Posted on 06/16/2016 9:22:17 PM PDT by ebb tide
I am Catholic and I'm obviously not getting these memos.
Seriously has Satan taken over everything. Sure seem that way.
Pray to God - but lets keep rowing to shore.
Exactly right. Abject destruction of marriage in the guise of his year of mercy.
“Vatican whistle blower” and “Vatican dissident” are such tough life choices that even saints would avoid them.
I beg to differ.
bump
During the Great Western Schism in order to end it. The valid pope resigned voluntarily and the two false claimants were nudged aside by the Council of Constance in 1414 and then a new pope was elected in 1417 but not until one month after the death of the valid pope who had resigned, Pope Gregory XII.
The previous instance was the abdication in 1294 of Pope Saint Celestine V.
For the record, all the claimants to the papacy since 1958 have been invalid due to heresy.
Meant to reply to you in the following comment but I transposed the letters to your screen name. Regards!
http://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3441046/posts?page=46#46
The last Vatican dissident whom I know of was the late Father Malachi Martin. I suggest that such a sparse record tends to support my view that such a role is difficult and intimidating.
I don’t disagree that it is difficult and intimidating, but difficult and intimidating don’t typically deter saints.
Saints often battle with superiors and colleagues, but I am unable to name anyone whose sainthood was based on being a dissident in the Vatican and battling a wayward Pope.
Given Church history, that’s probably because it hasn’t been necessary. These unprecedented times require new kinds of saints.
But you’re right, there is no one at the Vatican who will step up to the plate. They are either complicit or weak.
Who saw the Godfather Part 3? Somebody made the pope a nice cup of tea.
Just laying the groundwork for more available Church Divorce
He is consistent, if not Scripturally correct. For as a SV site says,
68% of annulments today [dated] are granted because of "defective consent," which involves at least one of the parties not having sufficient knowledge or maturity to know what was involved in marriage. The ingenuity of judges in confidently asserting that such knowledge or maturity was lacking is amazing. Vasoli says that it is done by substituting "junk psychology" for sound psychology and psychiatry. (www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/28_Annulments.pdf)
Some of the conditions that can allow for annulment, from the Catholic Diocese of Arlington
And which means that multitudes of RCs are in invalid marriages, though such are considered valid until proven otherwise.
Among the signs that might indicate reasons to investigate for an annulment are:
marriage that excluded at the time of the wedding the right to children, or to a permanent marriage, or to an exclusive commitment.
In addition, there are youthful marriages;
marriages of very short duration;
marriages marked by serious emotional, physical, or substance abuse;
deviant sexual practices;
profound and consistent irresponsibility and lack of commitment;
conditional consent to a marriage;
fraud or deceit to elicit spousal consent;
serious mental illness; or a previous bond of marriage.
- www.arlingtondiocese.org/tribunal/faq.php#Grounds
Rome also considers entering marriage with the intention of never having children to be a "grave wrong and more than likely grounds for an annulment."[McLachlan, P. "Sacrament of Holy Matrimony." http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu164.htm] , while praying to a women who apparently went thru with a marriage intending to do just that,
► MATRIMONIAL CONSENT and annulment
Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:
1/ those who lack the sufficient use of reason;
2/ those who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted;
3/ those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychic nature [all are judgment calls which can see varying verdicts].
List of diriment impediments to marriage
Age.[6] If the man is under 16 years of age, or the woman is under 14 years of age, then their marriage is invalid. This is an ecclesiastical impediment, and so does not apply to a marriage between two non-Catholics. However, note that in a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, the age limitation applies to the non-Catholic party as well.[7]
Physical capacity for consummation lacking [15]. Per Canon 1084 §3 "Without prejudice to the provisions of Canon 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage." Both parties, however, must be physically capable of completed vaginal intercourse, wherein the man ejaculates "true semen" into the woman's vagina. (See [1] for details.)
To invalidate a marriage, the impotence must be perpetual (i.e., incurable) and antecedent to the marriage. The impotence can either be absolute or relative. This impediment is generally considered to derive from divine natural law, and so cannot be dispensed.[16] The reason behind this impediment is explained in the Summa Theologica:[17]
“In marriage there is a contract whereby one is bound to pay the other the marital debt: wherefore just as in other contracts, the bond is unfitting if a person bind himself to what he cannot give or do, so the marriage contract is unfitting, if it be made by one who cannot pay the marital debt.”
Previous marriage [18]. Previous marriages, whether conducted in the Catholic Church, in another church, or by the State. All previous attempts at marriage by both parties wishing to marry must be declared null prior to a wedding in the Catholic Church, without regard to the religion of the party previously married. Divine, absolute, temporary.
Disparity of cult [19]. A marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptized person is invalid, unless this impediment is dispensed by the local ordinary. Ecclesiastical, relative.
Sacred orders [20]. One of the parties has received sacred orders. Ecclesiastical, absolute, permanent (unless dispensed by the Apostolic See).
Perpetual vow of chastity [21]. One of the parties has made a public perpetual vow of chastity. Ecclesiastical, absolute, permanent (unless dispensed by the Apostolic See).
Abduction [22]. One of the parties, usually the woman, has been abducted with the view of contracting marriage.
Ecclesiastical,[citation needed] temporary.
Crimen [23]. One or both of the parties has brought about the death of a spouse with the view of entering marriage with each other. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent (unless dispensed by the Apostolic See).
Consanguinity [24]. The parties are closely related by blood.
Ecclesiastical or divine, depending on the degree of relationship. Relative, permanent.
Affinity [25]. The parties are related by marriage in a prohibited degree. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent.
Public propriety [26]. The parties are "related" by notorious concubinage. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent.
Adoption [27]. The parties are related by adoption. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent.
Spiritual relationship [28]. One of the parties is the godparent of the other. This no longer applies in the Latin Rite, but still applies in the Eastern Catholic Churches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_impediment#List_of_diriment_impediments_to_marriage
. Wide interpretive provisions allow for saying the marriage never existed, and can see varying verdicts.
And then there is Pauline Privilege, according to http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7272,
Pauline Privilege is the dissolution of a purely natural (not sacramental) marriage which had been contracted between two non-Christians, one of whom has since become a Christian. But if a Catholic marries an unbaptized;/non-Christian person is not a sacrament. The church says (based on a passage in Paul) that such a marriage can be dissolved for a grave reason, like if the unbaptized party makes it impossible for the Catholic to practice his faith.
The Pauline Privilege does not apply when a Christian has married a non-Christian. In those cases, a natural marriage exists and can be dissolved for a just cause, but by what is called the Petrine Privilege rather than by the Pauline Privilege. The Petrine Privilege is so-named because it is reserved to the Holy See, so only Rome can grant the Petrine Privilege.
Though i am hesitant to utterly disallow any extreme circumstances as possibly allowing grounds for annulment, yet in the Bible, marriage as a commitment and social contract was generally understood, and once a wife was taken — even foreign wives, or unlikely consensual, or even instead of being the one contracted for, etc. — and the marriage was consummated, then such were considered to be married, and in no place are consummated marriages “annulled,” meaning they did not exist. Even concubines were wives. (Gn. 25:1; cf. 1Ch. 1:32; Gn. 30:4; cf. Gn. 35:22; 2Sam. 16:21, 22, cf. 2Sam. 20:3)
God is rather clear on divorce. Divorce is only a measuring tool of our condition of obedience to God. The greater our divorce rate, the higher is our rebellion to God.
Of course it speaks of Catholicism, for "the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." (VEHEMENTER NOS)
For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty.
Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. - CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii.html
To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor...
Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed. On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. - Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=403215&language=en
I wonder just how many Catholics that really ever occurs to?
Annulment is just church sanctioned divorce. Repackaged and relabeled but breaking of marriage vows is breaking marriage vows.
And I don't find one, single, place in Scripture where God ever refers to a marriage as not being valid for some reason or other, especially the reasons listed by the Catholic church.
So it looks like lots of Catholics, then, are living in sin and receiving communion in a state of mortal sin.
Then why is he still in office?
Why doesn't the leadership of the Catholic church do something about him instead of letting it continue?
That would make sense since SOMEONE elected him to the position.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.