“Application of the natural law varies greatly...”
- Thread starter clefty
- Start date
clefty
Phoron
Well at least he is honest:
"We like to imagine Church teachings as monolithic and unchanging, and yet from the very beginning there is dynamism to beliefs and discipleship. The first believers in the Jewish church of Jerusalem were still attending the synagogue services and worshipping at the temple. The expulsion of Jewish Christians from the synagogues and the destruction of the temple in 70 AD by the Romans would insure that Christianity would not remain a mere sect of Judaism. The rite of initiation into the faith would no longer be Jewish circumcision but Christian baptism. The Sunday Observance or the Lord’s Day would supplant the Hebrew Sabbath. Similarly, the new economy of images would make itself felt in the abolition of the Decalogue prohibition against fashioning graven images."
bloggerpriest.com
It wasn't the destruction of the temple which insured new traditions but wolves in sheep's clothes...false teachers...feeble minds twisting Paul's letters...with words changing both His times and laws as Daniel prophesied...Daniel 7:25
the development of doctrine...
and joos killed Him for protesting theirs...
certain joos responded in kind claiming He changed theirs...Luke was clear these joos were false witnesses Acts 6:12So they stirred up the people, elders, and scribes and confronted Stephen. They seized him and brought him before the Sanhedrin, 13where they presented FALSE witnesses who said, “This man never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. 14For we have heard him say that Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs that Moses handed down to us.”
...their witness was false as Stephen did not teach this...nor did He do that...
but it remains a claim still asserted by Christendom...rather "think not that" He said
...it seems change is the tradition
"We like to imagine Church teachings as monolithic and unchanging, and yet from the very beginning there is dynamism to beliefs and discipleship. The first believers in the Jewish church of Jerusalem were still attending the synagogue services and worshipping at the temple. The expulsion of Jewish Christians from the synagogues and the destruction of the temple in 70 AD by the Romans would insure that Christianity would not remain a mere sect of Judaism. The rite of initiation into the faith would no longer be Jewish circumcision but Christian baptism. The Sunday Observance or the Lord’s Day would supplant the Hebrew Sabbath. Similarly, the new economy of images would make itself felt in the abolition of the Decalogue prohibition against fashioning graven images."
Where Might We Find Doctrinal Development?
We like to imagine Church teachings as monolithic and unchanging, and yet from the very beginning there is dynamism to beliefs and discipleship. The first believers in the Jewish church of Jerusale…
bloggerpriest.com
It wasn't the destruction of the temple which insured new traditions but wolves in sheep's clothes...false teachers...feeble minds twisting Paul's letters...with words changing both His times and laws as Daniel prophesied...Daniel 7:25
the development of doctrine...
and joos killed Him for protesting theirs...
certain joos responded in kind claiming He changed theirs...Luke was clear these joos were false witnesses Acts 6:12So they stirred up the people, elders, and scribes and confronted Stephen. They seized him and brought him before the Sanhedrin, 13where they presented FALSE witnesses who said, “This man never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. 14For we have heard him say that Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs that Moses handed down to us.”
...their witness was false as Stephen did not teach this...nor did He do that...
but it remains a claim still asserted by Christendom...rather "think not that" He said
...it seems change is the tradition
clefty
Phoron
CCC 1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1957.htm
...common good principles comin'
...common good principles comin'
piscamaniac
MAGA Republican
https://culturewars.com/videos/emj-gemma-on-protestant-nonsense Sums this thread up.
Macrobius
Megaphoron
TIL:
> The bottom line is that the sexual corruption of society launched by Henry VIII is fixed in the Protestant mindset, and once family break-up is normalized, entire nations will end up controlled by Jews. Catholic morality is the only way out of it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with skin color but the color of your soul.
Followup questions: 1/ is the Pope Catholic? 2/ is the there even a Pope these days? 3/ Do actual Catholics still exist? Name some.
Last edited:
clefty
Phoron
lol ...speaking of joos...it is a very "jooish" thing to marry your dead heirless brother's wife...Deut 25:5 “If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.”
But they skipped that text about a dead sibling and made it about about a text concerning a living brother:
“Furthermore, the Book of Leviticus chapter 20 says, "If a man takes his brother's wife, it is impurity; he has uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless." All of this made the Henry-Catherine pairing a sticky wicket, so to speak. However, it was entirely possible to get the pope to grant a special dispensation to allow the marriage despite the rules, which is extra possible if you're the king
Read More: https://www.grunge.com/319732/the-real-reason-henry-viii-couldnt-get-a-divorce/
So the pope granted an unnecessary dispensation as Henry wasn’t uncovering his living brother’s nakedness but engaging in a levirite marriage or Yibbum to provide for his dead's brother line.
But the pope wants in and to have absolute authority…
Which only complicated things:
“…his marriage to Catherine had only been made possible in the first place by a special dispensation from the pope. For Henry to ask a later pope to issue a dispensation counteracting the earlier one was basically asking one pope to say an earlier pope had been wrong, which is supremely uncool.”
Yes very uncool…don’t wanna make da pope fallible ya dig?
The other text ignored is:
Matthew 5:32 “But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, …”
And Henry dun that...committed adultery…even had a son from it…like David with his Bathsheba/Solomon. So that’s grounds for a divorce.
Even the Pharisees in the NT had Him confirm divorce was in fact permitted specifically because of infidelity. Please see Matt 19.
And now add this:
Deuteronomy 24:1 “If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house…”
Jeremiah 3:1
They say, ‘If a man divorces his wife,
And she goes from him
And becomes another man’s,
May he return to her again?’
Would not that land be greatly polluted?
But you have played the harlot with many lovers;
Yet return to Me,” says the Lord.
Already in the OT Israel was considered His bride...and an adulterous one...imagine the Roman Church not allowing His divorce from her...lol
"no no we must prove you were never married"...lol
yeah yeah...there was NO sexual corruption of society before Henry 8 launched it...lol
The irony he was attempting to do a good Roman Catholic thingy...make a SON to put real umph into the political dynamics...much like Martin Luther who because he loved his Church wished the abuses of indulgences would be reformed...and they were...later
So it was a Roman Catholic own goal that forbid him divorce "cuz tradition" despite his own infidelity and...
An own goal which still cripples it today... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...s-catholic-churchs-marriage-annulment-process
UPDATED: Did Pope Francis really tell a divorced woman to take Communion?
The details about the pontiff's alleged call to an Argentine woman are changing, but if the story is true, it would still be a big deal. Here's why, and what we know so far.
religionnews.com
But yes not allowing divorce and making up the process of annulments is yet another way His Law is applied variously.
And so all this makes it relevant to this thread and only contributing to it...and not summing it up…
Imagine if the pope had granted divorce and on biblical grounds…Henry 8 might have remained a great defender of the Roman Catholic faith.
Sadly Henry 8 wasn't EO eh?
“The Orthodox Church recognizes the sanctity of marriage and sees it as a life-long commitment. However, there are certain circumstances in which it becomes evident that there is no love or commitment in a relationship.
While the Church stands opposed to divorce, the Church, in its concern for the salvation of its people, does permit divorced individuals to marry a second and even a third time.”
Divorce and Remarriage - Questions & Answers
What is the church’s stance on divorce? How many times may one remarry? Are there differencesin the service.
Depends on who you ask…
Last edited:
piscamaniac
MAGA Republican
This reminds me of an old english joke:
You know Robbie Patten who works in the laundry, well 'is wife wanted a divorce so she goes to the solicitor and 'e says "well, you've got to 'ave grounds". "What's grounds" she says. So 'e says "Firstly, there's insanity", well Robbie's a bit of a dipstick, like, but 'e's not certifiable. "Secondly there's desertion", well 'e's in 'ere, 'e can't go nowhere. "Third there's cruelty", well as you know 'e wouldn't hurt a fly "so that leaves adultery", "what's adultery" she says, so 'e tells 'er and she says "ah. I think we've got 'im there. 'E is not the father of my child!".
You won't understand why this is funny; let me explain. If you commit adultery, that adultery is grounds for your spouse to divorce you; it is never grounds for you to divorce your spouse. The very notion is laughable.
This sorry incident is just another example substandard nature of your reasoning. You don't even have a basic grasp of the protestant nonsense you are trying to disseminate, LOL.
clefty
Phoron
yes was sloppy here...I should have stated "so that's grounds for annulment"
which was denied Henry insisting his commitment to perpetuity was NOT lacking. Clearly it was. Thus the marriage is not sacramental and annulable https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/07/02/marriage-validity-and-invalidity/
piscamaniac
MAGA Republican
Now you are being dishonest, but, you still don't understand. Your own infidelities never entitled you to demand what was called a divorce in Tudor times or what is called divorce or annulment in the modern era (or any era). This is thephora not a special ed class; I shouldn't have to explain these things to you.
clefty
Phoron
This is indeed the phora...
and phorons correct and get corrected all the time...in all matters and manners...is part of the phun of phora...and point of the innernutz come to think of it...
and akshually explanations happen all the time too...in all matters and manners...and how it's done reveals a lot...I mean can you believe there is attempt at censure and even irl punitive action for what is posted? Inquisitional spirit is alive and well...
So as for "the corruption of society launched by Henry" I will leave it at this for now:
Before the pontificate of Innocent III, royal marriages were commonly dissolved without papal intervention and it appears that no law existed requiring such an action. Certainly, in early medieval society polygamy was widely practiced (usually in the form of polygyny where a man is allowed to have more than one wife) and the Church’s view of the conjugal marriage as a sacred, i.e. indissoluble, union had yet to be fully indoctrinated.
Dissolving Royal Marriages: A Documentary History, 860-1600 | Reviews in History
reviews.history.ac.uk
Roman Catholic Church ban in the Middle Ages loosened family ties
Harvard Professor Joseph Henrich and a team of collaborators researched how a Roman Catholic Church ban in the Middle Ages loosened extended family ties and changed values and psychology of individuals in the West.
news.harvard.edu
Last edited: