More Mel...

[Jake Huether]

so since both myself and Jesus are the bridegrooms of Katie Meyers she's commiting adultery?

I'm not trying to say that I believe the claims of Jesus being married.  I too think that it would have been pretty obvious from accounts of the Gospels and other early Church teachings.  The way Paul talks about marriage really seals it for me.  What I'm trying to say that the notion that he was isn't an end-all.

AND

EWTN, try as they may, is NOT a part of the ecclesial authority of the Church.

No, because our marriage is merely a Sacrament. It is a SIGN of our marriage with Christ.

Katie Meyers is yours. You and her are a part of the Church. The Church is Christ's bride. The Church is Plural. Christ is singular. He can't have another Bride! He instituted the Sacrament.

The Sacrament, in essence, is our "practice" for the real deal in heaven! In other words, when you married Katie you were called to practice becoming Christ's bride a specific way. Priests are called to practice becoming Christ's bride a whole other way. Christ didn't need "practice". His Love is perfect. He is the Groom! The individuals that make up Christ's Bride, the Church are all BECOMING perfect. The Church is Perfect (and it will be His Spottless Bride on the Wedding day). But the individuals that make up the Bride, are not perfect. We need to become perfect through the Sacraments. Christ is Perfect, was Perfect, and will always be perfect. He doesn't need Sacraments! He IS the Sacrament.

Hope that helps solidify Ironmonk and my point.

[Jake Huether]

No, because our marriage is merely a Sacrament. It is a SIGN of our marriage with Christ.

Katie Meyers is yours. You and her are a part of the Church. The Church is Christ's bride. The Church is Plural. Christ is singular. He can't have another Bride! He instituted the Sacrament.

The Sacrament, in essence, is our "practice" for the real deal in heaven! In other words, when you married Katie you were called to practice becoming Christ's bride a specific way. Priests are called to practice becoming Christ's bride a whole other way. Christ didn't need "practice". His Love is perfect. He is the Groom! The individuals that make up Christ's Bride, the Church are all BECOMING perfect. The Church is Perfect (and it will be His Spottless Bride on the Wedding day). But the individuals that make up the Bride, are not perfect. We need to become perfect through the Sacraments. Christ is Perfect, was Perfect, and will always be perfect. He doesn't need Sacraments! He IS the Sacrament.

Hope that helps solidify Ironmonk and my point.

To add. This is why earthly marriage is "till death do you part". Because when you die, then the Sacrament is completed. You are no longer Katie's and she is no longer yours. She then does not commit adultery in becoming Christ's Bride, and neither do you.

Christ on the other hand is betrothed to the Church as a whole. He was, is and will be the Bridegroom till the end of the world! So, he cannot have taken a single earthly wife.

[BLAZEr]

I'm not trying to say that I believe the claims of Jesus being married.  I too think that it would have been pretty obvious from accounts of the Gospels and other early Church teachings.  The way Paul talks about marriage really seals it for me.  What I'm trying to say that the notion that he was isn't an end-all.

Ryan I hate to break it to you here, but you are treading dangerously close to heresy . . . By your logic you could say the following:

I never mentions in the bible that Jesus wasn't gay . . . so maybe he was, it's open.

It never mentions in the bible that Jesus didn't have a sexual attraction to animals, so maybe he did . . . it's open?

Read Matthew 19:11-12 . . . notice that Jesus says "He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." Do you think that Christ would have not been able to receive this teaching that HE HIMSELF WAS TEACHING??

Also, note that that when Peter says who people claim to be he says "John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah" . . . all are celibates! No one is calling him "Moses" or "Abraham" or anyone of the married Jewish Fathers . . . it's important that he mentions the Three Prophets who represent a celibate life consecrated to God . . . this is also important as to why both Moses and Elijah appear in the Transfiguration . . . to give dignity to married life and celibacy . . . but that's another issue.

And if EWTN is not ecclesial authority (and I agree its not, but their theology is formed by ecclesial authority) . . . maybe you would do well to read ANYTHING the church has ever said about Christ and celibacy . . . the Magisterium is also infallible in the unchanged apostolic tradition . . . but at the very least I found some nice African Bishops who together wrote a pastoral on Priestly Celibacy and how it relates to Christ's celibacy . . . you should read it http://www.sacbc.org.za/st15aug2003.htm

Edited November 6, 2003 by BLAZEr

[ryanmeyersmusic]

marriage and homosexuality or even beastiality are equals?

all i've asked for is the church teaching on the matter and have yet to get anything in reply except for "it's there" there have been 2000 years worth of documents for you to pull from and set me straight with.

c'mon... heresy?

[BLAZEr]

marriage and homosexuality or even beastiality are equals?

all i've asked for is the church teaching on the matter and have yet to get anything in reply except for "it's there"  there have been 2000 years worth of documents for you to pull from and set me straight with.

c'mon...  heresy?

Notice I didn't say "gay acts" or "bestial acts" . . . no, they are not the same as marriage . . . and I didn't imply that either . . .

Did you even read what the African Bishops wrote? Did you Read the Scripture passages I shared with you?

Did you not understand what it means to say that The Church is Infallible in her constant Traditions. You're right there is not a dogma about this . . . but Dogma's are only defined when heresy is spread . . . this is a NEW heresy . . . no one for 1900 yeards doubted that Chirst was not-married (hence the constant tradition thing) . . . and its being suggested today . . . maybe it does need to be defined . . .

Either way, yes you are suggesting things that are HERETICAL . . . watch yourself. And submit yourself to the Church on this one.

[BLAZEr]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1618: Christ is the center of all Christian life. The bond with him takes precedence over all other bonds, familial or social. From the very beginning of the Church there have been men and women who have renounced the great good of marriage to follow the Lamb wherever he goes, to be intent on the things of the Lord, to seek to please him, and to go out to meet the Bridegroom who is coming. Christ himself has invited certain persons to follow him in this way of life, of which he remains the model:

"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

Edited November 7, 2003 by BLAZEr

[ryanmeyersmusic]

anyway, i think i'm going to go ahead and step out of this conversation as it's painting me in a corner i don't desire or deserve to be in.

i don't think that jesus was married, i already said that. i do think that, to quote st. john, "If every one of [the things jesus had done] were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." (21.25)

as long as it doesn't insinuate SIN, there's no reason to get in a tiff about whether or not it happened. the argument based on the celibate priesthood doesn't even make sense. regardless of what ewtn says, peter was married and there's no reason to believe that they remained celibate. it wasn't quite the same situation as mary and joseph, being that one of them was "full of grace." it's sure that they were CHASTE, since that's what we're called to in marriage, but not CELIBATE.

Anyway, this isn't really a debate worth having since I don't even believe that Jesus was married. It just amazes me at how easily people get riled up over something that still seems to me to be a non-issue.

[BLAZEr]

But Ryan, don't you see . . . this is not a "non-issue" . . .

It's very important to the understanding of the Church's relationship to the Lamb, of its Theological understanding of the the Mass, of the Nature of God, and of the Role of Marriage in Family Life . . .

If Christ was married, then the Church is False . . . because she understands certain things about Herself only in relation to the fact that Christ is Married Only and exclusively to HER . . .

[BLAZEr]

as long as it doesn't insinuate SIN, there's no reason to get in a tiff about whether or not it happened.  the argument based on the celibate priesthood doesn't even make sense.  regardless of what ewtn says, peter was married and there's no reason to believe that they remained celibate.

Again, you are wrong. There is plenty of evidence that Peter and his wife (if she was even alive) were not having conjugal relations . . . the evidence is that the Church required this of her priests. The idea that giving up "wife, and mother, and brother" meant giving up conjugal rights too is a very clearly defined tradition, not matter how much people would like to obscure it. The church allowed men who were married to become priests, but they had to give up their conjugal rights, this is why their wives had to consent.

Did you ever notice that the Church has NEVER allowed a Priest to GET married? That's because in order for it to be a sacramentally valid marriage he would have to consummate his marriage and PRIESTS HAD TO BE CELIBATES!

Big time error, here bud.

  it wasn't quite the same situation as mary and joseph, being that one of them was "full of grace."  it's sure that they were CHASTE, since that's what we're called to in marriage, but not CELIBATE.

Funny, Mary is Full of Grace but Christ is not? Of course he is . . . He's FULL OF GRACE because He IS GRACE! He is what Mary was full of! And it has been the Church's constant teaching that Mary is EVER VIRGIN . . . that means no sex before, during, or after The Birth of Christ . . . Perpetual Virginity . . . The official acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in 553 refer to Mary as aeiparthenos (i.e. ever-virgin). For example, an anathema against the 'three chapters' condemns those who deny: that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her ...

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/talmud.htm

See what I mean by heresy!

[Dave]

To add to what Ironmonk et al have already said, since Jesus was fully God as well as truly man, it would seem, well, profane for Him to have an earthly wife. It's only natural that His wife (if His Church could be called that) would be heavenly, and so His Bride is naturally the Church.

[Uncle Gus]

Yeah.  Saint Benedict Rocks.  I wear his medal.  Do you wear it?

GET AWAY SATAN!!

It's a cool crucifix, isn't it? My flatmate and good friend recently decided to become Catholic after much investigation, so I bought her one of those as a bit of a "yay!' gift, seeing as she didn't have a crucifix yet. :)