Permit me to be a bit frank here this evening. If you are working on "marriage" #2 and are not a widow or widower or roped into something on false pretenses, I'm not celebrating squat. You're likely in a state of permanent and public adultery. It's not "fabulous" and I'm not happy for you. Add it to my, "Why Protestantism Sucks" File, #4072. Incontinence with public sanction! Unfair, obnoxious, immoral. Lest you think Mother Church callous, there is provision for separation (but not divorce) in the case of adultery or violence in the Code of Canon Law, canons 1151-55.
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con
Comments