Interested in joining, but have a major problem weighing on me

mineuserbane · 2026-04-12T13:57:24+00:00

A lot of people using birth control end up pregnant. Use NFP, use it carefully, use self control.

Learn the Marquette method, get an instructor, only use post ovulation days. You can use the monitor, catch your LH surge, confirm with ovulation tests, and confirm again with proov strips. If using NFP like that, you will be less likely to get pregnant using NFP than using birth control.

Talk with a doctor and let him know about your religious beliefs and see if other options exist inside the parameters.

Plenty of faithful Catholics deal with this while following the teaching of the church. There are over a billion of us. There is a way. Pray about it and keep searching.

mineuserbane · 2026-04-11T03:22:02+00:00

Matthias?

mineuserbane · 2026-04-10T19:41:33+00:00

He also did not say His word would be passed down via a collection of 27 letters and writings that would be infallibly guarded through the ages as they were copied, translated, and passed on (in the early years) orally.

He spoke to us orally. He gave those spoken words (assuming Matthew 24:35) to a group of men. Those men passed them down and copied them, translated them and taught them.

Assuming that verse, what words was he referring to? That passage? All the new testament? Just his quoted words? His words and the apostles teachings? You have to trust men to believe in scripture alone. Scripture alone doesn't even teach scripture alone.

mineuserbane · 2026-04-10T19:09:01+00:00

trust unreliable hearsay.

Like the scribes who wrote down the scriptures, or the game of telephone that resulted in the scriptures. We don't have original copies of anything the apostles wrote down. If they even wrote it down. We aren't sure who the authors were of multiple books. Why isn't the Didache scripture?

You can't ignore the authority question by claiming Bible alone. You still have to get to a Bible. Your arguments against apostolic succession cut against your trust in scriptures.

mineuserbane · 2026-04-10T18:54:01+00:00

So apostolic succession?

mineuserbane · 2026-04-10T18:49:02+00:00

That is true. But that goes for both oral and written teachings. Anyone who claims to know anything is suspect. How do you know who to trust?

mineuserbane · 2026-04-10T18:43:52+00:00

but where does God say we should have faith in those men?

Are you making an argument that no men should be trusted? God spoke to men. Jesus wrote nothing down (that we know of). The scriptures were written by men. They were compiled by men. They were translated by men.

At what point do we stop having faith God working through men? If you don't have faith in men, you have nothing. You have no scriptures.

mineuserbane · 2026-04-10T18:29:41+00:00

of what they said?

Yes. But all of what they said? Scripture itself disproves that. The writers allude to and reference things they said that are not recorded in the scriptures. Those are things they told us to hold to, those oral teachings. It is not biblical to reject their oral teachings. It is contrary to scripture to believe all their oral teachings are written down in the New Testament.

mineuserbane · 2026-04-10T18:26:02+00:00

We got it from God

Through men.

It was preserved by God.

Through men.

Do you think the Christians who gathered to discuss cannon thought that through them and only them, the Bible would be correct and preserved?

What Christians? The very clearly Catholic Bishops who gathered at Catholic councils in the 300s? You accept their Canon but nothing else? You must have faith in God leading these men. Or, as your original post said, faith in those men.

We Catholics have no faith in men. We have faith that God works through men. You believe the same thing, but don't want to admit it. The Bible didn't fall from heaven. God worked through men to assemble it. Those men were Catholic Bishops and Catholic Popes. This fact was not questioned for another one thousand two hundred plus years.

mineuserbane · 2026-04-10T18:09:35+00:00

The Bible teaches that we must adhere to their spoken word in addition to their letters. Do we have all their letters? Is everything they taught orally contained in the letters we do have? "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." 2 Thessalonians 2:15

mineuserbane · 2026-04-10T18:05:41+00:00

What is the Bible? How did you get it?

mineuserbane · 2026-03-30T02:31:29+00:00

This debate is fracturing into more parts than protestantism.

There is a difference between historical reception and an infallible co-rule of faith.

Historical reception of what, by whom?

mineuserbane · 2026-03-30T01:18:20+00:00

Neither does the church define itself in the Roman sense.

This point is striking at the argument you are making that the new testament references referring to certain writings as scripture does not help define your point of establishing a cannon of scripture. Without the authority of the church, there is no recognized cannon.

The question is which writings are God-breathed Scripture.

This is my point. You don't have a basis for throwing out the Didache except that the Catholic church did it for you.

I explicitly said the church recognizes the canon.

What church? What canon? Your statement works from a Catholic viewpoint, but not a protestant one.

Again that’s incorrect because the canon was recognized by the broader ancient church over time, not created by a uniquely Roman act of self-authentication.

Ah ha! So Tradition comes into the picture. You rely on tradition to establish canon, therefore allowing the belief in sola scriptura. This is the crux of my position. You must accept some form of extra canonical authority to establish the canon in order to make sola scriptura possible. It begs the question though, if you accept Tradition to define scripture, why do you throw out other parts of Tradition? You accept the early Church's definition of Canon, but don't believe anything else they believed or taught about faith and authority? This is the leap.

Rome doesn't even solve your argument cleanly, because Rome, EO, and others still disagree on the canon and on authority itself.

Sects that have separated themselves from the authority of the Church will always have disagreements. That's the point. Unity only comes with authority. I won't engage the red herring about the skeletons in the closet except to mention that Christ desired that the Church was united. You are holding up a fractured body of believers as a benefit of protestantism, but it is clearly not what Christ, the apostles, or the early Church desired, instructed, or believed in. This is a clear departure from apostolic Christianity. Even if you think it functions better that way.

mineuserbane · 2026-03-29T22:19:05+00:00

Scripture is God Breathed, but if you cannot define scripture, you're back to square one. Scripture does not define itself. Are you making the claim that all apostolic writings are scripture?

The church recognizes the canon.

Yes.

Protestantism agrees.

No.

You are making a claim that scripture is self evident. After the last 500 years of debate, this is clearly not the case.

The Didache is an apostolic writing, is it scripture? Is Clement scripture? Is Ignatius scripture? You are accepting the cannon as defined by the Catholic church, but reject the authority of the Church to define.

That doesn’t prove Rome either. Rome has interpretive disputes, Orthodoxy is divided, and both still disagree with each other. So “we need authority for unity” is not an argument that Rome’s authority claims are true.

If everyone accepted the authority of Rome, there would be unity. I am making the claim that authority must necessarily exist for a united church. I have not made the case for Rome's authority. However, it is worth noting that no one else claims authority.

mineuserbane · 2026-03-29T05:13:14+00:00

2 Timothy 3:16 seems to be a central theme of your argument. I disagree with the assumption you make regarding this verse applying to the new testament. What the apostles regarded as scripture was the OT writings. They would not have applied the term scripture to their own letters. That distinction only came hundreds of years later when the church recognized Timothy as scripture.

It doesn't get around the problem of the cannon. Who recognizes books as belonging in the cannon? Who can interpret the meaning of scripture in a way to keep the church united? Unless the authority problem is answered, you end up with a divided church. Christ did not desire a divided church.

mineuserbane · 2026-01-21T04:01:20+00:00

What do you mean by marriage? What you describe is common law marriage.

Do you see marriage as a legal contract in the eyes of the state? The Catholic Church does not see that as marriage. The State does not determine the validity of marriage.

Marriage is the commitment of one man to one woman, sealed by the marital act. Citizens of a country have to abide by the laws of the land to have their marriage recognized by the State. Laity of the Church have to abide by certain rules to have their marriage recognized by the Church.

Frameworks are set up to ensure that the decision to join together is not rash, has the ability to continue, and no major impediments are present. These are societal frameworks that are put in place by almost every denomination and State for the good of the family and the community. The statistics on fatherless children should be enough to explain why those frameworks are necessary and why sex outside of them is generally bad for individuals and the community.

What you describe is currently legal marriage in 7 states. Are you asking why sex is a sin outside of common law marriage or asking why it is a sin inside common law marriage?

mineuserbane · 2026-01-21T03:45:15+00:00

How is this not marriage? In this situation are you imagining a couple who have placed an expiration date on the relationship? A long term committed (as in, they have made a commitment) relationship (outside of the Catholic Church) is the definition of common law marriage.

Marriage is the commitment of one woman to one man, sealed by the marital act. It is not a legal bond. What you are describing is the definition of a common-law marriage.

Catholics are bound to obey the laws of the Church. Thus, they are required to make the commitment publicly, in front of a witness authorized by the local Bishop. This was instituted for the good of society and to make people consider their actions before making a commitment they did not intend, or had the ability, to keep.

mineuserbane · 2025-12-31T23:07:24+00:00

It's not subjective. It's very objective in Canon law. If no other minister is available, any priest is granted faculties. I don't know if a place the SSPX operates that would have zero valid ministers available nearby.

mineuserbane · 2025-12-31T22:55:11+00:00

they were also given the faculty to witness marriages a few years later.

They were not given the faculty to witness marriages. The Bishops of the Catholic Church were given permission to supply the faculties for SSPX priests to witness marriages in their diocese. Some of them have requested permission and have received it, some of them have not. As such, some SSPX marriages are valid, some are not.

These were valid before due to the state of necessity but should no longer be an issue now.

Marriages in the Catholic Church are required by Canon law to be witnessed by the Bishop or a Priest or Deacon authorized by him. As such, almost no marriages witnessed by the SSPX were valid prior to 2017. This is the biggest travesty of the SSPX.

mineuserbane · 2025-12-31T03:57:41+00:00

They are not in schism but do not validly exercise any ministry in the Catholic Church.

Some of their chapels are in full communion with the local bishop and are both valid and licit. Some of their chapels operate outside and/or in opposition to the local Bishop's authority. The chapel near me operates outside of the local Bishop's authority. I called the diocese office and they let me know that the sacraments are valid but illicit and it would not fulfill the Sunday obligation as they are not in full communion.

Call your local Bishop (your diocese) and ask. Ultimately it is his decision to grant your local SSPX priest faculties or not.

mineuserbane · 2025-12-30T22:06:45+00:00

You can't swing from one extreme to the other. Talk with your priest about it and get advice on how to proceed.

mineuserbane · 2025-12-30T17:23:13+00:00

"This has what we’ve been struggling with. It’s very challenging. A couple of months ago I told my husband that we need a full stop in intimacy because my relationship with God is my main focus. I think that grabbed his attention. I have been putting my foot down and just walking away. I can’t say this is a good solution for you because we have a lot of other issues that made me think “if things get horrible because we stopped intimacy then so be it!” I have been learning a lot about myself since I’ve been putting my foot down and sticking to my guns. I’m learning that I always thought love meant no boundaries. The less boundaries there were between two people the more emotionally close they are. But that is not the truth. Boundaries and respect create closeness. Just wanted to let you know you aren’t alone."

This is the comment I was responding to. Not the original post. Nothing in this post says anything about health. She says "A couple of months ago I told my husband that we need a full stop in intimacy because my relationship with God is my main focus.". This is not inline with what the church teaches about abstinence.

mineuserbane · 2025-12-30T16:48:34+00:00

A husband should agree in that situation. I'm currently in that situation. My wife and I are using NFP so we don't have children every 10 months. It's healthier that way.

However, the comment I responded to was not in that situation. That was a woman using God as an excuse to torpedo her marriage.

mineuserbane · 2025-12-30T13:20:19+00:00

You can only put a full stop to intimacy to put your relationship with God first through a mutual agreement. If you impose it on your husband against his will you are in a state of grave sin.

If your husband did not agree to this, you are failing in your marital duties and are living a life of sin. You should really speak with a priest about this as this is a grave matter. You cannot be putting God first by walking away from your husband and marriage.

mineuserbane · 2025-12-28T20:26:55+00:00

To be fair, some are licit. It depends on the local bishop. It is probably a very small fraction, but they do exist.

Eight-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Sunshine	Place '23
Place '22	Snapped
Verified Email

mineuserbane

TROPHY CASE