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.
Your religion has a Hisotry of making false calims. Familiar with ‘The False Decretals of Isadore’?
If you have a point to make that’s on topic, then make it.
"'What about Mary and Joseph? If sex is so important to marriage, then how can you say they were truly married when the Church teaches that Mary was a virgin her whole life?'
"If a couple mutually agrees to not engage in sexual intercourse (or have what’s called a Josephite marriage), then that marriage is valid because they are able to consummate the marriage (which is not the case in impotent unions). But it is also dissoluble, since the two have not become 'one flesh.' (Canon 1142)
"For a marriage to be valid a couple must only be able to have sexual intercourse -- they don’t have to actually engage in sexual intercourse."
http://www.catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/why-the-church-cannot-marry-the-impotent
"Canon 1141 A marriage which is ratified and consummated cannot be dissolved by any human power or by any cause other than death.
"Canon 1142 A non-consummated marriage between baptised persons or between a baptised party and an unbaptised party can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just reason, at the request of both parties or of either party, even if the other is unwilling."
The situation that you both wrote about and linked to from Catholic sources is speaking of marriages that have been consummated, and thus are not "Josephite", by definition. For marriages that are consummated it is a sin to withhold sex, to plan to not have children, etc.
For those that aren't consummated, by mutual consent, it is not a sin to do (or not do) the aforementioned acts. It's the Catholic claim that both Mary and Joseph chose to live as brother and sister. This does not make their marriage any less valid than the usual marriage. It simply makes it what we call today a "Josephite marriage".
This is the Catholic claim using Catholic definitions as you erroneously tried to do to impunge the dogma of Perpetual Virginity. So this sets that straight. I'll leave it up to you and Mrs. Don-o if you want to continue any debate about the claim itself. I'm not interested in that. I have only posted this to demonstrate the claim that "Catholicisms own positions render these two Marian dogmas as incorrect" is a false statement.
"Catholicism's own positions" do NOT "render" ANY "Marian dogmas incorrect".
This is the direct result of the creeping neo-Nestoranism that has, I'm convinced, plagued all of Christendom since the "Reformation".
Many say on their lips "Yes I believe in the Incarnation" yet clearly have no idea to what they are professing faith. Let me be as clear as I can, so that those who truly reject historical Christianity can know where they stand: the dogma of the Incarnation states (in part) that God the Son BECAME MAN, not some image of man, not some man-flesh created ex nihlio, but became Man in every way which means, by our current scientific understanding now He had not only red blood cells and bones and flesh, but yes 46 individual chromosomes like any other man on earth. The Incarnation also means that, besides His miraculous conception, He developed normally in Mary's womb as if He were indeed the product of Mary and Jospeh's Union. So yes, He shared some genes with Mary, received some of His genes from Her, just as any other normal human child does. This is what the Incarnation claims, that He was JUST like us in EVERY way, except sin!
If you (the reader of this post) recoil in horror at this claim you recoil against the historical (dare I say Traditional) understanding of the Incarnation. Congratulations you are a neo-Nestorian. There truly is nothing new under the sun.
MrsD: Every word you wrote in the above line is true, . . .
Answers to MrsD Part 1:
I think you'd have been wiser to just leave the issue there, without persisting in writing error.
MrsD: . . . if you substitute the word "source" . . .
The word "source" does not appear in the AV at all, but it does in the DRB in 2 Chron. 32:30, and in the Darby Bible at 2 Kings 2:21, both referring to thevery beginning of a watercouse; all reffering to a sping. Jehovah Elohim is the source of Mary's DNA, of Mary's flesh and blood, not vice versa. All of The God possible was present at Jesus' conception, and He was at that time sentient. How does one know that? From Scripture, of course:
"Wherefore when he cometh* into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou
wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared** me:
In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Then said I, Lo, I come*** (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O
God" (Heb. 10:5-7 AV; * εἰσέρχομαι eiserchomai, to enter; ** καταρτίζω
katartidzo, to be made perfect and complete, here by The God; *** ἥκω hēkō, to arrive
and be present intimately).
All of Jesus body was prepared entirely by God alone as the source, Mary not participating, according to this passage. I assert that it was His body completed in the first human cell implanted by the Holy Ghost into Mary's uterus, to which process she was willing to submit, and bring the gestation of that cell to full completion. Mary was not the "source" of that cell, God was.
MrsD: . . . for "mother."
No, Mary could not be the provider of sinless life for, despite the theories of false prophets, only Jehovah Elohim could be the Creator of everlasting life. Mary's DNA was just like every one elses, a derivative only of that which was in Adam, the fallen federal head of all mankind. Because of that, it bore the taint of sin and death. we know this, because scripture says so:
"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1Co 15:21,22 AV). MrsD, "all" here means all. Mary had to die because of sin and sins in her body. Jesus had to die because of sin and sins in His body. There is no immaculate conception of Mary, no sinless life, no assumption. Her body is still in the grave, to be resurrected at the last trumpet sound for the Age of Grace.
However, there is no reason she could not establish residence and gestation and birth experience to the Second Adam, providing the nutriments and care of the Jesus' one-celled body, filled with all His Spirit, which was implanted in Mary's womb by the Holy Ghost, by her obedient permission, and she thus gave birth to the sinless Man of Sorrow, Emmanuel (Is. 7:14; Mt.1:23,28:20) the Messiach, to be named Jesus (Joshua, actually in Hebrew).
Mary was the intimate surrogate host mother of the preformed prepared body of Jesus, no more and no less, thus living out the favor bestowed upon her by The God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and David.
End of Part 1.
So would you like to tells us where the other sex call came from then, if you command that God must use a sex cell from Mary for at least half of The Chromosomes for Jesus? ... Oh come on, you magic thinking can Shirley scruffle up something for us! Give us the entertainment of your catholic magic thinking ...
If Joseph didn't intend on having sex with Mary, if they were in a mutually agreed upon sexless marriage arrangement, then why did he intend to divorce her when she turns up pregnant?
Canon ain't Scripture. Nowhere does God ever refer to a *Josephite* marriage. That's a complete fabrication by the Catholic church to bolster their arguments in favor of Mary remaining a virgin, which Scripture tells us didn't happen.
*Mother of Jesus* is about identifying MARY not Jesus.
It’s not about the incarnation of Jesus. It’s about identifying which of the many Mary’s in Scripture was being referred to.
You can be as belittling as you want but there’s nothing more “magical” about what I described than what you have. Sure to answer your silly question (which is silly because the answer is obvious) the other 23 chromosomes not supplied by Mary’s egg obviously came from the will of God himself.
Or are you going to deny that Jesus had any chromosomes at all? Because that’s what you have to do, you have to deny he had any chromosomes, if you want to claim that what I wrote was “magical” fantasy and what you wrote is not.
Here’s the catch though: if you deny that He had 46 human chromosomes then you deny the Incarnation. Period.
So go ahead and insist your description of the Incarnation is any less “magical” than mine if it makes you feel any better.
Uh, I dunno, maybe because they reached their agreement AFTER her pregnancy was discovered?
Ya think that might be a possibility? Yeah no don't bother answering I'm sure it will be something like, "That can't be because we know the perpetual virginity is a lie". "How do we know that?" "Because Scripture doesn't support it". "How do we know that?" "Because the perpetual virginjty is a lie".
Spare me the circularity. Please.
Your premises are full of holes, I suspect. Of course, my logic had two conclusions, and two syllogisms, the second resting on the first. Do we need to lead you back through this?
For humans it does, and that is the full proven experience that original sin is inextricably tangled with the fallen DNA.
On the other hand, for Jesus His Spirit was a separate entity apart from His body. Tell me, what happened when His body became dead, non-functional, on the Cross? Where did His Spirit go then? And where did His soul go?
You and I DO NOT KNOW how GOD formed the body of Jesus, except that it is solely by His WILL. You catholics want to raise Mary the Mother of Jesus to a status greater than merely a human person, so you imagine (magic thinking at work) that GOD HAD TO USE A CHROMOSOME SOUCE FROM Mary. That is so arrogant as to be typical catholic arrogance. You catholics only allow GOD to source half of the body of Jesus, reserving the other half to your 'mother of god'. If it were not such a subtle blasphemy it would be amusing to watch the slithering deceptions.
You might not realize that the concept of Mary being immaculately conceived has not been around for two thousand years, and certainly not voiced by Jesus or His Disciple-Apostles.
You spittle out, “Uh, I dunno, maybe because they reached their agreement AFTER her pregnancy was discovered?” I see why catholic apologists give tradition equal weight to scripture, with magic thinking like that speculation requires! The Bible may not be greater in authority in your catholic mind, but to contradict the Bible in order to support the blasphemous dogmas of your ‘other religion’ is downright startling!
You don’t even have one syllogism. And the whole Redemption depends on the Redeemer being both True God and True Man. In your version, Christ is not True Man. And obviously cannot come from the seed of Abraham, etc., and thus does not fulfill the prophecies.
You have no way of knowing that. And it is implicit in Gabriel's greeting.
1854 AD the Vatican issues the dogma of the Immaculate conception. Catholics today merely imagine that has been church belief since Pentecost, without actually looking at scriptures since in 1545 AD their ‘church’ issued the doctrine of Traditions being equal to scripture in authority.
That is not at all what I said. Apparently you are generating more heat than light. What I wished readers to infer that Jesus' perfect human never-dying DNA came from Jehovah Elohim alone, and could not be attained by reprocessing sin-contaminated fallen humans, which invariably is inseparable from the "death gene" or influence that inescapably is transferred.
Jesus' body from the one diploid state was perfect sin-free human tissue as it was first made for Adam before his fall. It was only available from its source, which could not be--even in the haploid state--from Mary of Nazareth.
So in your twisted calculus ADAM was not a true man? LOL!
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.