flameburns623 Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 In Catholic understanding, a non-Catholic wedding may not be a "sacramental" wedding, but it is a valid and socially commendable thing. The Catholic might not be free to take direct part-- as member of the wedding party, bridesmaid, groomsman, etcetera--but to attend as a passive member of the guests is usually not deemed scandal. Different priests would render different advice, but I have heard it suggested that even if one of the parties converted from Catholicism in order to marry the other, it is not the marriage but the rites of reception into another faith which would be off limits
Jim Stiles Posted March 20, 2016 Posted March 20, 2016 On 3/18/2016 at 2:40 AM, flameburns623 said: In Catholic understanding, a non-Catholic wedding may not be a "sacramental" wedding, but it is a valid and socially commendable thing. The Catholic might not be free to take direct part-- as member of the wedding party, bridesmaid, groomsman, etcetera--but to attend as a passive member of the guests is usually not deemed scandal. Different priests would render different advice, but I have heard it suggested that even if one of the parties converted from Catholicism in order to marry the other, it is not the marriage but the rites of reception into another faith which would be off limits I do not think that weddings should be viewed as worship ceremonies. I would have no problem with attending a Catholic wedding, if they would not insist upon having a mass. Because the Roman Catholic mass always accompanies a Roman Catholic wedding, I cannot attend Roman Catholic weddings. I cannot attend LDS weddings in the temple, but that is because I am not an LDS member. I can and have attended LDS weddings outside of the temple. Theoretically, I could attend a Jewish wedding.
sjdawg Posted March 20, 2016 Posted March 20, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: I do not think that weddings should be viewed as worship ceremonies. I would have no problem with attending a Catholic wedding, if they would not insist upon having a mass. Because the Roman Catholic mass always accompanies a Roman Catholic wedding, I cannot attend Roman Catholic weddings. I cannot attend LDS weddings in the temple, but that is because I am not an LDS member. I can and have attended LDS weddings outside of the temple. Theoretically, I could attend a Jewish wedding. What is the issue of attending Catholic Mass? I attended Mass as a Mormon missionary for my own education and we were made welcome. I'm not sure I understand your objection Edited March 20, 2016 by sjdawg 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 20, 2016 Posted March 20, 2016 1 hour ago, sjdawg said: What is the issue of attending Catholic Mass? I attending Mass as a Mormon missionary for my own education and we were made welcome. I'm not sure I understand your objection I've attended other religious ceremonies with friends and family. They've all been very nice to me. I too don't understand his objection. 3
Jim Stiles Posted March 20, 2016 Posted March 20, 2016 13 hours ago, sjdawg said: What is the issue of attending Catholic Mass? I attended Mass as a Mormon missionary for my own education and we were made welcome. I'm not sure I understand your objection If I understand the Roman Mass correctly, then it is putting Christ to death again and again as a sacrifice for sin. Christ was a sacrifice for sin once for all time. Quote WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH CHAPTER 29:2 Of the Lord's Supper In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to his Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same: so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of his elect. Quote Hebrews 9:22-28 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
sdc999 Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 We have been to a couple of receptions after the temple wedding. I have no objections to celebrating a marriage. On the other hand, if someone invited me to drive to sit outside (as in the temple), I would not attend that part. Heck, I even went to my nieces wedding reception after the temple ceremony with the hint that a baby would result shortly thereafter. Low and behold, that full term baby was here 7 months later. Many times marriages of this sort do not survive, and I feared just that, but I am glad to say they are still together and I was wrong. 1
Atheist Mormon Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 Would you support the LDS wedding of somebody you cared? No Q. about it. It would be entirely her/his decision. (I'd probably tell my opinion, trying hard not to hurt the feelings).
Cold Steel Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 You mean, would I be upset if I couldn't attend a friend's wedding because it was to be held in a sacred place where I couldn't attend? Are you serious?? Ha! I wish all religions would ban me from their weddings...and funerals! 😴 I just want the cake and the other goodies. 🎂 😘😗 2
sjdawg Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 On 3/20/2016 at 1:06 AM, Jim Stiles said: If I understand the Roman Mass correctly, then it is putting Christ to death again and again as a sacrifice for sin. Christ was a sacrifice for sin once for all time. I still don't understand why you couldn't attend the service. I'm not saying you need to agree with it but it seems like you should be able to attend as a guest. I don't believe any forced conversions will take place. 1
Saint Sinner Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 On 3/20/2016 at 3:06 PM, Jim Stiles said: If I understand the Roman Mass correctly, then it is putting Christ to death again and again as a sacrifice for sin. Christ was a sacrifice for sin once for all time. Transforming the elements of communion via transubstantiation is not 're-crucifying Jesus. That's ridiculous. 2
ERayR Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 On 3/21/2016 at 8:00 PM, Atheist Mormon said: Would you support the LDS wedding of somebody you cared? No Q. about it. It would be entirely her/his decision. (I'd probably tell my opinion, trying hard not to hurt the feelings). Why would you volunteer your opinion at their happy event? Sometimes it is just better to celebrate with them and keep ones big mouth shut. That is my opinion. 1
Jim Stiles Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 8 hours ago, Saint Sinner said: Transforming the elements of communion via transubstantiation is not 're-crucifying Jesus. That's ridiculous. Yes, it is.
Saint Sinner Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 35 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: Yes, it is. No. Jesus said at the Last Supper that they are his body and blood. He never said they were "like unto" his blood and body. He did not crucify himself figuratively at the supper. Transformation is in no way synonymous with recreating the final act of a life. The problem that Westminster Reformed has is that they never truly understood Roman Catholic and Orthodox theology on the matter. They simply assert their understanding as the truth about another's theology. Very, very sad. 1
pogi Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 On March 21, 2016 at 6:13 PM, sdc999 said: Heck, I even went to my nieces wedding reception after the temple ceremony with the hint that a baby would result shortly thereafter. Low and behold, that full term baby was here 7 months later. Now that's a tough doozie to hide from your bishop.
Jim Stiles Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 3 hours ago, Saint Sinner said: No. Jesus said at the Last Supper that they are his body and blood. He never said they were "like unto" his blood and body. He did not crucify himself figuratively at the supper. Transformation is in no way synonymous with recreating the final act of a life. The problem that Westminster Reformed has is that they never truly understood Roman Catholic and Orthodox theology on the matter. They simply assert their understanding as the truth about another's theology. Very, very sad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist_(Catholic_Church) Quote At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Saviour instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. — Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1323
Jeanne Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 7 hours ago, ERayR said: Why would you volunteer your opinion at their happy event? Sometimes it is just better to celebrate with them and keep ones big mouth shut. That is my opinion. I agree..and they same goes for going to SSM reception/wedding. Celebrate.
Jeanne Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 3 hours ago, pogi said: Now that's a tough doozie to hide from your bishop. Yeah...my head was going...??????
Daniel2 Posted March 23, 2016 Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) Quote Would you support the LDS wedding of somebody you cared about even though you strongly disagree with the LDS faith? If you were...part of some other religious tradition not-too-fond of Mormonism, would you attend the wedding reception of an LDS friend or family member? Would you be willing to show your support by waiting outside the temple? Would you send them a card or give them a gift? Or would you view your participation in any form as a tacit endorsement of their faith tradition? My husband and I strongly disagree with the LDS Faith, and so the question posed above isn't a hypothetical "would I"--it's a regularly occurring reality. The answer is a resounding "Yes," without hesitation or reservation. We already DO happily and joyfully support the LDS weddings (as well as baby blessings, baptisms, missionary farewells, ward scouting and YM/YW fundraisers, and even missionary funds) of people we care about (and even some people that we don't particularly enjoy being around), even though we strongly disagree with the LDS Faith--because in our opinion, that's what family does--or should do (that is, showing unconditional love and support for one another, even when we disagree with others' personal beliefs or life choices, so long as nothing illegal or abusive is being promoted). We do so, even knowing that many of our LDS friends and family fail to show us the same consideration. Their failure to reciprocate our respect and support reflects more about them than it does about us, and we're not going to let their lack of support affect the type of people we strive to be. Daniel Edited March 24, 2016 by Daniel2 4
rockpond Posted March 23, 2016 Posted March 23, 2016 I read these threads... this one, the related gay marriage attendance thread, and others... and I am confused. The Brethren tell us to show love and kindness to those outside of the church and those who are gay. But each time a question comes up regarding those outside of our belief system or our hetero-norm the responses seem to indicate that the priority is in making sure we aren't seen as showing any support. At what point does the judgment end and the love/kindness (counseled by our leaders) begin? 3
Daniel2 Posted March 23, 2016 Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, rockpond said: I read these threads... this one, the related gay marriage attendance thread, and others... and I am confused. The Brethren tell us to show love and kindness to those outside of the church and those who are gay. But each time a question comes up regarding those outside of our belief system or our hetero-norm the responses seem to indicate that the priority is in making sure we aren't seen as showing any support. At what point does the judgment end and the love/kindness (counseled by our leaders) begin? Great question, Rock. In discussions like these, I often wonder at how little consideration seems to be given to Christ's admonition to "do unto others as we would have them do unto us," not to mention "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I see very little of either sentiment expressed in these types of threads. Edited March 23, 2016 by Daniel2 1
Calm Posted March 23, 2016 Posted March 23, 2016 48 minutes ago, rockpond said: But each time a question comes up regarding those outside of our belief system or our hetero-norm the responses seem to indicate that the priority is in making sure we aren't seen as showing any support. Perhaps you should take a count of how many said they would go and/or stated it wasn't necessary to make a public statement against SSM, etc. and how many said it was important to do so. My memory says it was only a few that said they wouldn't go to make sure they weren't seen as showing any support. Given the variation of opinion on the board, it should hardly be surprising or confusing imo that there is a wide range of opinion on how to best express love. 1
rockpond Posted March 23, 2016 Posted March 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Calm said: Perhaps you should take a count of how many said they would go and/or stated it wasn't necessary to make a public statement against SSM, etc. and how many said it was important to do so. My memory says it was only a few that said they wouldn't go to make sure they weren't seen as showing any support. Given the variation of opinion on the board, it should hardly be surprising or confusing imo that there is a wide range of opinion on how to best express love. I didn't go through the entire thread and take a count. But I was surprised by the committed church members on the board who said that they would not attend a gay wedding: JLHProf smac97 USU78 CV75 Scott Lloyd My question was directed towards these folks and those who agree with them. 1
Daniel2 Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 (edited) 20 hours ago, rockpond said: I didn't go through the entire thread and take a count. But I was surprised by the committed church members on the board who said that they would not attend a gay wedding: JLHProf smac97 USU78 CV75 Scott Lloyd My question was directed towards these folks and those who agree with them. FWIW, I would have been perfectly fine with all of the above members declining to come to my wedding, anyway, just as I was with one of my brothers who shares their views and approach to this issue. Weddings should be a time of celebratory joy surrounded by those that love and support the happy couple, rather than reluctant or coerced attendance thinly-veiled by disapproval and condemnatory judgment. Edited March 24, 2016 by Daniel2
Jeanne Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 4 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: FWIW, I would be perfectly fine with all of the above members declining to come to my wedding, anyway. For sure.
Calm Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 (edited) 20 hours ago, rockpond said: I didn't go through the entire thread and take a count. But I was surprised by the committed church members on the board who said that they would not attend a gay wedding: JLHProf smac97 USU78 CV75 Scott Lloyd My question was directed towards these folks and those who agree with them. I don't have a problem with directing questions towards a particular subset of responders; it is only when it is not clear that it is recognized these were a subset and not the only type of responses. A simple change to "some of the responses" instead of writting it as "the responses" makes it clear what you are doing and not that you have for some reason missed or ignored other types of responses. Add on hopefully just as an fyi to satisfy my own curiosity as wellas to demonstrate why I thought your response a bit strange with its lack of recognition of the varied responses (or so it read to me): from a rough count of the first four pages before it started getting into other topics, I would estimate there were 2 1/2 to 3 times as many saying that SSM would not prevent them from attending a wedding, even if they did not support the priniciple of SSM. Edited March 24, 2016 by Calm 2
Recommended Posts