A Homily on Marriage on the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe

Dearly beloved, it is with the Sacrament of Reconciliation that I bring you greeting in the Holy name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Beloved, the Lord hath burden my heart with a new homiletic epiphany on marriage as first based in the Old Covenant:

The following two verses are from this Old Covenant when our Heavenly Father wanted men and women to be joined in the flesh for creation of the human race: “God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it;…” (Genesis 1:28).

Again, we are told by the inspirited writer of Genesis (Moses) that “ For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24).

However, Beloved, this is the Old Covenant of Moses where we were yoked up under the Law and marriage. Now, let us turn our attention and notice what the New Covenant tells us as revealed by our Lord Himself relating to women and marriage as He Himself set our example:

“But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it." (Matthew 19: 11-12).

And the most Holy Apostle Paul: “Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman….But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” (I Corinth. 7: 1, 8, & 9).

And finally our Lord again emphasizes his divine requirements for us to be holy even has He is holy and unmarried in the Apocalypse: “ Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder, and the voice which I heard was like the sound of harpists playing on their harps. And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one could learn the song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who had been purchased from the earth. These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased from among men as first fruits to God and to the Lamb. And no lie was found in their mouth; they are blameless.” (Revelation 14: 1-5).

Beloved, I ask you to examine your sinful life while you are here in your temporary earthen vessel of clay in light our beloved Savior Jesus Christ, the Holy Apostle Paul and the 144,000 virgin men who followed the Lamb in Revelation and to renounced any sexual sin as a venal sin by which you can make it into Heaven but, as St. Paul says “each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.” (I Corinth. 3: 13 - 15).

Now, may the Virgin of Our Lady of Guadalupe be an example before Christ for us. Amen

27 comments:

Harry H. McCall said...

This sermon is to show that the New Testament only tolerates marriage and sex and that Christian marriage is based on the Old Testament; not the New Testament.

Early Christians thought the present world was going to end with Christ return, so why marry?

If not for our lustful / sinful nature, the failure of Christ’s return would mean Christians would have gone the way of the Shakers (The Unite Society of Believers in Christ Second Appearing).

brian_g said...

This sermon is to show that the New Testament only tolerates marriage and sex and that Christian marriage is based on the Old Testament; not the New Testament.

Early Christians thought the present world was going to end with Christ return, so why marry?

If not for our lustful / sinful nature, the failure of Christ’s return would mean Christians would have gone the way of the Shakers (The Unite Society of Believers in Christ Second Appearing).


Or one could take the Catholic view that celibacy is good while not making marriage bad.


I will say that this was well written satire though. Much better then Edward Currents. The reference to Purgatory, venial sins, and the Lady of Guadalupe, suggest a Catholic background?

busterggi said...

Either way, isn't it a bit much to consider an obvious painting a miracle?

T said...

What is the deal with knocking Edward Current? Why compliment one individual and tear another down? Okay, you shouldn't get the brunt of this, I just happen to enjoy both their work very much.

brian_g said...

What is the deal with knocking Edward Current? Why compliment one individual and tear another down? Okay, you shouldn't get the brunt of this, I just happen to enjoy both their work very much.

It's wasn't really necessary, but since I made some criticism of Edward Current in a precious comment, I thought I'd contrast my positive and negative remarks.

I thought doing so would be useful, since I expect a knee-jerk reaction: you don't like it because your Christian. While I can't deny this is influencing me, I think that there are more intelligent pieces of satire then others. McCall's was more intelligent then Currant's. I can acknowledge this without embracing either brand of atheism.

Harry H. McCall said...

Brian G, I have Sirius Satellite radio and I listen to everything form Playboy Radio to The Goble Catholic Radio network / ETN.

I find the Question and Answer on ETN time interesting and informative.

That that I have heard your confession, depart in peace!

brian_g said...


Blogger Harry McCall said...

Brian G, I have Sirius Satellite radio and I listen to everything form Playboy Radio to The Goble Catholic Radio network / ETN.

I find the Question and Answer on ETN time interesting and informative.


I assume you mean EWTN?

Ok, I see. I was raised (and still am) Catholic, but I grew up with a heavy dose of protestant (evangelical and fundamentalist) Christianity (from friends). Oftentimes I heard the protestant side more then the Catholic side. When I discovered EWTN in College, it was a nice dose of fresh air.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Lady of Guadalupe, did you see this? (Mildly NSFW) http://lauramartinez.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/playboy-mexico-decides-to-celebrate-virgin-mary-by-putting-her-on-its-cover/

Harry H. McCall said...

Brain G, it is EWTN, thanks. I get tired of Bluegrass Music and EWTN is very interesting and more so than the Protestant stations.

Bunk, I saw that on the national news last night. I’ll have to listen to the Playboy Channel to see their response.

Harry H. McCall said...

I should say "to heard their response."

James said...

brian_g writes: "Or one could take the Catholic view that celibacy is good while not making marriage bad."

For most Traditional Catholics (pre-Vatican II), marriage was definitely a lesser calling. It's a concession to human weakness, not necessarily something that is lauded, even though they seem to have grudgingly began to acknowledge that one can be a "saint" and married as well. Generally, though, those in the highest echelons of the saints are by-and-large virgins, or haven't you noticed?

Ever catch sight of those holy cards? The people are practically sexless: cherubic, covered from head to toe in what is almost a hajib with most of the women looking very child-like in their features. Even in marriage, sexual activity is to be restricted for purposes of procreation, generally speaking. ("Oh dear, I guess we MUST allow that nasty business - someone has to raise more children!")

What's endlessly fascinating to me is the almost erotic imagery and language used by the mystics. They speak of Christ as a "bridegroom", of being in "ecstasy" during their "mystical union" with Him. Of course, it's all spiritual and chaste on the surface.

Attitudes have changed over the years, but the history of the Catholic Church has reflected rather extreme attitudes in terms of its treatment of human sexuality (not that total sexual liberation is healthy, either).

Harry H. McCall said...

Some excellent points James!

Jason said...

However, Beloved, this is the Old Covenant of Moses where we were yoked up under the Law and marriage.

Actually, the words spoken to Adam & Eve occurred long before the laws were given to Moses. The covenant you're referring to was made between God and Israel in Exodus 19-24, not the Garden of Eden. As for Christ's stand on the matter, Mark 10:6-9 is self-explanatory.

That being said, what exactly is the point of your post? To show that marriage is a sin...?

Harry H. McCall said...

Jason, conservative Jews and Christians believe Moses wrote Genesis, so my point as recorded history as part of the Old Covenant / Old Testament remains. It’s the reason God made a covenant with Abraham as oppose to the curse of Adam and Eve and protection promised to Cain.

Secondly, marriage is not Christ's first choice for people doing 100% his will.

brian_g said...

James,

Take a look at what Pope Leo XIII said:


Now, those who deny that marriage is holy, and who relegate it, stripped of all holiness, among the class of common secular things, uproot thereby the foundations of nature, not only resisting the designs of Providence, but, so far as they can, destroying the order that God has ordained. No one, therefore, should wonder if from such insane and impious attempts there spring up a crop of evils pernicious in the highest degree both to the salvation of souls and to the safety of the commonwealth.

26. If, then, we consider the end of the divine institution of marriage, we shall see very clearly that God intended it to be a most fruitful source of individual benefit and of public welfare. Not only, in strict truth, was marriage instituted for the propagation of the human race, but also that the lives of husbands and wives might be made better and happier.


This is from his encyclical "On Christian marriage" in 1880. Notice that this is before Vatican II and I don't know anyone who would deny that Pope Leo XIII was a traditionalist. Leo specifically condemns those who deny that marriage is holy. He also says it has two benefits: propagation of the human race and the happiness of the husband and wife.

We can go back even further before Vatican II. In 1563, the council of Trent stated:
"If anyone says that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the evangelical law, instituted by Christ the Lord, but has been devised by men in the Church and does not confer grace, let him be anathema."

So marriage is not merely a reluctant tolerance of human sexuality, as if marriage was just put in place to keep sex from being sinful, it is one of the seven sacraments and it confers grace.

Jason said...

Harry,

It doesn't matter who wrote Genesis. Neither Christians nor Jews consider the words spoken to Adam & Eve to be a part of the "Old Covenant of Moses" and for good reason. The laws for the Israelites were given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai, not Adam & Eve in the Garden. It's fundamentally incorrect to say Genesis 1:28 is from the "Old Covenant of Moses".

Secondly, marriage is not Christ's first choice for people doing 100% his will.

So are you saying marriage is a sin or not?

Harry H. McCall said...

Jason, for the Church, the Old Testament is equal to the Old Covenant. I did not say the Mosaic Covenant which is the Torah both Oral and Written; I said the Old Covenant and you narrowed it to the Mosaic Covenant.

Fact is Jason, God did have a covenant with Adam and Eve in the Garden and they broke it. This is why you seemed not to be able to understand why women are eternally unforgiven. Eve ate the fruit first, and the Southern Baptist fired all their women professors. If that was not a broken Old Covenant with God, then please explain why they were fired?

Neither Jesus nor Paul really liked marriage since it appears neither were married and there is(accorrding to Jesus) is no marriage in Heaven. Go figure.

Harry H. McCall said...

Jason, for the Church, the Old Testament is equal to the Old Covenant. I did not say the Mosaic Covenant which is the Torah both Oral and Written; I said the Old Covenant and you narrowed it to the Mosaic Covenant.

Fact is Jason, God did have a covenant with Adam and Eve in the Garden and they broke it. This is why you seemed not to be able to understand why women are eternally unforgiven. Eve ate the fruit first, and the Southern Baptist fired all their women professors. If that was not a broken Old Covenant with God, then please explain why they were fired?

Neither Jesus nor Paul really liked marriage since it appears neither were married and there is(accorrding to Jesus) is no marriage in Heaven. Go figure.

Harry H. McCall said...

Jason, for the Church, the Old Testament is equal to the Old Covenant. I did not say the Mosaic Covenant which is the Torah both Oral and Written; I said the Old Covenant and you narrowed it to the Mosaic Covenant.

Fact is Jason, God did have a covenant with Adam and Eve in the Garden and they broke it. This is why you seemed not to be able to understand why women are eternally unforgiven. Eve ate the fruit first, and the Southern Baptist fired all their women professors. If that was not a broken Old Covenant with God, then please explain why they were fired?

Neither Jesus nor Paul really liked marriage since it appears neither were married and there is(accorrding to Jesus) is no marriage in Heaven. Go figure.

Jason said...

Harry said: I did not say the Mosaic Covenant which is the Torah both Oral and Written; I said the Old Covenant and you narrowed it to the Mosaic Covenant.

You said, in reference to Genesis 2:24, that "this is the Old Covenant of Moses". I've already explained why this is wrong.

Fact is Jason, God did have a covenant with Adam and Eve in the Garden and they broke it.

You're arguing an irrelevant point. What I'm disagreeing with is that the words spoken to Adam & Eve regarding marriage are somehow a part of the "Old Covenant of Moses".

Neither Jesus nor Paul really liked marriage since it appears neither were married and there is(accorrding to Jesus) is no marriage in Heaven. Go figure.

So are you saying marriage is a sin?

Harry H. McCall said...

Jason, I’ll not play your doctrinal games of faith.

If your want answers, than answer this: Did you vote in the past presidential election? If not, why not?

Based on Romans 13, just why can’t Christadelphians vote. Give me chapter and verse why they are not doctrinally allowed to vote!

You write long apologetics on a blog defending the Christadelphian doctrines only to act like you can't defend their doctrines here. What’s your problem?

Tell you what, I’ll run a post “Are Christadelphian Christians” and have everyone comment on my attack on your faith and we’ll see how well you really believe what your write about on your blog.

The fact is Jason, the last time I discussed you and the Christadelphian faith as a blog topic, you did not even post a defense one time, but rand off with comments like “Harry, The reason I'm not responding to this is because there's nothing to respond to. I have no problem with Rick's answer and I don't really care if you do.”!!!

Now, you answer my above question about your so called Biblical Christadelphian dogma or I’ll not respond to your again!

Jason said...

Harry,

I don't understand your refusal to respond to my points or your reference to "doctrinal games of faith". Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 2:24 are not considered part of the "Old Covenant of Moses". This so-called "covenant of Moses" was given, incredibly enough, to Moses on Mount Sinai, not to Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden a thousand or so years prior.

I'm also trying to figure out if your initial post is suggesting marriage is a sin. Is it?

Philip R Kreyche said...

"A thousand or so years prior"? So the Garden of Eden story took place in 2300 BC? Even YEC's think the world is older than that.

Harry H. McCall said...

Jason, you are either a dumb ass or a smart ass, so quite wasting my time!

You want to debate a topic with an atheist like myself over theology (as if I believed the Bible) and yet, you are a member of a cult that will not even let you vote…very pitiful!

You come to DC trying to be Mr. Christadelphian Bible scholar and yet you refuse to discuss a MAJOR American democratic obligation because in a non-Biblical cult will not let you vote WITHOUT ANY BIBICAL REASON! Amazing!!

Since you continue to refuse to explain you cult’s denial of Romans 13, I’ll NEVER respond EVER again to you on any post here at DC again.

In light of Romans 13, why should I waste anymore time with you, since neither you nor the Christadelphians believe the Bible,plus why should anyone here listen to you?!

Jason said...

Philip,

The world can be however old you want. The fact remains the "Old Covenant of Moses" wasn't given to Adam & Eve in the Garden.

T said...

Harry,

I had never heard of a Christadelphian before today. I read through their statements of faith to get a better understanding of their beliefs.

I agree with you that not allowing individuals to vote is shameful. It is a good way to foster "the world is evil" mentality and it helps breed fundamentalism. The one belief that I actually liked was that they see Satan as evil, not a person.

I am also glad that you refuse to be sucked into Jason's nonsense. I find it humorous that when you poke fun at the nonsensical theology of the Bible, the fundamentalists feel the need to come rushing to God's defense.

How do you know if you're a fundamentalist? You are a 100% sure you can accurately speak God's mind for him.

Fundy: "I'm not speaking for God, I'm just reading His words from the Bible."

Rational Person: "Again you claim to know the mind of God... men wrote those words in the Bible, not God; therefore, because God did not say them, you are presuming to be able to know and speak the mind of God."

Fundy: "But God inspired those words. The proof is in how reliable the Bible is."

Rational Person: "But the Bible is not reliable. Doctrines are contradictory, dates and places are frequently wrong, accounts of the same events differ radically from gospel to gospel, God commits huge sins like genocide and causing babies to suffer horribly for others' sins, there are major problems with translations and errors over the centuries, and I could go on and on."

Fundy: "Liar!"

Rational Person: "I'd discuss this with you, even debate it with you. I'd read any book you thought would be helpful to explain your position. I enjoy reading, so that's not the issue. However, I'm pretty sure I'd be wasting my time talking to you. Not because I mind that you disagree with my conclusions, but because you're a fundamentalist you provide NO REAL ANSWERS. You bring nothing to the table. If I bring up the problem of suffering or the genocides committed by God, you only offer a simplistic twisted logic that ultimately denies the problem of suffering. If I provide mountains of evidence to show that Genesis is myth, that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, that life evolved on our planet through evolution... you refuse to look at the evidence or offer an alternate theory that explains the data that we have. You provide non-answers, but claim to have substance. If I offer solid challenges to the inerrancy of scripture, like the fact that the Pentateuch was passed down verbally (not written) for the first 700 years or more, then you say, "God preserved the word." Again, you provide a non-answer. You refuse to provide substantial answers that actually contribute to humankind in any meaningful way.

Fundamentalists are usually a waste of time... but every once in a while a fundy opens his or her eyes and begins to look at the truth. That's what happened to me. I was eventually challenged enough to no longer accept the "non-answers" I was giving. When I attempted to provide real answers that actually contributed and provided a meaningful understanding of the problems and data at hand, I realized that I was so far from the truth it was ridiculous. I was absurdly ridiculous.

Fundamentalists are generally ridiculous and more dangerous than they realize.

Fundy: "I'm not dangerous."

Rational Person: "I'm not having this discussion with you." :)

Harry H. McCall said...

Thanks for your commits Toby and I’m glad you see Jason for who and what he is.

Jason, in my opinion, is even worst that a general fundamentalist in that he is a member of a cult know as the Christadelphians who deny a basic democratic right; the right to vote. After asking him time and again to justify this dogma based on the Bible, he will never respond as he know I’ve nailed his theological ass good.

Jason is NOT here to engage in a logical debate, but he is here to try and find what he thinks is a weak spot in a post and then wants to interrogate the poster with a mind fixed on proving Christadelphians doctrines.

The communication with Jason is always one-sided. He demands answers to his subjective Christadelphian theology, but will NEVER respond to questions about his own cult’s abuse of the Bible.

Since this makes any conversation with Jason one way and on his terms, I strongly suggest that people who comment here at DC ignore his one side demands for answers and not respond to any comments he makes.

Shalom,
Harry