The flawlessness of Catholic doctrine, the Virgin, and Human Sexuality

[spauline]

I am sorry for attacking, getting frustrated today, for even though what I say may be objectively true, it is not right for me to attack the innocent faith of others.

For the modern Orthodox and Protestants are not guilty of this separation.

Please just ignore this thread, thanx

[JAYMZ]

so also, consider the other sexual impurity, divorce and remarriage.



For just as schismatics are divorced from Christ by way of Peter, so they permit divorce and remarriage.



And just as heretics are divorced not only from Peter, but the whole of the Apostolic Succession, all the more do they permit the material divorce.



Because what the spiritual woman does relative to the Christ, spiritually, she shall also allow in Her members in the physical sign of that union, the sacrament of marriage.



For of all the general forms Christian faith, only the Catholic Church utterly condemns the rending asunder of the sacramental marital covenant.



The other general forms permit in the material sense what they are doing in the spiritual: divorce.

The woman at the well have five former husbands, and then currently no husband, but a fornicator. She was of the people that had decayed from separation with the true kingship, Judah, namely, the Samaritans.

So also, there are five apostolic sees. Five possible spouses. in the first Millennium, most Christians had one ultimate earthly spouse, Peter. After the schism, there were four renegade husbands. And in Protestantism, there is no husband, for there is no apostolic succession, only a community.

??????????????

There are just so many issues between RCC / Orthodoxy and Reformed protestants where do you start?

Sola gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura.
We believe you are saved by the kind of faith that produces good works, but it has to start with grace and faith. We do not get the " cart before the horse. "

[JAYMZ]

The Catholic formal doctrine in faith and morals is without stain of error.

The Virgin always was and is without sin.

The Catholic Church alone teaches what is fully pure in human sexuality, especially that artificial birth control is wrong.



Now, tvery much doctrinally impure. Most of them deny that Mary was he Protestants are sinless. Most of them in their pastors have accepted and still accept Artifical Birth control.

The Orthodox are little bit doctirnally impure. They either debate or deny that Mary was fully sinless. Some of them have accepted in their priests, the validity of abc in some circumstances.

Therefore, there is a mystical connection between doctrinal purity, how one looks at the Virgin, and how pure their sexual doctrine is.

Back to the basic reason for your thread.

What is the evidence that Mary was born without sin, remained a virgin all her life, and went directly to heaven without dying? ( meaning no disrespect to such a great follower of God )

[spauline]

Back to the basic reason for your thread.

What is the evidence that Mary was born without sin, remained a virgin all her life, and went directly to heaven without dying? ( meaning no disrespect to such a great follower of God )

I'd rather not go there, this was intended for Catholics. Really, you have to more or less become Catholic to accept the Immaculate conception, for its proof depends not only on general Tradition, which the Orthodox have, but on the theological solution developed in the 1800's that solved the Catholic debate.

[hedrick]

I would prefer to use discussions to understand, not as ammunition for attacks. I'm not sure there's as much difference on divorce as you imply.

Jesus said that God did not intend divorce. However he acknowledged that Moses permitted it because of human sin. He is quoted as making an exception for fornication, and Paul made one when the partner is a pagan and can't accept a Christian spouse.

These things do not suggest that Jesus meant to produce a law to which no exceptions could be made. In his time there was debate over divorce (just as there is now). Many Jews thought it could be done for any reason, easily. Jesus pointed out that it is a violation of God's original intention, but didn't quite say it could never be done.

So I believe there is good reason to say that when (no doubt because of human sin) staying together is even worse, Jesus would not have us absolutely prohibit it. And in fact the Catholic Church doesn't. They make the two explicit exceptions, and they also provide annulment as an option in some cases.

Jesus did, after all, delegate a fair amount of authority to the Church to make decisions in his name. Catholics may not accept this, but I believe that this authority extends to all churches. Some churches may be permitting divorce too easily, but I've seen Catholics who believe annulments are being granted too easily.

[bridgeforsale]

I personally think divorce is a social travesty. Look at the harm it's caused our country. IMO churches should rarely endorse a divorce, except in the most dire circumstances. However, there's a nuance to this .... because we don't want to shut the doors to people who have gone through a divorce. It's like saying we don't want sinners in the church, when of course sin is the reason Jesus died (and we're all sinners).

It's back to the moral relativism question. Divorce like any other sin must be called what it is ... sinful. If you can't be loyal to a spouse how can you be loyal to God? If you chronically abuse your spouse you have no love in your heart .... so how can you call yourself a man or woman of God? If you can't forgive your spouse how can you expect to be forgiven? This is what churches need to be preaching, pure & simple. However, sometimes (albeit very rarely) divorce is an unfortunate necessity. In these cases the church needs to counsel its member and provide loving support.

IMO one of the worse things that happened in this country was the advent of no fault divorce.

[TyRockwell]

I would prefer to use discussions to understand, not as ammunition for attacks. I'm not sure there's as much difference on divorce as you imply.

Jesus said that God did not intend divorce. However he acknowledged that Moses permitted it because of human sin. He is quoted as making an exception for fornication, and Paul made one when the partner is a pagan and can't accept a Christian spouse.

These things do not suggest that Jesus meant to produce a law to which no exceptions could be made. In his time there was debate over divorce (just as there is now). Many Jews thought it could be done for any reason, easily. Jesus pointed out that it is a violation of God's original intention, but didn't quite say it could never be done.

So I believe there is good reason to say that when (no doubt because of human sin) staying together is even worse, Jesus would not have us absolutely prohibit it. And in fact the Catholic Church doesn't. They make the two explicit exceptions, and they also provide annulment as an option in some cases.

Jesus did, after all, delegate a fair amount of authority to the Church to make decisions in his name. Catholics may not accept this, but I believe that this authority extends to all churches. Some churches may be permitting divorce too easily, but I've seen Catholics who believe annulments are being granted too easily.

A very well-worded post. Amen!

[JAYMZ]

The Catholic formal doctrine in faith and morals is without stain of error.

The Virgin always was and is without sin.

The Catholic Church alone teaches what is fully pure in human sexuality, especially that artificial birth control is wrong.



Now, the Protestants are very much doctrinally impure. Most of them deny that Mary was sinless. Most of them in their pastors have accepted and still accept Artifical Birth control.

The Orthodox are little bit doctirnally impure. They either debate or deny that Mary was fully sinless. Some of them have accepted in their priests, the validity of abc in some circumstances.

Therefore, there is a mystical connection between doctrinal purity, how one looks at the Virgin, and how pure their sexual doctrine is.

This was your original post. It seemed to be kinda calling out protestants and addressing specific RCC doctrines so maybe it was misleading.

By the way most Protestants believe Marys virginity was intact when she became pregnant. We do believe Joseph and mary consummated their marriage after Christs birth. ( doesnt the Bible refer to his brothers and sisters in different areas )

[bridgeforsale]

Obviously asserting a nexus between perpetual virginity and artificial birth control is an absurd proposition (from any reasonable standpoint). Similarly drawing this same nexus with the idea that Mary led a sinless life is equally absurd.

Some Christians (including some protestants) hold a position of perpetual virginity and a sinless Mary .... however, I've never a nexus drawn between these doctrines and contemporary practices like birth control or abortion.

Few protestant denominations endorse birth control (since the practice runs contrary to God's command to be fruitful & multiply). Furthermore, few protestant denominations support abortion (arguably evangelical Christians are the foremost opponents of abortion in the United States). Finally, just as many Catholics have abortions and get divorced as compared to protestants (ironically atheists have the lowest divorce rates in the United States).

In short this thread is silly. Spauline has no true basis for his comments ... which amount to nothing more than thinly veiled bigotry (and obviously wholly out of accord with Christian love). As some of the Catholics on this board have stated ... this sort of mud slinging does no favor to Catholicism.