ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
wedding
Jun 26, 2006 18:01:27 GMT 10
Post by ruth on Jun 26, 2006 18:01:27 GMT 10
ayan na ahahehehe! inantay ko lang magrespond sa akin si kuya B..before ko sana ididiscuss in greater detail
naunahan na ako ni Linsi
kuya B.
ayaw ko sana maging discussion ito about the difference ng denominations ...kaso sinimulan mo na aheheh!
priest/pastors lang ba ang pwedeng mag-bestow ng grace o sacredness ng kasal?
hindi ba binigyan lahat ng tao ng chance to bestow that grace?
kung priest/pastor lang pwede magbestow ng grace sa kasal...does that mean marriages ng muslim,aetheists, pagans ay di na binding?
kuya naman...i thought open minded ikaw..bakit parang may prejudice yata against non-Catholics?
we are not defending/attacking denominations here...we are just shedding truth as stated in the Bible...
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 26, 2006 18:16:33 GMT 10
Post by hottyfecehh on Jun 26, 2006 18:16:33 GMT 10
Kung traditions at beliefs na naman ang pag-uusapan about CATHOLIC at non-catholics... ahehehe hahaba na naman pag-uusapan.. Sigurado yan.. Open lang ng thread mga guys kung gusto nyo.... ito ang fave natin kaya...
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
wedding
Jun 26, 2006 18:42:39 GMT 10
Post by ruth on Jun 26, 2006 18:42:39 GMT 10
hotty,kuya B, linsi,
I am not biased against any denominations. In fact, I believe that everybody (Catholics, Methodist, Baptist ) na ipinanganak sa Christian family must pass from death to life (in short, be BORN AGAIN)...kahit cliche' na ang term na BORN AGAIN...we all must pass that stage para magkaintindihan tayong lahat...
kung dumating na ang paghuhukom at di pa rin tayo pumasok sa stage na yan (being born AGAIN)...maraming chance pa ang ibibigay ni Christ upang tayo ay maligtas...but we also must be trained para malapagpasan natin lahat ng pagsubok (Tribulations) during that time...
kasi di naman basta basta ibibigay sa atin ang eternal life ng walang tribulations...so maski ang marriage life part of testing yan ahehhe!
akala mo ba makakawala ka na sa tesing about your sexual life pag me asawa ka na?
hindi uy! in fact, many men find married women very attractive...aheheh! mas madaming tukso!
ayayayayay!
kaya nga sinasabi na what you do in private and public life is what makes marriage sacred...hindi lang yun public announcement (church man o civil wedding)...
kasi kahit na may pari o pastor nagbless sa inyo or may judge na nagpapapirma ng licence...kung private life nyo ay di nyo naman binigyan ng respeto ang till death do us part...
sa tingin ko...mananagot ka pa rin sa kasalanan ahehehe!
isa pa. the process of sanctifying marriage does not end in the recital of marriage vows...its a long process....till death pa nga...
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 26, 2006 19:28:47 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jun 26, 2006 19:28:47 GMT 10
Hi Linsi,
Hindi binding and "civil union" in the eyes of the Church simply because "civil" authorities are temporal authorities. Although man is obligated by the doctrine of faith to respect civil authority and comply wiht civil laws - there is a distinction between the Church and the Government in the sense that it is only the Church which was given by Jesus to confer grace among the faithful. I believe that the interpretation of Romans 13 only applies to the civil responsibilities of a good Christain but there is no means that this responsbility should be misinterpreted as the appointment made by God or Jesus to the government to confer grace.
In the same way that "Abortion" for example is acknowledged "legal" in some governments and states, it does not mean that it is acknowledged moral and acceptable by both Church and the faithful.
Marriage is a sacrament instituted by God not by Man. It is a sacrament which is Holy and confers grace. The civil government may opt to follow and pattern its laws in accordance with Moral Law - but there is no biblical basis of any sort which God has confered the autority to dispense grace to civil authority outside of the church.
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
wedding
Jun 26, 2006 19:36:10 GMT 10
Post by ruth on Jun 26, 2006 19:36:10 GMT 10
okey Kuya B,
just give us a Biblical verse which says or even imply that a man and woman must be wed by a pries/pastor in order for it to be considered sacred.
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 26, 2006 19:37:34 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jun 26, 2006 19:37:34 GMT 10
Yours Ruth: kuya B. ayaw ko sana maging discussion ito about the difference ng denominations ...kaso sinimulan mo na aheheh! 1. priest/pastors lang ba ang pwedeng mag-bestow ng grace o sacredness ng kasal? hindi ba binigyan lahat ng tao ng chance to bestow that grace? 2. kung priest/pastor lang pwede magbestow ng grace sa kasal...does that mean marriages ng muslim,aetheists, pagans ay di na binding? 3. kuya naman...i thought open minded ikaw..bakit parang may prejudice yata against non-Catholics? we are not defending/attacking denominations here...we are just shedding truth as stated in the Bible...
Hi Ruth,
It is okay. I also hope that none of you who are different get offended with the positions I share because it is very sensitive indeed.
1. Jesus bestowed the authority to confer grace to the Church and to the predecessors of this Apostles. Dito mayroon tayong difference. But what is clear is that God conferred the authority to give grace it to His Church alone and not to a civil government.
2. Under the doctrine of faith (RCC) only wedding under the Church free from impediments is binding. In fact, marriage to non-RCC is a cause for annulment later on.
3. It is not a prejudice. I hope you do not misinterpret me but I was merely sharing an expression on a position of faith. Medyo kulang lang sa karinyo : )
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 26, 2006 19:58:54 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jun 26, 2006 19:58:54 GMT 10
Hi Ruth,
Matt 19:6 (Protestant Bible) "They are no longer two people but one. And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together"
It is clear that it is not merely man who conferred the grace and union between man and wife. It is God which makes the union (a) sacred and holy (b) a means towards going to heaven (your example of struggle).
But for practical reasons, there should be a witness within the Church who represents Christ. We could refer to Acts 6:5 to 6 and John 20:22-23 as supporting verses in which Jesus conferred authority to priests.
FYI. I also need to share a correction on my part (so I would not be misintepreted). The priest can not administer the sacrament of matrimony but only the contracting couple can do that. The priest is the only official witness, representing Christ and the Church. Ergo, the presence of the priest is essential because without him there is no sacrament and no marriage.
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 27, 2006 15:09:09 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jun 27, 2006 15:09:09 GMT 10
Hi Linsi,
Hindi binding and "civil union" in the eyes of the Church simply because "civil" authorities are temporal authorities. Although man is obligated by the doctrine of faith to respect civil authority and comply wiht civil laws - there is a distinction between the Church and the Government in the sense that it is only the Church which was given by Jesus to confer grace among the faithful. I believe that the interpretation of Romans 13 only applies to the civil responsibilities of a good Christain but there is no means that this responsbility should be misinterpreted as the appointment made by God or Jesus to the government to confer grace.
No kuya banshik
uulitin ko
hindi lahat ay roman catholics at hindi lahat ay kristyano, ngunit lahat ay nilikha ng Diyos. Tama si ruth sa isang aspect, at si hotty, si adam at eve ay naging mag asawa at walang pari, si ruth at boaz ay naging mag asawa at walang pari, at kung tutuusin ang pari ay ginagamit lang din ng Diyos.
but christians and non christians alike, a government must be instituted, for without it, there would be no binding laws..
your point of view falls into fanaticim of what is sacred and binding
if it will only be executed by priests, and who gave authority to the priests the pope? and who gave authority to a roman pope? that is very unconvincing since the apostolic succession is clouded and unbelievable..
How does one confer grace?
every believer is a saint , and if you would insist that civil wedding is not binding therefore you donot give respect to the officials of the land which is acknowledged by the republic with all their appointments and mandate which God himself has annointed.
Paano kung walang pari at hindi katoliko would that imply na non roman cathlics are sceond hand believers? hehehe .. ibig sabihin hindi binding? that is being prejudiced when in fact, a roman catholic priests only gets authority and ordination from the pope of rome who has been succeded only by politics. also
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 27, 2006 15:21:05 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jun 27, 2006 15:21:05 GMT 10
from kuya banshik
Marriage is a sacrament instituted by God not by Man. It is a sacrament which is Holy and confers grace. The civil government may opt to follow and pattern its laws in accordance with Moral Law - but there is no biblical basis of any sort which God has confered the autority to dispense grace to civil authority outside of the church.
you said marriage is instituted by God, moral laws come from God, read back kuya banshik because the foundation of christian doctrines operate on each basic law of all people regardless of race and creed,
there is no other law apart from the law of God.
That's where pinoys have a bacl log regarding faith when they accept things of God only falls on the designation of the priests and what rome dictates. Just read about family planning and sex education.
when the church also meddles with political issues not bestowed to them.
I said man's law is rooted from God's moral laws, read back.man lives within the measures of God's moral laws...
Jesus acknowledge earthly governace and in our times, marriage is executed by government officials through the acknowledgment of the people
the roman cahtolic church favorite quote is-- vox dei. vox populi
which means the voice of the people is the voice of God..
to seperate distinctly marriage to be with grace and binding only when it is performed through the church and by a roman cahtolic priest is one form of discrimination because first it only favors the roman cahtolic church which does not comprise the greatest bulk of God believing society., second, because of the failure of marriages and the high rising rate of divorces all over the world not to mention illicit relationship, outside and inside marriages.
so when we speak of binding and grace, it should be within the scope of God's attribute and design for all believers not only for a certain group of christian sect like the RCC.
and when things get worst, the law executes divorce.. and the faulted one is vindicated and protected only through the law of divorce.
the church is silenced when these problems arise because all they did was to claim grace and become apathetic when legal proceedings come into account as in the case of adultery, fornication and divorce.
they leave it to the law that which they started to claim to be theirs alone.
christ has done away ritual things in the temple with only the priests, when christ died the veil was torn from top to bottom so that all who desires could personally and individually to the throne of God . It does not need preists anymore because everyone who desires has access to it.
earthly governace with its full measures and law enforcements is annointed and appointed by God in all aspects read back, even when it comes to marriages and civil matters.
ang tanong paano kung hindi romano katoliko at walang pari at hindi acknolwedged ang simbahan?
nagkasala ba ang dalawang nagpakasal kung sila ay tumayo mismo sa batas ng Diyos? Of course not.
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 27, 2006 16:20:18 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jun 27, 2006 16:20:18 GMT 10
kuya banshik
my posts are objective, because you pressume that civil wedding by civil servants are not binding, the truth is, it is quite offending for people who have just obeyed God's law of respecting earthly governace. Just remember before, during and after the victory of constantine the church was politics ridden already.
kung pag babasehan po natin ay common sense which i believe everybody here has, ang isang kasal kailangan ng lisensya para maging legal at binding, saan kukuha ng lisensya sa civil registry,sino ba ang qualified na bigyan ng lisensya? sino ang mag bibigay ng lisensya kundi ang civil servant ng gobyerno at ito ay pinipirmahan ng magpapakasal, ng minister para maging valid ang kasal which is recognized globally.
now pag nagka problema at ang asawa ay nambabae, sino ang lalapitan ng wife, para makipaghiwalay at kumuha ng sustento pari ba? Hindi po.
kapag naaprubahan ang divorce, sino ang mag dedeicde ng bayaran ng alimony, nang support sa mga anak who were faulted at ng mga ari arian.. pari ba?
Hinde, batas ang mag e execute nito..
so hanggang saan ang binding at grace? pari lang?
nasaan ang binding at grace? nasana ang tunay na responsibilidad?
why do i speak of these problems because it is as clear as the mid day sun and as real as realism itself ito ang problema ng lipunan.
kung hindi makakuha ng lisensya tuloy ang kasal sa pari? this is gross.. it is not binding after all kung walang lisensya, at kung hindi dumaan sa batas, dahil wala ang written testimony at hindi ma poproteksyunan ng batas ng bansa.
licenses are necessary to make things legal and binding, gaya nung unang panahon lahat ng transactions at documents to make it authentic and legal may tatak ng insignia ng empreror ng rome and not only that kings before the rise of the roman empire use their seal to document their letters with authority and legality so there is nothing actually new.
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 27, 2006 18:54:38 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jun 27, 2006 18:54:38 GMT 10
kuya banshik
like any other else here i donot want any religious sect attack here but it is unavoidable when i wanted to ask, and if i may
if you talk about grace in the church and with a priest, kailangan bang ang kasal ay klase klase?
regular wedding ceremony or special wedding ceremony? with amount attached to it? this is sooo commercial in its prognosis.
Christ never advocated that.
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 27, 2006 20:39:47 GMT 10
Post by hottyfecehh on Jun 27, 2006 20:39:47 GMT 10
Sigurado po kayo kuyang? daming kinakasal sa pari na naghihiwalay din.... Si sharon at gabby sa church kinasal, ano nangyari? annulment din ang kinalabasan ng church wedding nila?
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 27, 2006 23:52:53 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jun 27, 2006 23:52:53 GMT 10
Sigurado po kayo kuyang? daming kinakasal sa pari na naghihiwalay din.... Si sharon at gabby sa church kinasal, ano nangyari? annulment din ang kinalabasan ng church wedding nila?
sis
ngayon ko lang nabasa to ah.. ano bang pinag uusapan natin ang nature ng kasal biblically o ayon sa roman catholic doctrine kc mukhang daming pagkakaiba ah.
pag ganyan e dapat bukod na topic which will bring us to what is roman catholicism ayayay
i donot intend to flame or pun,as everyone can read it, i donot even bring out my religion in the board hehe, but this is the way i see it.
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 28, 2006 1:15:56 GMT 10
Post by hottyfecehh on Jun 28, 2006 1:15:56 GMT 10
I had said here in my post [brown]"CHURCH WEDDING" or "CIVIL WEDDING"[/brown] .. NO specific church mentioned... Maybe si Kuyang ay tumutukoy sa RCC dahil he belonged to Roman catholic church... I am saying here in general not only the RCC wedding...All churches, all denominations vs civil wedding in fact...Pero kung sasabihin ni Kuyang na sacred lang ang kasal sa RCC... aba'y wahehe... Let's now talk about denominations na lang..And let's see kung ano o aling sect or churches ang mas sumusunod basing the BIBLE( GOD's words )... sabi ko nga....
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 28, 2006 13:05:08 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jun 28, 2006 13:05:08 GMT 10
Hi Linsi,
I guess one of the issues being raised is what makes a "marriage" valid.
1. I agree that during the OT that there was no "priest" yet. This could be explained by the fact that Jesus Christ has not extablished His Church and Holy Orders (priesthood) yet. But the moment Jesus established His Chruch and gave authority to His apostles - moral laws within the Church were further defined.
In addition, Jesus Christ defined that Marriage is a "sacred" union meaning that it is not mere human laws which establish its validity but rather God's Laws. Marriage under its purpose and its nature has a moral dimension from the very start. Even under the OT, God has defined its sacred and moral character by indicating "adultery" as a sin.
2. I do not see the relevance on bringing the separation of Church and State over the matter of Marriage. It is clear that the Church subscribes validity based on its doctrinal criteria and the moral purpose of Marriage. Civil authorities based it on the person's privilege and rights under the law to seek union to another party - this is the reason why it is sealed through a marriage "contract". In the Church, the "contract" is between man and wife under God.
3. Clarification: When I say that civil wedding is not binding under the Church means that the Church has certain prescriptions and criteria in order to make a marriage union valid. In this particular case (RCC), it could only be made valid if the union was made under the grace of God.
It also means that under a civil wedding one renders himself to Ceasar while under the Church wedding one renders himself to God.
4. I hope that you and others would not misintepret the premise and the position I made. It is not an attack but an explanation on the distinction between Marriage under God and civil unions. It also offers a distinction on how RCC views marriage apart from others. It was not meant to alienate others, but was meant to explain why Marriage is very important in man's plan of life.
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 28, 2006 13:12:37 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jun 28, 2006 13:12:37 GMT 10
Hi Hotty,
Annulment is not divorce or separation. Annulment means that there was impediment during the sacrament of marriage which meant there was no marriage that happened at all.
There are several conditions for "cause" in annulment.
BTW. Sacred ang kasal sa RCC dahil we consider Marriage or Matrimony a "SACRAMENT". If other denominations do not believe in sacraments or do not subscribe that marriage is a sacrament - how can one call it "sacred" and a means to "receive" grace.
For example, if other believe it is a mere contract or a precept under civil law alone - one can not insist its sacred character because apiece of paper can not confer grace nor it was ever established that civil authorities were granted by Jesus to confer grace as well. it is simply no a case that one applies over all others but rather a case of one over the other.
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 28, 2006 13:14:56 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jun 28, 2006 13:14:56 GMT 10
Hi Linsi,
Ang pagkakaiba ng intepretation can be derived from the fact on how the RCC views the Sacraments from the other denominations.
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
wedding
Jun 28, 2006 18:36:01 GMT 10
Post by ruth on Jun 28, 2006 18:36:01 GMT 10
kuya B,
we all subscribe to the belief that MARRIAGE is SACRED...it is Sacred...walang dapat pagtalunan jan...
magkaiba lang tayo ng pananaw sa kung ano ang nagbibigay ng Sacredness ng kasal...
yun bang 1 araw na vows sa public (Church-building)?
o yung private life nyo...
o yung marriage license lang?
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 28, 2006 19:10:56 GMT 10
Post by hottyfecehh on Jun 28, 2006 19:10:56 GMT 10
Sharon and gabby's wedding sa RCC yun.... Sabi nyo, yung "marriage to non-RCC is a cause for annulment later on." bakit annulled e RCC naman yung kasal nilang dalwa? magulo yata post nyo Kuyang?
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 28, 2006 20:46:12 GMT 10
Post by hottyfecehh on Jun 28, 2006 20:46:12 GMT 10
Kapag sinabi bang sacred ay tumutukoy ito sa Church lamang? E di kung ang authority ay binigay ni Jesus sa mga apostles to preach(same as the priest), ibig sabihin ay dun sa mga naibahagian ng SALITA NG DIYOS ng mga disciples(preachers or priest) di nila pwedeng ipangalat ang GOD's words? Same in marriages, kapag wala basbas ng simbahan, di sagrado ang kasal? kasi nga naman priest lang ang authorize magkasal and hindi ang hukom o mayor? Dapat sana nasabi ni Jesus noon in HIS time na dapat ang license kinukuha sa mga pari at sila lang ang authorized magkasal kasi kung hindi sa harapan ng pari ikakasal ay magkakasala ang babae't lalaki....
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 29, 2006 17:52:06 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jun 29, 2006 17:52:06 GMT 10
Sharon and gabby's wedding sa RCC yun.... Sabi nyo, yung "marriage to non-RCC is a cause for annulment later on." bakit annulled e RCC naman yung kasal nilang dalwa? magulo yata post nyo Kuyang?
Hi Hotty,
Cause for annulment ang difference in religion - RCC and non-RCC for example. Kahit sa RCC kinasal ang dalawa, mayroon moral impediment nung nangyari ang kasal.
The moral impediment is that every RCC (parent - mom or dad) should raise their children as RCC. Kung hindi puwede ito, it becomes an impediment and can be a ground for annulment.
Yung kay Gabby at Sharon - gaya ng sinabi ko hindi ako familiar sa case nila. Pero ang pagkaalam ko ay on psychological and mental grounds ang ginamit nila na reason. However, I do not know if the annulment was under the RCC because I know that Sharon is practicing another religion.
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 29, 2006 18:02:47 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jun 29, 2006 18:02:47 GMT 10
kuya B,
we all subscribe to the belief that MARRIAGE is SACRED...it is Sacred...walang dapat pagtalunan jan... magkaiba lang tayo ng pananaw sa kung ano ang nagbibigay ng Sacredness ng kasal... yun bang 1 araw na vows sa public (Church-building)? o yung private life nyo... o yung marriage license lang?
Hi Ruth,
If everyone subscribes that "Marriage" is "sacred" - then there should be no issue in the primacy of having the "Church" as the moral authority in dispensing it.
There should also be no issue in having a priest or a pastor to preside over it because of its "holy" or sacred character.
1. I agree on your point regarding our differences. On RCC standpoint marraige is a sacrament which confers grace to the couple. it is not a mere writ or contract but a means to be in union with God's plan and His moral laws.
2. I do not undertsand what you mean by "church building". But what I know of "vows" is it is for life. it is not for a day but for the rest of a man's earthly life.
3. I do not undertsand what you meant by "private life". If it refers to "common law" marriage is is only a union acknowledged by civil law but not the Church.
4. "Marriage license lang" - a marriage can not consumate without the couple exchanging vows and full consent.
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 29, 2006 18:14:08 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jun 29, 2006 18:14:08 GMT 10
E di kung ang authority ay binigay ni Jesus sa mga apostles to preach(same as the priest), ibig sabihin ay dun sa mga naibahagian ng SALITA NG DIYOS ng mga disciples(preachers or priest) di nila pwedeng ipangalat ang GOD's words?
Same in marriages, kapag wala basbas ng simbahan, di sagrado ang kasal? kasi nga naman priest lang ang authorize magkasal and hindi ang hukom o mayor?
Dapat sana nasabi ni Jesus noon in HIS time na dapat ang license kinukuha sa mga pari at sila lang ang authorized magkasal kasi kung hindi sa harapan ng pari ikakasal ay magkakasala ang babae't lalaki....
Hi Hotty,
No offense. Pero basahin at aralin natin uli ang nakasulat sa Bibliya (because it is your preference). The instruction to "preach" also covers the insturction to follow what Jesus did and the new laws enacted by Jesus with His Church. In fact, kasama dito ang authority to forgive sins, to baptize men, etc.
No offense uli. Pero hindi mga mayor or civil authorities ang binigyan bilin ni Jesus. Mga apostles o yung mga successors nito ang binigyan. Kaya kahit ano ang gawin ni Mayor o ni Judge, hindi maaring maging sagrado ang kasal na ginawa sila dahil hindi sila authority sa simbahan. Pero may kapangyarihan ang civil authorities na gumawa ng writ or contract recording the union of the couple to serve as public record and to serve the couple's contractual obligations.
I believe that Jesus was clear when He gave instructions to His apostles to continue what He preached and taught. Pero if I recall there was a question made by the Pharisees and scribes regarding the "writ" of divorce which Jesus corrected by affirming (a) His authority and the moral authority of His Churech (b) the primacy of marriage as sacred
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 29, 2006 23:32:25 GMT 10
Post by hottyfecehh on Jun 29, 2006 23:32:25 GMT 10
may verse ba na nagsasabing nagkasal ang mga disciples? I mean kung sila lang ang authorized ni isa sa kanila ay dapat nag-mention na sila ay nagkasal ng mga tao noon after the "holy spirit" was given to Them(disciples)?.... bakit nga po pala hindi ang mga priests ang pinili ni Jesus bilang disciples NYA? During HIS time may mga pari na... So bakit hindi na lang sila ang kinuhang disipulo e mas madaling magturo sa mga talagang nagsisilbi na sa Diyos keysa sa mga ordinaryong tao lang na hindi naman ganun ka-devoted kay LORD?
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 29, 2006 23:50:57 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jun 29, 2006 23:50:57 GMT 10
1. I agree that during the OT that there was no "priest" yet. This could be explained by the fact that Jesus Christ has not extablished His Church and Holy Orders (priesthood) yet. But the moment Jesus established His Chruch and gave authority to His apostles - moral laws within the Church were further defined.
In addition, Jesus Christ defined that Marriage is a "sacred" union meaning that it is not mere human laws which establish its validity but rather God's Laws. Marriage under its purpose and its nature has a moral dimension from the very start. Even under the OT, God has defined its sacred and moral character by indicating "adultery" as a sin.
i never denied the authority of the church in executing the marriage ceremony but to say that civil wedding is not binding is a clear indication that on your part, there is a non agreement of Romans 13 which compasses not only some but all of the earthly laws which Jesus has annointed and respected. Nowhere did Jesus state that civil servants are prohibited in maryring couples who seek for it.
Nowhere in the bible does it says that earthly government could never execute marriage,specially when they have the mandate of the people like Saul and the appointment of the office elected by the people themselves. This is a clear description of Romans chapter 13 which must be observed carefully without partiality just because certain church doctrines dictate it so.
I earlier said that NOT ALL PEOPLE ARE ROMAN CATHOLICS.
I never said that church wedding is not sacred, I said the sacredness of marriage lies in the threefould knots, God, the groom and the bride as with Adam and Eve which is a clear implication of God's will and definition of marriage,which i earlier stated and which is also pronounced in civil a wedding with two witnesses and a judge.
it is impossible for a church to wed couples without the approval of the law as per license, contract, age and status of those who seek for it, which obviously is patterned after the principles of God.
without a license from the civil registry bounded by the law of the land which God himself honors, protection of such institution would be null and void.
God is a God of order, licenses may not be practiced in the time of Adam and Eve or the earlier old testament characters but neither officiating priests can claim likewise.
with the passing of time man has learned the need for a government, licenses and ceremonies above all the vows which God has willed among maryring couples.
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 30, 2006 0:03:05 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jun 30, 2006 0:03:05 GMT 10
From kuya banshik
In addition, Jesus Christ defined that Marriage is a "sacred" union meaning that it is not mere human laws which establish its validity but rather God's Laws
Once again i never denied about your above statements, i said earthly governace must be respected and obeyed which apostle paul stated in Romans 13 not excluding the power to marry coupkes, but within its context all the laws which uplift God's ordinances in all aspects.
Never was it stated in the bible that marrying a couple is only confined within a church, marriage is a solemn vow before God wether it be in a church or in an authorized office within the constitution of a certain government of a certain land.
we have been raised up to believe that only a priest in a church can hold authority to marry people so that it will be sacred, i say when i begin to learn about God, it is not only that, sacredness of an institution or a thing is based on the very principle of God's word, in heaven, on earth or even under the earth and all that he made wether you be inside a church, or a law office. or a garden, or wherever you are.
so wether it be in a church or in an office of a judge depending upon the couple's choice regarding marriage ,as long as they believe and abide in God's matrimonial rules and as long as they secured a license and witnesses with the judge , the marriage vows are null, void and sacred.
as a matter of fact the license is the second framework of its protection after God's authority.
I beg to disagree when you say mere human laws
man's earthly laws are governed by the very principle of God;s moral laws if we are talking about christianity in particular.
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 30, 2006 0:15:13 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jun 30, 2006 0:15:13 GMT 10
From kuya banshik
2. I do not see the relevance on bringing the separation of Church and State over the matter of Marriage. It is clear that the Church subscribes validity based on its doctrinal criteria and the moral purpose of Marriage. Civil authorities based it on the person's privilege and rights under the law to seek union to another party - this is the reason why it is sealed through a marriage "contract". In the Church, the "contract" is between man and wife under God.
hi kuya banshik
well then when you donot see the relevance of the separation of the church and the state over the matter of marriage then "the church" which you are into must acknolwedge civil wedding as very relevant as far as marriage is concerned, protecting the institution of marriage when this marriage is at risk by executing its full hands in the case of vows .The state protects the integrity and justice to the ones being faulted when marriage is corrupted.
From here we can see that the hands of the law of the earthly government extends exceedingly when marriage, the institution of God is destroyed by the evilness of society. It upholds respect to the fullest , God's ordinance of marriage by using God's moral law as its foundation. How could a certain church declare this is NOT SACRED? WHEN IN FACT IT PROTECTS AND UPHOLDS THE MORAL LAW OF GOD WHEN IT COMES TO MARRIAGE?
Doctrinal criterial and moral purposes of marriage has been suffering dilemma so much so that married couples within the bounds of this institutions seek refuge and justice through the law of the state and not through the priest and the church who officiated their weddings.
so then the church must recognize and realize that civil wedding by civil servants are binding, sacred, null and void because it is recognized by God himself with the fullness of love and justice to protect the marriage institution first by its vows,before God second by its agreement to a contract and the licenses.
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 30, 2006 0:25:10 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jun 30, 2006 0:25:10 GMT 10
From kuya banshik
It also means that under a civil wedding one renders himself to Ceasar while under the Church wedding one renders himself to God.
Caesars of Rome are defined by the Presidents of the lands today, the president appoints the judges and other officials under his mandate. Jesus recognized and respected Caesar's govenment that is the reason he supported it by taxing, that is the reason why he never resulted to violence, that is the reason why Apostle Paul declared a direct respect and obedience to earthly caesars of today.
because the people has elected these government officials as the israelites selected Saul to be their president ( king) which God permitted and recognized, and by this earthly governments nations are run through their constitutions which God himself honor without bias and without exemptions as the common saying of the RC's vox dei vox populi
paulit ulit na po ito..,.
caesars of today are subject to the constitutions of the land, our caesar is arroyo and she is subject to the philippine constitution which is based on the principles of God's moral law.
there is never a deviation of God's moral law when it comes to our justice system so why then would one be partial when it comes to executing marriage? If one recognizes that the vows are the will of God and caesars are annointed and recognized by God himself? we are talking now of God's matrimonial law, not ceremony anymore.
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 30, 2006 0:36:18 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jun 30, 2006 0:36:18 GMT 10
From kuya banshik
3. Clarification: When I say that civil wedding is not binding under the Church means that the Church has certain prescriptions and criteria in order to make a marriage union valid. In this particular case (RCC), it could only be made valid if the union was made under the grace of God.
Kuya banshik now you made yourself very clear when you now stated "not binding" under the church.
and so the certain prescriptions and criteria of the RCC has a different effect when it comes to the moral law of God which the state upholds. For there is no difference when it comes to the foundation of God's moral law when the law of the land is concerned.
When one goes to court for a divorce, from marriage, usually there was a violation in
commandment number 6 and 9
thou shalt not commit adultery thou shalt not covet
and other related crimes as in thou shalt not kill when crisis occurs and thou shalt not bear false witnesses when libel and slander come into the picture.
this is a clear illustration that the law of the land is based on the principle of God's moral law.
there is no other prescription but God, his will, his law and the vows between husband and wife bounded by his words through a contract and a license before an officiating clergy, minister or judge.
|
|
|
wedding
Jun 30, 2006 0:45:03 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jun 30, 2006 0:45:03 GMT 10
From kuya banshik Marriage is a sacrament instituted by God not by Man. It is a sacrament which is Holy and confers grace. The civil government may opt to follow and pattern its laws in accordance with Moral Law - but there is no biblical basis of any sort which God has confered the autority to dispense grace to civil authority outside of the church.
grace is only dispensed by God not by the human priests specially in the last day churches unless one is a roman catholic . the grace of god is not subject for its dispensation to any roman catholic priests but by Himself through the Holy Spirit .
No verse in the bible says we need humans to dispense grace, etc.. etc..
God made man, man has its moral laws as the foundation of his society, a preist is also a mere man.
there is neither biblical verses that says only preists can officiate marriages on the contrary if the bible would be its basis, while Romans 13 advocates the full recognition of earthly governace and Matthew 22 declares jesus' respect support and recognition to caesar's government, there is no biblical verse that says marraiges cannot be executed by earthly laws, specially when these laws are patterned after his own moral laws.
to make a parallelism the law was given to man but God did not expect man to comply and never man could completely comply for this reason redemption was given to us and we are now justified through our faith in christ and not by the law.. Marriage was given to man and again God in his wisdom knew that many could not comply and many would opt for divorce. That is the reason he permitted a divorce law to give man orderliness in his folly and a written agreement, the contract and license issued by the earthly governace to bind humans in their marriage vows whcih many has broken and opted to break to make it forcefully binding through the enforcement of earthly laws by the recognition of God.
|
|