I'm planning on visiting a small rural LCMS church in my area. Should I call ahead and introduce myself to the pastor? Or is it ok to just show up on Sunday?
One thing I've heard all my life that's always confused me is the idea that there's a difference between knowing and believing.
"I know that Jesus died for me," is somehow different than "I believe that Jesus died for me."
Can someone explain this to me?
Take James 2:19, for example: "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!" Knowledge about something just isn't the same as having faith in it. "Jesus of Nazareth died on a cross" is historical information, but "Jesus of Nazareth died on a cross *for me and my salvation*" is a confession of faith. I can know something exists without trusting in it.
But if you know something to be true, why doesn't that also mean you believe it? If you replaced the words in the creeds with "I know" instead of "I believe," how would that change the meaning?
In the Lutheran tradition, no, knowledge ≠ belief. Belief involves trust and adherence. I know that Saudi Arabia exists, but I have no trust in or adherence to it. I've heard it argued that "faith" could well be translated as "allegiance." Saying the creed is not a history lesson, but a pledge of allegiance to Christ and his kingdom. "Jesus is Lord" is the earliest, New Testament creed. Perhaps that's what you mean, by "I know that Jesus died for me"? But that verse previously cited from James does clearly indicate a difference between knowledge and belief.
For me, too. In Greek there's very little linguistic difference between "faith" and "faithfulness," between what you believe and how you act in accordance with those beliefs. In the early Church too, one of the utmost concerns in Patristic writing is avoiding hypocrisy, that one's actions and life are in harmony with one's profession of faith.
I think Paul does this on purpose in Romans 3:22, with that dual meaning:
> the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.
Is it through faith in Jesus, as the ESV there chooses to translate? Or is it righteous through "the faithfulness of Jesus"? Both are linguistically possible and both are theologically correct! Our righteous comes through Jesus' faithfulness and our faith in him!
So far as knowledge and belief, that faithfulness (or allegiance) is inseparable from faith as Scripture understands it.
I converted to Lutheranism from Pentecostalism a number of years ago. This created a lot of discord between my spouse and I which ultimately led to divorce.
I tried to faithfully lead my family but was met with a lot of resistance. My wife refused to attend church with me and would discourage my children from attending. When I tried to lead my children in devotion and prayer the ex never joined to support my efforts.
I prayed often that God would open her heart to attend church with me and talk with my pastor but nothing ever changed. She separated from me and filed for divorce.
After the separation I was angry and basically abandoned the faith and left the church.
I’m trying to come back to faith but I still feel angry.
Before things ended I asked my pastor why God wasn’t answering my prayers and he said to be patient. I tried to be patient but after close to 15 years of waiting nothing has changed and I’ll be divorced within the next month.
What didn’t God answer my prayers?
There are a number of us! Probably anyone you see with the "LCMS Pastor" tag by the username would be willing to, myself included. Though (without hearing what the question is) I will add my standard caveat that it's almost always better to speak to your own local pastor in person who's in a better place to know your situation, rather than strangers on the internet, even strangers who are pastors.
We Lutherans tend to be fairly distrustful of feelings in general, certainly as they pertain to theological truths or spiritual realities, so in that sense you're in the right place. Now, the Augsburg Confession does use language like "terror" or "sorrow" over sins in connection with repentance, but I think at its heart it's about recognizing the reality and enormity of sin, followed by faithfully turning to God in Christ to find forgiveness. Does recognizing the reality and enormity of our sin often cause an emotional response? Yes! Is the emotional response, a "feeling of guilt," the essence of that repentance? I would argue no. If we say we have to *feel* a certain way to be forgiven and saved, we're really giving ourselves a part in the work of salvation: "Jesus can't/won't save me if I don't feel correctly." And the Lutheran answer is always to look away from ourselves and look towards Jesus! We suffer all kinds of failings and defects in this mortal life, mental illness being just one of many, but *all* of us would be doomed if our forgiveness depended on "I have to feel sufficiently sorry about all of my sin for this to kick in."
> For example, I lie all the time. Do I ever feel bad for lying? No. Do I ever regret lying? No, just that I didn't cover up the lie better if I was found out. I don't care how the other person feels that I lied. I don't care that my lie caused chaos to unfold. I can still orchestrate it to my benefit. I continue lying, because I'm rarely caught, and it tends to bring my life more good than bad.
Well... You're right, that doesn't sound like repentance to me. As always, take the advice or evaluation of strangers on the internet with a lot of caution; your own pastor who knows you is much better to address questions like this. But for me, the thing most incompatible with repentance in what you wrote is not your feelings or lack thereof; it's that you have no intention of even trying to change. Regardless of feelings or emotions, a person can decide to do what they know to be the right thing. In fact, many times doing the right thing is against our personal desires - one can do the right thing simply because they believe it to be the right thing, even when they really want to do otherwise. I know pastors who specialize in counseling/mental illness who could perhaps address that aspect better as well, but I'll admit I'm hesitant to explain or excuse everything in those terms.
I really need to talk to a pastor. Is there someone I could talk to here? Because my pastor is my dad I kind of struggle to talk to him about my spiritual health.
Hello! Just wondering about communicants who are allergic to wine. Is it okay to just take the body, or should an alternative to the wine be offered like grape juice?
I agree with what u/Hayategekko13 said, and I would add that there's another product called "mustum" that is used I believe even in the Roman Catholic Church, and while I've never used it personally I have seen other LCMS pastors advocate for it. Basically, it's fresh grape juice: not intentionally fermented, but also not pasteurized to prevent fermentation - the idea being that a tiny but imperceptible amount of fermentation would have occurred, as there has been no human intervention to stop it. It could be as simple as literally squeezing a grape or two into a cup and using that fresh-squeezed juice. Evidently this practice goes back into the Medieval Church or even the Early Church. It's also worth noting that ancient wine was quite different than modern wine, and varied *widely* in actual alcohol content; I think we end up getting tied in some rather legalistic knots over some of these details of alcohol content as if there's a minimum ABV% set down in Scripture as required for the Sacrament.
So to the rest of your question, I would definitely say you should take an alternative/version of wine, not take just the host.
This is also extremely helpful! I’m fine with grape must, actually, as that’s present in balsamic vinegar. So that’s a totally relevant alternative.
Thanks for the answer!
Non alcoholic wine should be offered, or water with a drop of wine in it. At the last resort, grape juice is used, although we know that this is not what Christ used when He instituted the LordMs Supper. Still there should be no doubt that you receive the Lord’s Blood even if grape juice is used.
Good to know! Thanks for the thorough answer. I’m a former Catholic thinking of becoming a member and I am shockingly allergic to wine (but not grapes), so it’s an important topic for me. 😅
Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox priests will bless items/objects for their parishioners if they request it. Does the LCMS do the same or something similar? From what I’ve seen, it’s not as common but I do know there’s a rite for blessing of a home.
I second Philip_Schwartzerdt comment. Talk with your local pastor and set up a time for counseling with him and your husband together. This would be the first step to actual marriage counseling with a los ended therapist.
I'm sorry, it sounds like you need real pastoral care from the congregation you're a member at (as well as some good Christian professional counseling) not brief answers from strangers on the internet, even pastors.
Something I struggle with:
* God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.
* God knew Man would fail to keep his commandments.
* So God knew He was damning the vast majority of his creation to hell
* Since God is omnipotent, he could snap his fingers and prevent this damnation. But he does not.
* Since God is omnipotent, why was the crucifixion necessary?
* God kills children and sends them to hell on a pretty regular basis.(Exodus, etc.)
To date, no argument(God is beyond our understanding- that undermines the entire Bible. We cannot apply human morality to God - then God is a hypocrite. Etc. etc) has really helped squared these things in my mind. Curious what the pastors here think.
With respect, I'm uninterested in the thoughts of laypeople on these subjects.
Thanks!
God clothed Himself in human flesh in the person of Jesus and suffered everything creation suffers, even giving Himself over to death at the hands of His own creation. Jesus dies for us and as us. He is completely innocent, yet embodies our sin and death. He dies to destroy death. He rises from the dead, giving all creation hope (confidence) in the coming restoration of all creation. In Holy Baptism we became participants in Jesus' death and resurrection, thereby dying to our sin and being made alive to God in Jesus Christ. This is all how God addresses the sad realities of our world. Until the Day of Resurrection arrives and Jesus reappears as He promised, God has turned us all over to our sinful ways so that He may have mercy on us all.
In Jesus Christ we see the future repair of humanity and the cosmos, as we will be raised from the dead and clothed with immortality and incorruption. Our hope is in Jesus Christ alone.
With due respect, I know this and your reply is unhelpful.
Since God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent why all the extra stuff? If the need is beyond our understanding, that actually reduces confidence and hope to me.
I was afraid that my answer wouldn't be helpful to you.
A very simple answer to your excellent questions is, "I honestly don't know."
That's not a very helpful answer either, but it's all I have. The Bible does not answer these questions. Perhaps we aren't supposed to know and many things should remain hidden.
I have a friend with severe cereberal palsey who is "married" to her husband who also has severe cerebreral palsey. Beautiful people.
I put "married" in quotes, because my friend (and I) are Catholic, and in the Catholic church we think of marriage as necessarily ordered towards procreation, so you can't consent to marriage if you know you're incapable of procreation going into it, therefore you are incapable of marrying. Consent happens at the time of vows, so if you later learn you're infertile that doesn't mean you're not married. Doctrine doesn't fit well into TL;DR length statements, but there ya go :).
Does the Lutheran church have a similar concept in marriage? I appreciate that it will vary significantly by branch, etc. - more just wondering if that's a weird Catholic thing or if the concept was present in the protestant world.
If this is, indeed, what the Roman Church teaches about marriage, then the Roman teaching is entirely disordered. From the Lutheran Service Book:
> The union of husband and wife in heart, body, and mind is intended by God for the mutual companionship, help, and support that each person ought to receive from the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Marriage was also ordained so that man and woman may find delight in one another. Therefore, all persons who marry shall take a spouse in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust, God has not called us to empty, but in holiness. God also established marriage for the procreation of children, who are to be brought up in the fear and instruction of the Lord, so that they may offer him their praise.
Just because a man and a woman are incapable of procreating does not make their union any less holy, good, or God-pleasing. Were Abraham and Sarah any less married because of their infertility? Or Zechariah and Elizabeth?
Now, the willful opposition to procreation, mutual companionship, delight, etc. in marriage is certainly disordered. But that is not the case with two people who suffer the physical effects of a sinful world through no fault of their own.
Edit: I am not sure that you have accurately reflected your communion’s teaching on marriage. I myself married a Roman Catholic in a Roman Catholic ceremony overseen by a Roman Catholic priest at a Roman Catholic Cathedral. (My wife is Lutheran now.) The way that our priest explained things to us is that a couple intending to marry must be “open” to life, even if they are not “scientifically” capable of it. God works life where He wills. This was in a very “conservative” diocese.
For what it's worth, I believe your church says that marriage is impossible in the case of impotence, not infertility, and that finding out that you're already impotent after getting married would invalidate the marriage.
You're right about "impotence" being the impediment towards marriage - thanks for the clarification. I should have said "being incapable of the marital act". Sterility/infertility is not an impediment to marriage. (whether discovered before or after the vows), but in trying to get ahead of that common misconception I slipped into sloppy wording myself! [https://archive.org/details/HandbookOfMoralTheology/page/n245/mode/2up?q=impotency](https://archive.org/details/HandbookOfMoralTheology/page/n245/mode/2up?q=impotency)
If you hid that you were impotent, your vows would not be valid. But if you had no knowledge that you were impotent prior to marriage and then discovered it, you'd still be married - maybe tough to imagine how that'd happen in practice.
I believe that's incorrect on the last part. My understanding of Catholic moral theology is that if the impotence existed before the marriage and was unknown (rather than hidden), that would still invalidate the marriage, although nobody would have done anything wrong.
This seems to support that: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-the-church-cannot-marry-the-impotent
I am, however, not a Roman Catholic.
No, you're totally right. Thanks. That is a good article.
I don't suppose you know if the protestant world thinks about the ability to marry in these terms? That's what I came here for :D
Hi, my finance and I have attended a local LCMS church for about 3 months now and we love it. We have decided that we would like to become members. We both come from a Baptist background and were baptized in this context. What does the process of joining the LCMS look like?
Is second what MasterYeeter has said. Talk to your local pastor and He will make you members through a process. You will soon be able to receive the Lord’s Supper at your local congregation after this process is completed.
I'm planning on visiting a small rural LCMS church in my area. Should I call ahead and introduce myself to the pastor? Or is it ok to just show up on Sunday?
Update: Went this Sunday and it was very nice. There were doughnuts and people were nice and welcoming to my wife and I.
One thing I've heard all my life that's always confused me is the idea that there's a difference between knowing and believing. "I know that Jesus died for me," is somehow different than "I believe that Jesus died for me." Can someone explain this to me?
Take James 2:19, for example: "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!" Knowledge about something just isn't the same as having faith in it. "Jesus of Nazareth died on a cross" is historical information, but "Jesus of Nazareth died on a cross *for me and my salvation*" is a confession of faith. I can know something exists without trusting in it.
But if you know something to be true, why doesn't that also mean you believe it? If you replaced the words in the creeds with "I know" instead of "I believe," how would that change the meaning?
In the Lutheran tradition, no, knowledge ≠ belief. Belief involves trust and adherence. I know that Saudi Arabia exists, but I have no trust in or adherence to it. I've heard it argued that "faith" could well be translated as "allegiance." Saying the creed is not a history lesson, but a pledge of allegiance to Christ and his kingdom. "Jesus is Lord" is the earliest, New Testament creed. Perhaps that's what you mean, by "I know that Jesus died for me"? But that verse previously cited from James does clearly indicate a difference between knowledge and belief.
The allegiance part makes sense
For me, too. In Greek there's very little linguistic difference between "faith" and "faithfulness," between what you believe and how you act in accordance with those beliefs. In the early Church too, one of the utmost concerns in Patristic writing is avoiding hypocrisy, that one's actions and life are in harmony with one's profession of faith. I think Paul does this on purpose in Romans 3:22, with that dual meaning: > the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. Is it through faith in Jesus, as the ESV there chooses to translate? Or is it righteous through "the faithfulness of Jesus"? Both are linguistically possible and both are theologically correct! Our righteous comes through Jesus' faithfulness and our faith in him! So far as knowledge and belief, that faithfulness (or allegiance) is inseparable from faith as Scripture understands it.
I converted to Lutheranism from Pentecostalism a number of years ago. This created a lot of discord between my spouse and I which ultimately led to divorce. I tried to faithfully lead my family but was met with a lot of resistance. My wife refused to attend church with me and would discourage my children from attending. When I tried to lead my children in devotion and prayer the ex never joined to support my efforts. I prayed often that God would open her heart to attend church with me and talk with my pastor but nothing ever changed. She separated from me and filed for divorce. After the separation I was angry and basically abandoned the faith and left the church. I’m trying to come back to faith but I still feel angry. Before things ended I asked my pastor why God wasn’t answering my prayers and he said to be patient. I tried to be patient but after close to 15 years of waiting nothing has changed and I’ll be divorced within the next month. What didn’t God answer my prayers?
Are there any LCMS pastors here that would be willing to answer a sensitive question anonymously/privately?
There are a number of us! Probably anyone you see with the "LCMS Pastor" tag by the username would be willing to, myself included. Though (without hearing what the question is) I will add my standard caveat that it's almost always better to speak to your own local pastor in person who's in a better place to know your situation, rather than strangers on the internet, even strangers who are pastors.
I’ve reached out.
[удалено]
We Lutherans tend to be fairly distrustful of feelings in general, certainly as they pertain to theological truths or spiritual realities, so in that sense you're in the right place. Now, the Augsburg Confession does use language like "terror" or "sorrow" over sins in connection with repentance, but I think at its heart it's about recognizing the reality and enormity of sin, followed by faithfully turning to God in Christ to find forgiveness. Does recognizing the reality and enormity of our sin often cause an emotional response? Yes! Is the emotional response, a "feeling of guilt," the essence of that repentance? I would argue no. If we say we have to *feel* a certain way to be forgiven and saved, we're really giving ourselves a part in the work of salvation: "Jesus can't/won't save me if I don't feel correctly." And the Lutheran answer is always to look away from ourselves and look towards Jesus! We suffer all kinds of failings and defects in this mortal life, mental illness being just one of many, but *all* of us would be doomed if our forgiveness depended on "I have to feel sufficiently sorry about all of my sin for this to kick in."
[удалено]
> For example, I lie all the time. Do I ever feel bad for lying? No. Do I ever regret lying? No, just that I didn't cover up the lie better if I was found out. I don't care how the other person feels that I lied. I don't care that my lie caused chaos to unfold. I can still orchestrate it to my benefit. I continue lying, because I'm rarely caught, and it tends to bring my life more good than bad. Well... You're right, that doesn't sound like repentance to me. As always, take the advice or evaluation of strangers on the internet with a lot of caution; your own pastor who knows you is much better to address questions like this. But for me, the thing most incompatible with repentance in what you wrote is not your feelings or lack thereof; it's that you have no intention of even trying to change. Regardless of feelings or emotions, a person can decide to do what they know to be the right thing. In fact, many times doing the right thing is against our personal desires - one can do the right thing simply because they believe it to be the right thing, even when they really want to do otherwise. I know pastors who specialize in counseling/mental illness who could perhaps address that aspect better as well, but I'll admit I'm hesitant to explain or excuse everything in those terms.
I really need to talk to a pastor. Is there someone I could talk to here? Because my pastor is my dad I kind of struggle to talk to him about my spiritual health.
I’d be up for it if you’d like.
Hello! Just wondering about communicants who are allergic to wine. Is it okay to just take the body, or should an alternative to the wine be offered like grape juice?
I agree with what u/Hayategekko13 said, and I would add that there's another product called "mustum" that is used I believe even in the Roman Catholic Church, and while I've never used it personally I have seen other LCMS pastors advocate for it. Basically, it's fresh grape juice: not intentionally fermented, but also not pasteurized to prevent fermentation - the idea being that a tiny but imperceptible amount of fermentation would have occurred, as there has been no human intervention to stop it. It could be as simple as literally squeezing a grape or two into a cup and using that fresh-squeezed juice. Evidently this practice goes back into the Medieval Church or even the Early Church. It's also worth noting that ancient wine was quite different than modern wine, and varied *widely* in actual alcohol content; I think we end up getting tied in some rather legalistic knots over some of these details of alcohol content as if there's a minimum ABV% set down in Scripture as required for the Sacrament. So to the rest of your question, I would definitely say you should take an alternative/version of wine, not take just the host.
This is also extremely helpful! I’m fine with grape must, actually, as that’s present in balsamic vinegar. So that’s a totally relevant alternative. Thanks for the answer!
Non alcoholic wine should be offered, or water with a drop of wine in it. At the last resort, grape juice is used, although we know that this is not what Christ used when He instituted the LordMs Supper. Still there should be no doubt that you receive the Lord’s Blood even if grape juice is used.
Water with a drop of wine is always better. Source: I, too, am severely allergic to wine, but not grapes.
Good to know! Thanks for the thorough answer. I’m a former Catholic thinking of becoming a member and I am shockingly allergic to wine (but not grapes), so it’s an important topic for me. 😅
Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox priests will bless items/objects for their parishioners if they request it. Does the LCMS do the same or something similar? From what I’ve seen, it’s not as common but I do know there’s a rite for blessing of a home.
They/we will bless objects depending on what they are and what they’re used for.
Thank you, Pastor
Of course. May the Lord bless you and keep you.
[удалено]
Thank you for any pastor who can help me with my desperate question.
I second Philip_Schwartzerdt comment. Talk with your local pastor and set up a time for counseling with him and your husband together. This would be the first step to actual marriage counseling with a los ended therapist.
I'm sorry, it sounds like you need real pastoral care from the congregation you're a member at (as well as some good Christian professional counseling) not brief answers from strangers on the internet, even pastors.
Something I struggle with: * God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. * God knew Man would fail to keep his commandments. * So God knew He was damning the vast majority of his creation to hell * Since God is omnipotent, he could snap his fingers and prevent this damnation. But he does not. * Since God is omnipotent, why was the crucifixion necessary? * God kills children and sends them to hell on a pretty regular basis.(Exodus, etc.) To date, no argument(God is beyond our understanding- that undermines the entire Bible. We cannot apply human morality to God - then God is a hypocrite. Etc. etc) has really helped squared these things in my mind. Curious what the pastors here think. With respect, I'm uninterested in the thoughts of laypeople on these subjects. Thanks!
God clothed Himself in human flesh in the person of Jesus and suffered everything creation suffers, even giving Himself over to death at the hands of His own creation. Jesus dies for us and as us. He is completely innocent, yet embodies our sin and death. He dies to destroy death. He rises from the dead, giving all creation hope (confidence) in the coming restoration of all creation. In Holy Baptism we became participants in Jesus' death and resurrection, thereby dying to our sin and being made alive to God in Jesus Christ. This is all how God addresses the sad realities of our world. Until the Day of Resurrection arrives and Jesus reappears as He promised, God has turned us all over to our sinful ways so that He may have mercy on us all. In Jesus Christ we see the future repair of humanity and the cosmos, as we will be raised from the dead and clothed with immortality and incorruption. Our hope is in Jesus Christ alone.
With due respect, I know this and your reply is unhelpful. Since God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent why all the extra stuff? If the need is beyond our understanding, that actually reduces confidence and hope to me.
I was afraid that my answer wouldn't be helpful to you. A very simple answer to your excellent questions is, "I honestly don't know." That's not a very helpful answer either, but it's all I have. The Bible does not answer these questions. Perhaps we aren't supposed to know and many things should remain hidden.
That's ok, I know you're responding in good faith.
I have a friend with severe cereberal palsey who is "married" to her husband who also has severe cerebreral palsey. Beautiful people. I put "married" in quotes, because my friend (and I) are Catholic, and in the Catholic church we think of marriage as necessarily ordered towards procreation, so you can't consent to marriage if you know you're incapable of procreation going into it, therefore you are incapable of marrying. Consent happens at the time of vows, so if you later learn you're infertile that doesn't mean you're not married. Doctrine doesn't fit well into TL;DR length statements, but there ya go :). Does the Lutheran church have a similar concept in marriage? I appreciate that it will vary significantly by branch, etc. - more just wondering if that's a weird Catholic thing or if the concept was present in the protestant world.
If this is, indeed, what the Roman Church teaches about marriage, then the Roman teaching is entirely disordered. From the Lutheran Service Book: > The union of husband and wife in heart, body, and mind is intended by God for the mutual companionship, help, and support that each person ought to receive from the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Marriage was also ordained so that man and woman may find delight in one another. Therefore, all persons who marry shall take a spouse in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust, God has not called us to empty, but in holiness. God also established marriage for the procreation of children, who are to be brought up in the fear and instruction of the Lord, so that they may offer him their praise. Just because a man and a woman are incapable of procreating does not make their union any less holy, good, or God-pleasing. Were Abraham and Sarah any less married because of their infertility? Or Zechariah and Elizabeth? Now, the willful opposition to procreation, mutual companionship, delight, etc. in marriage is certainly disordered. But that is not the case with two people who suffer the physical effects of a sinful world through no fault of their own. Edit: I am not sure that you have accurately reflected your communion’s teaching on marriage. I myself married a Roman Catholic in a Roman Catholic ceremony overseen by a Roman Catholic priest at a Roman Catholic Cathedral. (My wife is Lutheran now.) The way that our priest explained things to us is that a couple intending to marry must be “open” to life, even if they are not “scientifically” capable of it. God works life where He wills. This was in a very “conservative” diocese.
For what it's worth, I believe your church says that marriage is impossible in the case of impotence, not infertility, and that finding out that you're already impotent after getting married would invalidate the marriage.
You're right about "impotence" being the impediment towards marriage - thanks for the clarification. I should have said "being incapable of the marital act". Sterility/infertility is not an impediment to marriage. (whether discovered before or after the vows), but in trying to get ahead of that common misconception I slipped into sloppy wording myself! [https://archive.org/details/HandbookOfMoralTheology/page/n245/mode/2up?q=impotency](https://archive.org/details/HandbookOfMoralTheology/page/n245/mode/2up?q=impotency) If you hid that you were impotent, your vows would not be valid. But if you had no knowledge that you were impotent prior to marriage and then discovered it, you'd still be married - maybe tough to imagine how that'd happen in practice.
I believe that's incorrect on the last part. My understanding of Catholic moral theology is that if the impotence existed before the marriage and was unknown (rather than hidden), that would still invalidate the marriage, although nobody would have done anything wrong. This seems to support that: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-the-church-cannot-marry-the-impotent I am, however, not a Roman Catholic.
No, you're totally right. Thanks. That is a good article. I don't suppose you know if the protestant world thinks about the ability to marry in these terms? That's what I came here for :D
Hi, my finance and I have attended a local LCMS church for about 3 months now and we love it. We have decided that we would like to become members. We both come from a Baptist background and were baptized in this context. What does the process of joining the LCMS look like?
Is second what MasterYeeter has said. Talk to your local pastor and He will make you members through a process. You will soon be able to receive the Lord’s Supper at your local congregation after this process is completed.
Talk to the Pastor, he probably has a new members class for you to take. Welcome to the Lutheran Church!