Church. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be an interesting movie to watch. It could just be marketing, after all. I'll probably rent it, so if I yell at the screen I won't bother anyone I don't know or can't easily apologize to.

Someone ought to make a movie about the real Luther.

As for altar girls, as I have said before, that ranks among one of the biggest mistakes of the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, and any parish that uses altar girls I would have problems attending.

As for altar girls, is the practice a mistake because it removes a fertile ground for candidates for the priesthood, or is it a mistake for other reasons? Does the presence of altar girls invalidate a Mass?

??? Most Christians in the US live with the "married pastor" model.

We're talking about priests, though.

I can't see too many modern Catholic career women agreeing to subordinate their career to their husbands' vocation.

Especially not if they're pulling down the bigger pay cheque in the household.

Me neither. My hat's off to those women in the Eastern Rites and those married to returned Anglican priests who manage to pull it off. Their sacrifice is as great as or greater than their husbands'. It's difficult to accept a vocation involving hardship, but imagine if it's not even your own vocation?

Arinze is a high-ranking, influential Catholic prelate who spoke about Catholic doctrine at the commencement exercises of a Catholic university. Exactly what about that situation might spark animus is not apparent.

Poor admissions work, I'd say.

The Latin church must keep its own council regarding celibacy in its Latin rite. I would point out that the dire circumstance the author envisions of a priest needing to follow his wife's job does not happen in the Orthodox Church (nor I presume in the Eastern rites of the Latin church): The wife of a candidate for ordination must accept formally her husband's obedience to his bishop before the candidate is accepted for ordination. Being a presbytera (or matushka or khouria) is a ministry as well, even though it is the husband who receives ordination.

It would be helpful in your discussions if both sides were really familiar with how the married priesthood in the East actually works in practice.

If the Latin Rite ever goes back to optional celibacy, the process for prescreening married candidates for ordination would therefore have to take into account the candidate's wife's suitability for her possible ministry. Thanks for weighing in, Reader.

Although it obviously CAN work, I still vote for diversity,(except in the case of married Anglican clergy who come home).

I truly believe we were destined to be together, and "heal" each other, so-to-speak.

Which is why you prevented yourself from entering a sacramental marriage with H#1. Good call!

Regarding previous marriages and annulments etc- my thoughts are/were, if the Catholic Church recognized my first marriage, they would also recognize the religious divorce that was granted (or at least taking care of that would probably be just formalities). And, if they didn't recognize it, then there was no marriage to annul. Either way, marriage #1 is irrelevant. What is relevant is the conversion to Orthodox, and of course my current civil marriage. I don't see anything changing regarding my current marriage, so that leaves the conversion.

You have this kind of backwards, no offense. If the Church recognized your previous marriage as valid, no "religious divorce" conducted by a schismatic sect would reverse it. As far as the Church is concerned, you're married or you're not. It sounds like you weren't, but nobody can be sure until the Church grants an annulment (which is a statement declaring a marriage invalid -- I know annulments for lack of form are not the gut-wrenching procedures most people think of when they think of annulments, but they are annulments just the same). In your case, it's probably a mere formality, like I said.

I think all the conversion to Orthodox means is that you have probably missed Mass on lots of Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, if a Mass was available where you lived and you deliberatly went elsewhere for the Sacraments. You may want to get reconfirmed in the Church, but regularization of your marriage shouldn't have to wait for that.

As for your current civil marriage, you need to get your first marriage annulled, and talk to a priest about how to get your current marriage regularized. Hope you get a good priest. God bless, and best of luck.

I realize you intended to stay married, I was not laughing at you or your situation. Just the way some of the catholics here were finding loop holes in the catholic doctrine. It struck me funny in a sad sad way.

Have you ever attended/studied any religions besides catholic?

I don't see how it's a loophole. If a devout member of your church got a civil marriage (before a Justice of the Peace, say), and refused to stand up at the altar together, wouldn't you question their intent?

I certainly did intend to be married, for the rest of my life. I take that commitment very seriously. He was verbally and mentally abusive in addition to monumentally stupid and self-destructive (taking us down with him). I would have put up with just about anything if I felt the kids would be fine. When I saw that wasn't the case then I went for divorce. I'm happy to say my second marriage is the opposite and we fully intend to grow old and decrepit and fade into the sunset together. (BTW hubby #2 is an occasional FReeper too so he gets some extra points there too lol)

I didn't mean you were uncommitted to your vows, or that you weren't completely prepared to give everything to your first husband, if that had been possible. I just meant that as a Catholic, on some level, you prevented yourself from entering into a valid sacrament of marriage with him because, on some level, you might have known it wasn't meant to last. Now it sounds like you've got a wonderful husband, and that it is meant to last. I'm happy for you. As a divorced (but not yet remarried) guy, I always like hearing about successful second marriages. And I'm glad you're looking into getting things squared away with the Church.

Try this experiment (I assume you are Catholic): Get married to a Baptist woman in a Baptist ceremony without obtaining dispensation. Then get engaged to a Catholic woman. Try to find a Catholic priest who is willing to marry you without seeing your divorce papers and an annulment.