Posted on 04/10/2013 3:48:20 PM PDT by NYer
Twenty million Americans consider themselves lapsed Catholics, but Pope Francis is convincing many to test the holy waters again with his bold gestures and common touch.
After years of disenchantment with the church's hierarchy and teachings, former members of the flock say they are willing to give the Vatican a second chance under new leadership.
Dallas teacher Marilyn Rosa is one of them.
"It was a sign," Rosa, 57, said of the Argentine Jesuit's election as pontiff last month. "It was like a miracle."
Born and raised Catholic, Rosa attended parochial schools and had a church wedding for her first marriage. Over the years, she drifted away from the religion that had been such an integral part of her Puerto Rican family's life.
She questioned the relevance of church policies in the modern world. As a divorced woman, she felt cast out. The pedophile-priest scandals disgusted her.
Three years ago, she quit going to Mass and joined an evangelical church. But she didn't feel at home and she started to wonder how she could fill the void.
"The day the pope got elected, I turned on the TV and when I learned he was Latin, I went crazy at home," said Rosa.
"When they started to talk about how he lived by himself and didn't move into the archbishop's residence, how he took the bus to work, I said, 'I know God is talking to me. This is the man we needed.'"
On Palm Sunday, she and her second husband "reverted," attending services at Dallas' St. Pius X Catholic Church.
"It was packed. I had to stand up the whole time. But I felt so happy. It was like a revival," she said.She questioned the relevance of church policies in the modern world. As a divorced woman, she felt cast out. The pedophile-priest scandals disgusted her.
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.nbcnews.com ...
Thanks Be To God!!!
In conversions (or reversions), you have to deal with people where they are. It can be a long, slow, frustrating process, and it may not even be successful. But success isn't our job.
Her reversion seems superficial, but... it's a starting point.
Both:
Jesus words included all sexual sin that violates the sacred bond of marriage - Clinton wouldn’t like it. That said, actual intercourse outside of one’s marriage is included in the term, as well as many other acts.
“i.e., that the supposed first marriage itself was porneia, unlawful.” - eisogesis that isn’t in the text or context.
Christ doesn’t mention annulment as a result, but divorce, reiterating the instructions God gives in the Hebrew Scriptures. There is no annulment in the Scriptures. God hates divorce, but allows this instance “for the hardness of your hearts”.
Practical terms: divorce is allowed when sexual sin outside your marriage has broken the bonds of one flesh.
Paul elaborates in I Cor 7 to deal with your other concerns.
I hope you’ll come back, Prolixus. I have had all kinds of problems with abuses done in the supposed “spirit Of Vatican II” but don’t find any objectionable liberalism in the actual Vatican II documents themselves.
I understand that the churches who teach this interpretation, hold that every marriage is potentially divorceable. In other words,there's no such thing as a truly binding marriage in the eyes of God. Do you agree with this?
And do you think that an act of sexual infidelity confers the right to divorce one's spouse? (Cheers and high-fives from adulterers all around!) This is the necessary corollary of your "practical terms" which I quoted verbatim, above.
I can't see how this could be Jesus' intent. Christian marriage implies the restoration, by Christ Himself, of marriage to its original indissolubility, so that there can never be a complete, absolute divorce (with the right of re-marriage) after a valid marriage has been consummated, as long as the spouse is still living.
Adultery isn't in the text or context. Read the Greek; it's not there.
Including, what? The husband accessing online porn? The wife reading romance trash? Either one looking at the voluptuous pics that sometimes get posted on Free Republic? Kissing and hugging? Fantasizing about the choir director? Masturbating?--
If any of these can free a spouse from the marriage bond, I daresay there's hardly an intact marriage in America. At least not for anybody who watches TV.
It is an absurdity to suppose that what the Lord meant was, "Yeah, God hates divorce. But, I'll tell you what: you want to get divorced, --- sleep with your girlfriend. Then get the divorce. My new law is, I'm OK with that."
“I understand that the churches who teach this interpretation, hold that every marriage is potentially divorceable. In other words,there’s no such thing as a truly binding marriage in the eyes of God. Do you agree with this?”
God desires believers to stay married. He allowed divorce because of the fallen nature of man. He restricted it to sexual sin that breaks the one flesh nature of marriage. It is not required, but it is permissible.
“And do you think that an act of sexual infidelity confers the right to divorce one’s spouse?”
It confers the open door to end a marriage according to God. It is not required.
“I can’t see how this could be Jesus’ intent.”
Yet His words argue against your position.
If divorce did not end a marriage, Christ and Paul would have said, “Just stay married apart.” They did not.
“Including, what?”
Porneia is specific.
Paul’s words in Corinthians prohibit a person committing adultery and then getting remarried. It is the injured spouse who is now free.
“Adultery isn’t in the text or context. Read the Greek; it’s not there. “
Adultry IS the topic of conversation between Christ and two groups of Jews. One group assumed God meant you could divorce even for minor issues. The other, only for serious sexual issues. Into that context, Christ speaks. His general word, porneia, is a broader term for sexual infidelity that must include adultery, as the context indicates. It isn’t limited, however, to just intercourse outside marriage.
You say these acts objectively break the marriage bond, then you say not necessarily.
We know that God "hates" divorce (Malachi); the insertion of an "adultery" exception into the Matthew text -- a word Jesus did not use here --- quite effectively nullifies His actual teaching.
In any case, Paul also teaches that it is impermissible to divorce and remarry another. In Romans 7:2-3, Paul says that a woman is an adulteress if she is with another man while her husband lives. In 1 Cor 7:39, Paul teaches that marriage is dissolved only by death.
And here's an important distinction: in 1 Cor 7:10-11, Paul says that a wife should not separate from her husband, but if she does, let her remain "unmarried," or reconcile with her “husband.” Although the woman has separated from her husband (which is divorce), Paul still calls the spouse her “husband” which means the separation did not dissolve the marriage. Her state of being “unmarried” refers to the civil law, while her still having a “husband” refers to the moral law: how God sees it. In the eyes of secular law, she is divorced; in God's eyes, she still has a husband.
The teaching of Jesus and Paul is applicable to this day: civil divorce (with separation) may be permitted for bad situations, but this does not entail a right to remarry.
“This is self-contradictory.”
Only what you think I said is contradictory. Not what I said. :-)
“First you say porneia includes “many acts,” then you say “porneia is specific.”
Porniea includes illicit sexual acts - “illicit sexual intercourse, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.” Each is included in the meaning of porneia. It is NOT limited to adultery, but obviously includes adultery, which is the context of the discussion Christ was having with the Jews in Matt. 5:32
“You say these acts objectively break the marriage bond, then you say not necessarily.”
It is not required that you divorce, if you spouse violates the one flesh nature of marriage Christ says it is permissible to divorce for this reason.
“We know that God “hates” divorce (Malachi); the insertion of an “adultery” exception into the Matthew text — a word Jesus did not use here -— quite effectively nullifies His actual teaching.”
Actually, we agree that God hates divorce. We disagree on the second part of your sentence.
Adultery is included in the meaning of porneia, because it is illicit sex. This doesn’t invalidate what God said. It specifies that only illicit sex is a permissible reason for divorce - not any reason, as many Jews taught. Christ affirms God’s teaching in the Hebrew Scriptures that porneia is a permissible reason for divorce. If divorce doesn’t end a marriage, there would be no point in saying it was permissible.
“In any case, Paul also teaches ...”
I’m going to set aside Paul’s teaching for another post, so that this doesn’t get too broad. There are contextual and other issues we would have to cover that are lengthy.
Kindest Regards,
ampu
Thanks for a good discussion. I didn't want to get too snippy (which I have a tendency to do: in fact I'm in a rather snippy mood) --- but you have explained yourself well, and I appreciate the time and thought you have put into the dialog. Now I've got to get to bed. God bless you.
G'Night!
Mrs. Don-O,
I appreciate the interchange.
I don’t think either of us will change their view, but that wasn’t the reason to have the discussion. If you or anyone else has entrusted themselves to Christ’s completed work in the cross, I consider them brothers or sisters in Christ. Families disagree at times. They can still love as He commanded us to love each other.
Blessing to you and goodnight.
The Lord is the ONLY one who can save us.
You might have been a dingbat but you are here now, talking sense, so SOMEBODY did SOMETHING right SOMETIME.
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.