New Member

If you have privacy concerns, use a user name. This Support Board is for ex-CoC and those wishing to be ex-CoC. Others are asked not to read or post here. Check your email or trash for the email link to activate your account.
User avatar
agricola
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:31 pm

Re: New Member

Post by agricola »

One of my uncles was a coc preacher in Kokomo for a long time, but that was decades ago. He was non-institutional, if that helps.
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
JWayne
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:23 am

Re: New Member

Post by JWayne »

I was in Kokomo from 1970-1980. Is that about the time he was there?
Member for 18 years and free now for 35 years!
Attended the Courtland Avenue COC in Kokomo Indiana.
Father was an elder and the main reason I left.
User avatar
agricola
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:31 pm

Re: New Member

Post by agricola »

He would have been in his 60's I guess - I don't know for certain. He was there in the 1960's - I don't know how long he stayed. We never visited him there - sometimes he'd visit us - but he wouldn't go to church with us! He would drive much further, so he could go to a NI coc instead.
Do you remember any preacher's names?
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
JWayne
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:23 am

Re: New Member

Post by JWayne »

When i was younger it was a guy named Max Dawson he was then replaced by someone with the last name Shane but thats all I can remember. My father, Tom, was an elder there with a guy named Mason Vint(sp?) for many years. We moved when i was 12 so that was over 35 years ago lol.
Last edited by JWayne on Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Member for 18 years and free now for 35 years!
Attended the Courtland Avenue COC in Kokomo Indiana.
Father was an elder and the main reason I left.
User avatar
KLP
Posts: 2757
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 4:47 pm

Re: New Member

Post by KLP »

I heard an odd (to me) topic on Catholic talk radio recently. The caller was asking if it was wrong to attend a relatives wedding where they were not getting married in the Catholic church and one person was not Catholic? The host priest sort of laughed at this being silly but said why would you not want to be there and be in relationship with your relatives? How could you possibly have a future positive influence if you so offended them now? Which was a very kind advice...and then,,,he says plus think about what is happening? No more laughing but cold logic on display flashes out from the priest ...he says If they are not being married in the church then God is not there and it is not a sacrament and so really nothing is happening and therefore there is no reason to have to avoid it since nothing is taking place. I was just shocked a the CofC type logic. LOL

And then the caller says "so then if I attend I do not have take it to confession and ask forgiveness for attending". The kindly old priest returns and just gently laughs and reassures them that it is no sin to attend these ceremonies.

glad you are here
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
User avatar
agricola
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:31 pm

Re: New Member

Post by agricola »

It's a fair answer, really, given that 'Catholic marriage' is a religious sacrament, and by definition involves two Catholics. Just like a 'Jewish wedding' involves - by definition - two Jews. If the couple aren't both Catholic, or both Jewish, then a wedding might certainly be LEGAL, but it isn't RELIGIOUSLY VALID within the tradition.

Every Catholic wedding I've been to is part of a religious service (a mass) which is integral to the ceremony. A Jewish wedding involves a lot more than a chuppah and breaking a glass - you can certainly INCLUDE those, but what makes a wedding valid RELIGIOUSLY is having the proper components, not just the proper (or customary) obvious parts.

So I suppose that answer sounds kind of funny if you aren't within the system. I guess - if you are taking communion, you are 'in' that system, and the 'parts' have sacred meaning - but if you just eat crackers and grape juice, it is just crackers and grape juice.
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
User avatar
Moogy
Posts: 1214
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:20 pm
Location: on the ranch near Eldorado, Texas

Re: New Member

Post by Moogy »

klp wrote: If they are not being married in the church then God is not there and it is not a sacrament....
I will grant him the right to say it is not a sacrament to him or to other Catholics. But I thought God is supposed to be omnipresent as well as omnipotent. :o
Moogy
NI COC for over 30 years, but out for over 40 years now
Mostly Methodist for about 30 years.
Left the UMC in 2019 based on their decision to condemn LGBT+ persons and to discipline Pastors who perform same-sex marriages
User avatar
KLP
Posts: 2757
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 4:47 pm

Re: New Member

Post by KLP »

Yes, just completely discounting the event as "nothing" since it is not according to so-called teaching of "the church" is what caught me by surprise and reminded me so much of the one true church thinking of cofc. It reminded me of how we were taught to act at school events when a prayer was being said. We were not to bow our head but instead to make it as obvious as possible that no prayer is occurring when some denomination person is saying a prayer over the PA system at a football game or graduation event. How dare that guy even have the title of reverend when it should be preacher or evangelist!!! Yep we knew when God wasn't present or involved and knew that nothing was happening.

Of course that person gets divorced and shows up wanting a church wedding later then all of a sudden we need research before the next wedding can be accepted. :roll:
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
ena
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:34 pm

Re: New Member

Post by ena »

agricola wrote:It's a fair answer, really, given that 'Catholic marriage' is a religious sacrament, and by definition involves two Catholics. Just like a 'Jewish wedding' involves - by definition - two Jews. If the couple aren't both Catholic, or both Jewish, then a wedding might certainly be LEGAL, but it isn't RELIGIOUSLY VALID within the tradition.

Every Catholic wedding I've been to is part of a religious service (a mass) which is integral to the ceremony. A Jewish wedding involves a lot more than a chuppah and breaking a glass - you can certainly INCLUDE those, but what makes a wedding valid RELIGIOUSLY is having the proper components, not just the proper (or customary) obvious parts.

So I suppose that answer sounds kind of funny if you aren't within the system. I guess - if you are taking communion, you are 'in' that system, and the 'parts' have sacred meaning - but if you just eat crackers and grape juice, it is just crackers and grape juice.
Answer of the day! There have been battles with in churches about open and closed communions even outside the Church of Christ. Does the person baptized in a different church have the right to partake communion in another faith? Does a baptized Baptist have the right of communion in the COC? Would probably cause a thousand church splits. :o
I doubt that God cares about this but some humans do.
User avatar
agricola
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:31 pm

Re: New Member

Post by agricola »

Yes (and it has actually caused real battles) but it is a fair question to ask, too - BECAUSE sharing communion implies that everyone sharing 'belongs' to the same group. If Christians are 'ecumenical', then any Christian can partake, but if they are exclusivists (we are the Christians) then only members should partake (closed communion), and if they are inclined to be generous, then SOME Christians can partake but certain others shouldn't - and they'd be able to cite reasons.

(mostly about doctrinal beliefs)

I think Catholics practice closed communion, don't they? ('only members') but they might extend the sharing to some other groups, like maybe Orthodox and Anglican? I really don't know for certain.

Strictly speaking, I shouldn't have been attending a Catholic wedding, either, but hey - friends. Friends top doctrinal purity, as far as I'm concerned.
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Post Reply