And your 'answer' is based on what?
Catholic teaching.
Posted on 06/16/2016 9:22:17 PM PDT by ebb tide
Pope Francis, spiritual leader of a billion people, has just informed them that ‘the great majority’ of sacramental marriages are invalid because couples don’t go into them with the right intentions. He was speaking at a press conference in Rome. Here’s the context, from the Catholic News Agency (my emphases):
‘I heard a bishop say some months ago that he met a boy that had finished his university studies, and said “I want to become a priest, but only for 10 years”. It’s the culture of the provisional. And this happens everywhere, also in priestly life, in religious life,’ he said.
‘It’s provisional, and because of this the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null. Because they say “yes, for the rest of my life!” but they don’t know what they are saying. Because they have a different culture. They say it, they have good will, but they don’t know.’
Uh? You can read the full report here but you won’t be much the wiser. The Pope, thinking aloud in the manner of some maverick parish priest after a couple of glasses of wine at dinner, has just told millions of his flock that they are not really married.
Did he mean to say that? What does he really think? What authority do his words carry?
And why should Catholics even have to ask these questions? Francis’s off-the-cuff ramblings on matters of extreme pastoral sensitivity are wreaking havoc in the Catholic Church, as I’ve written here.
Ross Douthat of the New York Times has just tweeted this response:
Screen Shot 2016-06-16 at 23.54.41
I suspect that even the Pope’s most liberal admirers will have difficulty extricating him from this mess.
These "exception clause" passages in Matthew 5 and 19 do not apply to a Catholic marriage. They apply only to a Jewish marriage, and then only apply to the phase translated as betrothal.
More like "drive'in"--like the movies we used to have. Get in your car, drive in for the show, then just drive back home and live as though the "show" was just a part of a Hollywood-like fantasy scripted for your weekly obligation; not real life as it comes at you day by day, moment by moment.
It's called "churchianity."
This drama is not exclusive to Catholicism. It's everywhere.
Oh, oh. You have mixed dogs and geese to get a barking quackery. Her is the correct approach:
Jesus is the God-man.
Mary is the host mother of the man part of the God-man.
The God part of the God-man Jesus pre-existed Mary.
Mary pre-existed the man-part of Jesus.
Therefore, Mary is the surrogate mother of the man part of the God-man Jesus but not the mother of the God part of the God-man Jesus.
Mary is therefore not the mother of The Pre-existing God.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
That Mary gave birth to the baby is scripturally and undeniably true. What you absolutely have no foundation for is that any part of her flesh or blood comprised any part of the human body of Jesus.
It is, of course, the ignorant imaginations of arrogant men that presumed Jesus to be of Mary's flesh, thus needing the explanation of her flesh being immaculate (a non-sctiptural term) and therefore she was immaculately must have been conceived in her mother's womb somehow, thus merely pushing the problem back one generation without giving a true and unarguable explanation.
This is all, of course, nonsense. Truly humble men of God of earlier days would have merely said then, "I don't know how this was done, but since Mary's flesh was just as sin-tainted as all the rest of creation after The Fall, I'll just believe that God has a way, and He has not yet explained it to mankind, as to how the babe Jesus would be free of sin or sinfulness.
There is another explanation however, unimaginable up until recent years, that permits Jesus flesh and blood to be completely human yet perfect and without sin, as was Adam's before The Fall, yet none of it originating with Mary, His human-surrogate host mother.
So, in your utter Biblical brilliance, tell me how Jehovah Elohim made Adam, with the Y chromosome and the X chromosome, before Eve came into being, a woman without the Y chromosome in any cell of her body. Eve was not the genetic mother of Adam, and likewise Mary was, in my estimate, not the genetic origin of the flesh and blood of Jesus.
Your Catholic informers cannot explain that, and neither can you, eh?
Of course. Those formulating the doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception simply had no idea of the discoveries of cell theory, nor genetics, nor of cloning, etc. that is fairly common and no longer imaginative but real. You not having heard of it, or not having the creativity to think of it, no problem.
The fault would be if you continued to feast on a lie(s) rather than recognize accepted technology already in practice as one way of seeing God's operations within the rules of the creation He has made (a immensity of which we are still unaware).
Stop right there. When you can prove it, something else you present might be credible. But until then . . .
And who coined the phrase?
Luke 18:9-14 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’
But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”
THANK YOU!!!!!
"Mary is therefore not the mother source of The Pre-existing God."
Every word you wrote in the above line is true, if you substitute the word "source" for "mother."
Mary is not the SOURCE of the pre-existing God. That's for sure.
So read through your whole list and substitute the word "Source" for "Mother," sharpening up the distinction between "person" and "nature,"and you've got it!
She's the natural (not surrogate!) mother of the God-Man precisely because birth-giver conceives, gestates, and gives birth to a Person, not to a "part."
- Jesus is the God-man.
- Mary is the source only of His human nature.
- The Divine nature and Divine Person of the God-man Jesus pre-existed Mary (for all eternity!!).
- Mary pre-existed the human nature of Jesus.
- Therefore, Mary is the natural source of the human nature of the God-man, the divine Person Jesus, but not the source of the Divine Person and divine nature of the God-man Jesus.
- Because of the Incarnation, through Mary, God experienced every aspect of what it means to be human: including being an unborn baby, and being born.
- Mary is therefore His mother (but not His source) in that through her --- at a point in time --- He, the omni-present, eternal One who existed before time began, had the experience of birth
Because of the Incarnation, the eternally pre-existing GOD also had the experience of birth the experience of assuming a human nature and living as an embryo, living and growing inside of His mother, and being pushed out of the womb into the air-breathing world, having his umbilical cord cut, nursing on her mama-milk, being cuddled in her loving arms, etc.etc.
She was not his source. But she gave Him that experience, because He was a Person having an experience.
Otherwise you're denying that the divine and human natures of Christ are united in One Person, and you're instead saying they constitute two "persons," one of whom has experiences and one of whom does not. Do you see the problem here?
Because of the Incarnation, the one Person experienced what it is to be born; to grow; to live truly as a baby, a child, a man; to eat and sleep; to sweat and suffer; to die and be buried; to experience Resurrection and Ascension into heaven.
He who was, is, and always be in heaven, because He is omni-present.
This is not to say "God grew" or "God died," but it is to say He experienced all this ---the growth of the body, the dying of the body--- as one Person.
Jesus Christ, (the Word, the Second Person of the Trinity, the eternal, omnipotent, only-begotten Son who is limitless and is everywhere and knows everything) has two natures. But he *IS* only one Person. And it is the Person who chooses, desires, experiences, acts.
Jesus, the God-Man, is one Person, He experienced everything we experience. It is written that He even experienced temptation, but without sin.
Thus she has been exploring the "new fact" that while copulation-procreation used to go together, there could now be reproductive infidelityconsidered separately from copulative infidelity.
E.g. a husband inseminating a lot of women, while not having intercourse with any of them. Or a wife going to a 'clinic" and getting pregnant outside of marital unity.
Dr. Janet smith is well-worth reading, if you want to look into it. You're a person with education as well as insight, and would appreciate her depth, I think.
Nor is the the mother of the pre-existing God.
She is not the mother of deity.
She’s the mother of JESUS, the incarnation of God.
*Mother of Jesus* tells us that.
*Mother of God* tells us she’s the mother/source of the pre-existing God.
*Mother of Jesus* is the title given her by the Holy Spirit HIMSELF. God saw fit to identify her that way. And man presumes to improve upon that to *correct* error?
Doesn’t work.
What’s needed to correct error is not more error, but correct teaching from authoritative Scripture.
While procreation (used to) require sex and all procreation was a result of sex, not all sex results in procreation.
The charge of adultery or fornication exists as a result of the sex act itself whether or not procreation is involved.
So God impregnating Mary is not open to the charge of adultery or fornication because no sex, no one flesh union, occurred between them.
Since God does not sin, God could impregnate her without sinning, whether human minds want to believe that or not.
Scripture tells us that Joseph waited until Mary delivered Jesus to have sex with her, and goes on to tell us the names of Jesus’ brothers.
It’s very clear that Mary did not remain a virgin after the prophecy was fulfilled and that does NOT diminish the role she played or her as a person.
Well; I MIGHT think this. Have I stated such any where; or are you gathering some straw to built up a point again?
Rome's Sola Scriptura boogey man (that most every Catholic I've run into adheres to) is a phrase DESIGNED to put a Prot on the defensive.
Kinda like a lizard that sheds it's tail while slithering away to safety.
We Protestants agree that Rome's assembled book is GOOD ENOUGH to get people saved.
While Rome; apparently; is convinced that it is not.
Where do YOU stand with my claim here?
And; apparently; neither does the FACT that some Catholics actually APPLY this TITLE to Mary disconcert you.
And your 'answer' is based on what?
Catholic teaching.
halfway there!
"And there are also many other things which MARY does, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written; but we are trying."
Having eliminated the impossible, only the improbable is left in which to sift out the truth: some kind of special union with a woman consecrated to Himself.
Sorry; but yes; YES you did.
As a Catholic; you can 'believe' whatever you what; as long as you go thru the prescribed rituals your chosen church places upon you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.