Holy Family?

[JustHisKid]

Actually I think Saint Paul would say the bond of marriage is never broken. After all, divorce was only permitted to stop the adultery - because of their sin - not because the bond could or should be broken. Saint Paul is saying under the law (given to flesh) she cannot remarry while her husband lives without violating the law (adultery). In fact elsewhere Saint Paul would argue it would be better/preferable to remain a widow.

Maybe am looking at this wrong. If the thought is that in Heaven, there will be unity there between all then we agree. The unity possible there between man and wife exceeds anything possible in this life and all would know and recognize loved ones. I do not think this unity between all the glorified Kingdom replaces, but would instead magnify all the bonds we form in this life, including those of man and wife.

I think often times we prefer our own human reasoning and how we think it should be at the resurrection rather than what is revealed in Scripture. The things of this life are temporal, not eternal.

 

[JustHisKid]

God said, (my bolding added)
Matt 28:19-20
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

And they did:
2 Cor 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

These teachings from the Apostles are the foundation for the entire body of teachings passed down to us, which includes not just sacred scripture but all the "things" He had taught them. The teaching authority Christ gave His Apostles, they passed on to Bishops who took their place. And that process can be shown again by Saint Paul:

2 Tim 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

It is that transmission of knowledge from Christ through the Apostles is passed down to us and that we call Tradition, and it is distinct from sacred scripture. The "T" is capital to distinguish it from tradition/legend which is what we were talking about with the assumption of the Mother of God. Because of the source (Christ Himself) both sacred scripture and this Tradition are considered the Word of God.

The Holy Fathers have expounded upon this Apostolic Tradition and we have their writings (and lives) as first hand account of how this Tradition has continued to bless the Church and our lives for it. This Apostolic Tradition stands with sacred scripture, not against. Together with the teaching authority (Magisterium) Christ gave the Church (bind and loose - Matt 16:19, 18:18), these three (Sacred Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium, work together to preserve and pass down for all mankind all that we are to believe (all that God has revealed to mankind). The Church preserves that knowledge, what we are to believe, and that only possible by His Grace, the Holy Spirit (comfort and guide) and His promise:Matt 28:20
"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

None of these passages teach what you believe to be Oral Tradition, equal to God's written word. Not one bit of it.

 

[JustHisKid]

Actually I think Saint Paul would say the bond of marriage is never broken.

What you think he would say is simply your idea of what you think is right. The fact is, death breaks the bond according to Scripture.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I think often times we prefer our own human reasoning and how we think it should be at the resurrection rather than what is revealed in Scripture. The things of this life are temporal, not eternal.

mmmm, I would think any promise or an offense to an Eternal Being has eternal commitment/implications. That is why taking His name in vain is so much worse than using mine or the Obamanation. Has more to do with Whom one is promising/offending than the content/context. I see a vow of marriage as a promise to another person, but the promise is made before God and all people, so I rather think the bond is eternal or has eternal effect.

 

[JustHisKid]

mmmm, I would think any promise or an offense to an Eternal Being has eternal commitment/implications. That is why taking His name in vain is so much worse than using mine or the Obamanation. Has more to do with Whom one is promising/offending than the content/context. I see a vow of marriage as a promise to another person, but the promise is made before God and all people, so I rather think the bond is eternal or has eternal effect.

Notice you said, "I would think", "I see", and "I rather think". It's not about what you think.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

What you think he would say is simply your idea of what you think is right. The fact is, death breaks the bond according to Scripture.

Since the people asking the question did not even think there is a resurrection, IOW they did not care and certainly did NOT really want know who her husband would be. And Jesus did not tell them who her husband would be or which or if all vows remained valid. He simply said people would not GET married in Heaven - which is not a response to the question they asked. I find it odd then to think Jesus is teaching us by that response that all marriage bonds are broken at death.

Again, if we could remain chaste, I know Saint Paul would say it would be better if the widow/widower could remain so. I know because he is recorded saying so - and not just for widows/widowers. Not all of us could can do that and the same Saint said - better to remarry than to sin. It is similar to Jesus response to being asked about Moses allowing divorce - it was not an endorsement of divorce or acknowledgement that divorce broke that vow, but better that than live in sin.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Notice you said, "I would think", "I see", and "I rather think". It's not about what you think.

I see. So you think making a promise to or offending God has no eternal consequence. I do not think that would be a wise attitude toward God.

 

[JustHisKid]

I see. So you think making a promise to or offending God has no eternal consequence. I do not think that would be a wise attitude toward God.

I believe a wise attitude toward God is to believe His word, not make stuff up because it feels right.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

None of these passages teach what you believe to be Oral Tradition, equal to God's written word. Not one bit of it.

LOL, Sacred scripture is God's Word recorded for you. That same Word records that were other things not written there that they were teaching and passing down. The Lord God Himself is saying go and teach, not go and give people Bibles (or letters) to read. Teach what? What they learned from Him, God's Word, the last three years. So what He taught them would be God's Word and therefore on equal grounds with the written Word.

The only question then is whether we can trust what has been passed down from the Apostles as having been "God's spoken Word" is faithfully preserved for us. And even there, the same written Word we both hold sacred records that it was being faithfully passed down AND that God (the Holy Spirit) would help guide them in that effort - until the end of time. You and many others obviously do NOT believe that the spoken teachings of Jesus were faithfully passed down from the Apostles, but Catholics do and that is why for us Tradition (some call Apostolic teachings) is on equal ground with sacred scripture. God's Word recorded = God's Word spoken and passed down to us.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I believe a wise attitude toward God is to believe His word, not make stuff up because it feels right.

I got that and I get you apparently think it feels right to say there is no eternal consequence for breaking a vow to God or offending Him. Again, good luck with such feelings.

 

[JustHisKid]

I got that and I get you apparently think it feels right to say there is no eternal consequence for breaking a vow to God or offending Him. Again, good luck with such feelings.

In fact, we are not supposed to make "vows" to God. Good luck with basing your faith on your feelings.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

In fact, we are not supposed to make "vows" to God. Good luck with basing your faith on your feelings.

I see. So one "feels" one's word is not your bond and therefore it would be ok to tell God you will do (or not do) something and then go back on that. Interesting feelings about what it means to "promise" and how one looks at what we owe God, which according to your feelings must be not our word. Does this include sin as well as our word? IOW no big deal that we offend God just as we can break our word with Him?

 

[JustHisKid]

I see. So one "feels" one's word is not your bond and therefore it would be ok to tell God you will do (or not do) something and then go back on that. Interesting feelings about what it means to "promise" and how one looks at what we owe God, which according to your feelings must be not our word. Does this include sin as well as our word? IOW no big deal that we offend God just as we can break our word with Him?

Do you not know we are warned not to make oaths to the Lord? Do as you wish, but I will believe and obey His word.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Do you not know we are warned not to make oaths to the Lord? Do as you wish, but I will believe and obey His word.

Am not sure how to view breaking one's word is obeying His Word, especially when one gives one word to Him.

 

[JustHisKid]

Am not sure how to view breaking one's word is obeying His Word, especially when one gives one word to Him.

You are not to give him an oath to begin with because He knows you can't keep it. That's kinda the point, I think.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

You are not to give him an oath to begin with because He knows you can't keep it. That's kinda the point, I think.

Actually He knew the audience He was speaking to had taken oath makings to an extreme of legalistic verbal manipulation, where depending how they made the vow - say on the temple or on the gold of the temple - they were able to claim one vow would be binding the other could be broken. Rather than claim Jesus is saying do not make vows, in context He is saying very plainly your word is your bond, a vow; so when you say YES, let it be Yes. IOW if give your word, make a vow, promise then be true to it.

So our word is a vow and one should be careful in what we promise/vow rather than simply believe we are not allowed to make them. Which is why my word, say of fidelity, should be binding before God and all mankind, IOW my word is a vow.

As far not being able to keep vows, I think the best we could say is say vows are difficult, not impossible. The vow to God to be chaste would be one of those, and am quite certain there are some that make such a vow actually keep it. So again, it is not a matter of we should [NOT] make any vows to God, but we should consider and take such things very seriously before making them.

Besides if we take your position on what Jesus said, then what to do with Saint Paul basically swearing/pledging as God is his witness?

2Co 11:10
As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia.

Romans 1:9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;