Bringing you the "Good News" of Jesus Christ and His Church While PROMOTING CATHOLIC Apologetic Support groups loyal to the Holy Father and Church's magisterium
Home About
AskACatholic.com
What's New? Resources The Church Family Life Mass and
Adoration
Ask A Catholic
Knowledge base
AskACatholic Disclaimer
Search the
AskACatholic Database
Donate and
Support our work
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
New Questions
Cool Catholic Videos
About Saints
Disciplines and Practices
Purgatory and Indulgences
About the Holy Mass
About Mary
Searching and Confused
Homosexual Issues
Life and Family
No Salvation Outside the Church
Sacred Scripture
non-Catholic Cults
Justification and Salvation
The Pope and Papacy
The Sacraments
back
Relationships and Marriage situations
Specific people, organizations and events
Doctrine and Teachings
Specific Practices
Church Internals
Church History


Richard Troxell wrote:

Mr. Humphrey,

First, it is not forthright to post a discussion forum with no way to reply, nor is it honest and sincere to post communications with no optional open discussion. This amounts to an assumed authority. It's like saying there is no debate allowed over the issue. Jesus will have the final word.

That said, let's consider the issue of marriage.

The laws given to Israel were probationary laws to prevent what had happened in the first age, before the flood.  Those laws were given in a sort of way so as to provide prophetic insight to the larger plan of the Lord to prepare his people for eternal life.

Let us demand a departure from an overly simplistic hairsplitting interpretation of "the Law" given to Israel, acknowledging the advanced understandings given in the sayings of Jesus. (If you say you are a Christian) (?)

The concept of marriage is an illustration of how a person's relationship should be unto the Lord:

Monogamy: We should have no other gods before us: as if one being married to the Lord (is equal to) eternally to be with him which (is equal to) being one, with the Lord. (and him only, with fidelity.)

This is the symbolism of marriage: One Lord, for life. (equals Monogamy)

The problem of broken marriages among ordinary people who attend a formal organized church is merely a symptom of the larger issue of living one's life unto the Lord, whereas a certain percentage of people who exist on the conveyor belt of modern society only are forced to join a church in order to obtain another prescribed plateau of social standing, but the foundational instruction of Jesus to love and forgive one another, as he has forgiven us (Perfect love and forgiveness unto eternal life), is merely another moral instruction to be toyed with (in the vanities of depravity).

The institution of Marriage is an illustration of how a person's relationship should be unto the Lord.

As the entrusted ministers of the Lord's grace in Jesus, any ensuing discussion about the Lord's laws given to Israel is merely a retarded testimony of gracelessness, whereas Jesus translated those laws given in the former time into a new level of understanding: our love for one another should be pure, loyal, with fidelity, in honor of our larger relationship unto Jesus.

Therefore, a ruined marriage between soul searching moralists is reduced to just another sin, just as any ignorant, overeducated person thinks to attain their own degree of righteousness. It is all sin, in ignorance and vanity.

Let there be no false affront, nor any vain man standing in the way of anyone who desires to know the unsearchable love and forgiveness of Jesus, who is the Lord and King of the modern Church.

The perfect love and forgiveness of Jesus is not an obstacle course set up by humans to obtain a degree of social standing in this world.

The divorced woman is otherwise a target for the perfect love and forgiveness of Jesus, to demonstrate his heavenly love as a replacement of human folly and false love.

For the Church to continue in the hairsplitting of laws given to a former age is retarded,
not advanced in the graces and greater knowledge given in Jesus.

But for now, I will commit my trust in the Holy Spirit for your leadership into the amazing grace of Jesus, and the knowledge he gives through the Comforter who does lead and guide us into all Truth.

Richard

  { Your site is not fair because there is no way to reply to a fallacy in a posting e.g. On marriage. }

Mike replied:

Hi, Richard —

We welcome constructive feedback on the site and how we approach the work we do.

The primary focus of our site is to clarify misconceptions about the ONE Church Jesus founded on St. Peter and his successors.

There is no "assumed authority" here; we just pass on what the Church's [Teaching Authority |Magisterium] teaches.

The Church's Authority is a REAL, HISTORICAL, LIVING, DYNAMIC and DIVINE Authority that we can trace back to 33AD.

I considered developing an add-on forum to AskACatholic.com but after talking with others who had one, decided against it due to the required maintenance it would take e.g. a 24/7 person to monitor postings to ensure hackers would not post anti-Catholic garbage and other pornographic stuff.

[This happened on a Church site I did with my colleague Eric.]

If any reader, of any of our postings, wishes to comment, they are MORE then welcome to comment, criticize, correct or whatever. All I need three (3) things:

  1. The title of the posting
  2. the link, and
  3. your comment like:

1. What is the Catholic position on divorce and remarriage?
2.   http://www.askacatholic.com/_WebPostings/Answers/2000_11NOV/2000NovOnDivorceAndRemarriage.cfm
(In the web site address bar at the top of your browser.)
3. Your comment

If you can't provide a posting title and a link, I have no way of knowing what posting to append your comment to.

I hope you understand.

The issue you are addressing isn't my strongest area, but I'm sure one of my colleagues would be happy to reply to what you have said. Again, if you wish to share your comments, you would have to provide me with the posting title and link you are commenting on.

Mike

Eric replied:

Hi, Richard —

Thanks for writing, we always enjoy hearing from readers. I am not sure what you are trying to communicate, though; I think you are challenging the indissolubility of marriage but frankly I'm not certain. There are two useful points I think I can make.

One: You appeared to be saying:

It seems to me going to church gives no "social standing" in "modern society".

This may have been true longer than 50 years ago but it is no longer true today and hasn't been true for a while, in my humble opinion. Our culture is so anti-Christian, going to church is more of a liability than an advantage. It's counter-cultural. People look at you funny if you go to church.

Second: I have no clue what you meant by:

"For the Church to continue in the hairsplitting of laws given to a former age is retarded, not advanced in the graces and greater knowledge given in Jesus."

We don't split hairs about "laws given to a former age". We don't recognize "laws given to a former age", except for laws against consanguinity. After all, the former age permitted divorce, and we don't. We recognize only one law, Jesus's New Law about the indissolubility of marriage.

Eric

Please report any and all typos or grammatical errors.
Suggestions for this web page and the web site can be sent to Mike Humphrey
© 2012 Panoramic Sites
The Early Church Fathers Church Fathers on the Primacy of Peter. The Early Church Fathers on the Catholic Church and the term Catholic. The Early Church Fathers on the importance of the Roman Catholic Church centered in Rome.