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.
If that was true that could have been pretty risky for God...Jesus could just as well have been born a woman...That would have made a real mess of the Old Testament...
My beautiful (but chubby) wife and I have less ‘intimate’ contact these days; but boy is she able to keep me warm!
So which is it? You denied saying that upthread (though you certainly had said it) and tried to explain it away with some sort of irrational gibberish. In any case, that DNA theory of yours -- unless you have a DNA sample of the unfallen Adam and another from the fallen Adam to compare it to -- is just "eggs in moonshine"!
So, in the catholic calculus from whence came the female sex cell for Adam’s creation? Come on, use your magic thinking. You can do it!
As if oral tradition was God's chosen means of preservation:
Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: (Isaiah 30:8)
And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. (Exodus 17:14)
And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: (Deuteronomy 17:18)
Thus speaketh the Lord God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book. (Jeremiah 30:2)
Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day. (Jeremiah 36:2)
Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, (Psalms 40:7)
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)
And 62 other times, "It is written" in the NT.
Meanwhile you could make quite a compilation of all the inventions justified by invoking And there are also many other things which Jesus did, 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. Amen. (John 21:25)
Luke 1:30 And the messenger said to her, ‘Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favour with God; 31 and lo, thou shalt conceive in the womb, and shalt bring forth a son, and call his name Jesus; [Young's Literal Translation]
Union with sex cells/gametes usually occurs in the fallopian tube, forming the first new cell, the zygote, then after several cell differentiations a multi-celled morulla implants in the womb. This implanting is the moment a woman is pregnant, she has conceived in her womb. Some rare occasions the fertilization occurs outside of the fallopian tube and the morulla doesn't make it to the womb/uterine lining, and an ectopic pregnancy is begun/conceived.
Fertilization, the union of the two sex cells (one male/one female) is done routinely in a lab now, so this is not conception since no host womb is yet involved. Is there new life in the 'petri dish'? Absolutely, but no woman has yet conceived.
God created the morulla WHO implanted in Mary's womb. There is no word from God that GOD used a sex cell from Mary to accomplish this impregnating morulla. The Bible states the child conceived in Mary, not the child conceived of Mary.
Meant to ping you
(Just speculating, not being careless of God's prerogatives.)
Backing up a little in the scheme of things, time we looked at Genesis 38 as to a deeper meaning, eh?
Hunh? I don't get it. Would you tell me why or how?
Which part of Genesis 38 would you suggest needs deeper scrutiny? There are layers of possibilities, between Judah’s behavior, his age, his treachery toward Tamar, Onan’s treachery and disobedience, etc.
Are you perhaps focusing on verse 18 of Gen 38?
The intersection of science and theology, leaving it open to all comers!
More on the implications of v. 9-10. What did Onan do wrong . . . fail to produce children creditable as successors to Er, or the spilling of seed bearing life (for one aspect of this drama)? And what was the sub-theme of the Tsaddukim (Zdakoites) of the narrative of Luke 20:27-34, if any?
Zadokites
Tell me which post(s) seem to you to be conflicting and/or gibberish, and I will do my best to explain what is on my mind vs what you perceive as being on my mind, so your reply/opinion can have a clearer basis.
Which side are you taking today — pro-Divine Maternity which makes possible Salvation by a Jewish Messiah born of the seed of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob as prophesied or anti-Divine Maternity, which doesn’t? You’ve taken both sides, preponderantly on the “anti-” side, and apparently many of your cohorts would rather do without a Savior than have to put up with the Divine Maternity
“... your cohorts would rather do without a Savior than have to put up with the Divine Maternity.” Straw is strong with this one! You know what you can do with that ‘it’s the catholic church way or hell’ spittle. But then honesty is not big with catholic apologists, while haughty arrogance is..
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.