Posted on 01/27/2013 12:31:22 PM PST by marshmallow
John Cornelius, who is married, will be ordained this weekend -- and sex-free life begins
John Cornelius will be ordained a Roman Catholic priest this weekend — and with the blessing of his wife they're giving up their sex life. Cornelius, a father of three, will become the first married Roman Catholic priest in New York — and Sharyl, his wife of 33-years, has agreed to the whole celibacy thing.
“We have decided to do that voluntarily,” Cornelius told WGRZ-TV. “I have always had friends that are Roman Catholic priests and I appreciate what they've given up to serve God and the priesthood.”
Cornelius, 64, is a former Episcopalian priest who converted three years ago to Catholicism. He said his old church had gotten too liberal for him.
Therefore; logically; if there was some diddling between the 'marriage' and the 'annulment'; there'd be some FORNICATION to be forgiven!
No; you don't.
You have Bereans that actually CHECK the existing Scripture to see if what these bozos are trying to convince you of is CORRECT.
It appears that you are lying about SOMETHING...
The synagogue. I'm sure they heard it on a weekly basis.
Those Jews in those days HAD to be familiar with God's Word. Otherwise they would not know the Law to obey it.
he/she has access to Jewish scrolls and has heard of the newly formed Christian groups. He/she meets with them , talks with them, and begins to learn what they believe................you now have what Catholics know as tradition, which you constantly poo-poo!!
Not at all what Catholics call tradition, because the tradition that Catholics hold to contradicts Scripture.
The teaching they had out of Scripture was out of Scripture, which is not tradition. What you're describing as happening is what the rest of us recognize as a Bible study.
Studying Scripture, not handing down fairy tales by word of mouth.
This response can hardly be considered an argument that justifies purposed perpetual Marian virginity. Both before and under the law marriage is described as a man "cleaving" to his wife and becoming one, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4-5) and therefore there was a custom that the bloodied cloth upon which the marriage was consummated was saved, and thus in case of doubt it was instructed,
"the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate." (Deuteronomy 22:15)
If it turns out that she was a virgin then the man was heavily fined and could never put away his wife, but if she was not a virgin then she stoned that she die: "because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house." (vs. 19-21)
Therefore Joseph sought to put her away secretly, and consistent with the nature of Divine revelation in Scripture, the miraculous nature of Mary's conception was clearly manifest.
In summation, the reality is that,
• Marriage is described as cleaving" and becoming one. (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4-6)
• Israel knew nothing of a marriage that was not consummated between two persons who could procreate, nor does the NT.
• Under the New Covenant celibacy is only advocated in the context of being single. (Mt. 19:10-12; 1Cor. 7:8)
• Paul actually instructs the married to have sexual relations, and restricts abstinence in marriage to only a period of fasting, and then to come together again. (1Cor. 7:3-5)
• The apostle also teaches that celibacy is a gift (and in no way evidences that all clergy are presumed to have it) , and links it with being single. (1Cor. 7:1,7)
• In Scripture, the Holy Spirit characteristically records miraculous and extraordinary exceptions to the norm among its characters, from the age of Methuselah to the strength of Samson to the number of toes of Goliath, to the diet of John the Baptist, to the supernatural transport of Phillip, to the signs of an apostle, to the sinlessness of Christ, to the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, etc., etc. Thus it is certainly expected that such things as Mary being sinless and a perpetual virgin would be described, but are not.
• Except in rare instances "heōs" ("And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." Matthew 1:25) indicates a terminus and a change, or allowing for that, and there is nothing that indicates life-long virginity for Mary.
• Instead, we have texts which indicate Mary had other children. ( Mat_12:46,48, Mat_27:56; Mar_15:40,47, Mar_16:1; Luk_24:10; Joh_19:25; Gal_1:19) Likewise Psalms 69:8 states, "I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children. " Adelphos* (brethren) often refers to biological siblings, and the Greek has words it can use for cousins [or other kin] which are different words than “adelphos” (“suggenēs:” Luke 1:36,58; 2:44; 21:16; 14:12; Mk. 6:4; Jn. 18:26; Acts10:24; Rom.9:3; 16:7,11,21; or “anepsios:” Col 4:10).
• There is no more need for Mary to be a perpetual virgin, or to be sinless in order to bring forth Christ, being the vessel thru whom God provided a body, (cf. Heb. 10:5) than there was for the writers of Holy Writ to be, who brought forth the written Word of God. If Mary was sinless, then consistent with Rome's logic then her parents must have been sinless. Instead of restricting God, He manifests that He is not bound by Rome's requirements, and thus the genealogy of Mary included a harlot, and Israel itself is said to have brought forth Christ. (Rm. 9:4)
• The Holy Spirit exalts the Lord Jesus, and admonishes against thinking of men above that which is written, while Rome abundantly exalts Mary (arguably more than Jesus in devotion) who is quite marginal in the gospels, and often engages in extreme extrapolation of Scripture in attempting to support what tradition has spawned, while the Holy Spirit records far more about Paul's love for the Lord and the church, but who is rather marginally adored by Catholics.
*D.A. Carson states, To support the dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity, a notion foreign to the NT and to the earliest church fathers, Roman Catholic scholars have suggested that "brothers" refers either to Joseph's son's by an earlier marriage or to sons of Mary's sister, who had the same name [...]. Certainly "brethren" (adelphos) can have a wider meaning than male relatives (Acts 22:1). Yet it is very doubtful whether such a meaning is valid here for it raises insuperable problems. For instance, if "brothers" refers to Joseph's sons by an earlier marriage, not Jesus but Joseph's firstborn would have been legal heir to David's throne. The second theory — that "brothers" refers to sons of a sister of Mary also name "Mary" — faces the unlikelihood of two sisters having the same name. All things considered, the attempts to extend the meaning of "brothers" in this pericope, despite McHugh's best efforts, are nothing less that farfetched exegesis in support of a dogma that originated much later than the NT [...]. — D. A. Carson, Matthew in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, volume 8 (Zondervan, 1984).
Well, done and clearly stated.
He could point out that from of old God had raised up holy if imperfect men to reprove those who sat in magisterial power, and which body rejected them, but by them the faith was preserved.
And consistent with that is the example of an Itinerant Preacher who began a church in dissent from those who were the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, and which body did not sanction Him nor a man in the desert with a strange diet and clothes, and who did no miracles. But the preaching of both manifested Divine sanction, and which included reproof of those who sat in power, and thus they were rejected by them. But this is how truth was preserved and the true Israel of God manifest.
And that while he, Luther, did not intend to start a new entity of the universal church, but to reform the old, he was only trying to do what had been manifest from of old, that of holding the Scriptures as supreme, rather than yielding implicit submission to men who presumed a level of assured veracity which Scripture did not afford them.
The fact is that it is Rome that will have to answer for the persecution and blood of souls who in the light of Scripture could not submit to Rome in conscience toward God, and which guilt extends to you who support submission to Rome above the Scriptures.
And consistent with the premise behind Rome's claim to supreme authority, that of being the steward of Scripture and inheritor of Divine promises of God's presence, and historical descent, and thus she persecute those who reprove her, Rome would exhibit the same reaction to the Christ as those who sat in the seat of Moses did, though uniole her, they actually has explicit affirmation of their office, but not for the manner of Romish submission they presumed it conferred.
"And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will also ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me. " (Mark 11:27-30)
And if the Reformation had not happened, with its historically transformative gospel - and despite its need for further ongoing reformation - the world would be a more darker superstitious and lost place indeed.
The Book of Mormon was much later, but as regards what Rome did do, see here .
That was quick!
It is odd that Chrysostom would urge the laity to do what they could hardly do. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2661829/posts?page=409#409
But it is not things being handed down that is to be opposed, as every preacher to some degree is expressing such, but the problem is that Scripture is not held as the assured Word of God and supreme standard for establishing doctrine, and instead the church makes herself supreme, and channels things from her nebulous oral tradition - which no one can tell where it begins or ends - into doctrines which are not warranted by Scripture or are opposed to it. (Go find anywhere anyone prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord.)
They were not the first to be teaching for doctrines the mere tradition-based commandments of men:
“Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?” (Mark 7:6)
Moreover, while some of what became Scripture first existed in oral form, once and as revelation was written, then it became the standard for testing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced. And thus unlike as Rome demands, the church did not have authority because it was sanctioned by those who sat in the seat of the magisterium, as assured veracity as per Rome is not given to men.
That would seem to mean these were never married, and as about 50,000 annulments per year have been granted in the U.S, alone (including for such reasons as defective consent*), that would mean perhaps 50,000 RCs do not have valid marriages.
However, unlike suspected heretics in 13th century Inquisitions, besides her criteria allowing marriages in Scripture to be considered invalid, Rome rules that even if couples are later judged to be such, yet
“Marriage enjoys the favour of law. Consequently, in doubt the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven." (Canon 1060, Code of Canon Law; http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P3U.HTM)
Note also that " A valid marriage between baptised persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated." (Can. 1061 §1)
*68% of annulments today [dated] are granted because of "defective consent," which involves at least one of the parties not having sufficient knowledge or maturity to know what was involved in marriage. The ingenuity of judges in confidently asserting that such knowledge or maturity was lacking is amazing. Vasoli says that it is done by substituting "junk psychology" for sound psychology and psychiatry. He quotes the statement of one matrimonial judge: "There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid." (www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/28_Annulments.pdf)
Perhaps; but can Cereal Boy be far behind?
Then, unless you're entering into your SECOND (or more) marriage; 100% of folks would fall into the DC plea!
ALL of them?
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.