Posted on 03/04/2015 9:35:19 AM PST by marshmallow
Recently, Cardinal Burke stated that, if Pope Francis were to endorse a position on marriage and sexuality that were contrary to the tradition of the Church, that he would be obliged to “resist” the pontiff. Although the cardinal clarified that he was speaking of a purely hypothetical situation, he hit upon a nerve that gets struck from time to time among Catholics—in instant messages, in passing, on Facebook, though almost never in print—“What if?” What if Cardinal Kasper’s ideology takes over the upcoming Ordinary Synod on Marriage and the Family? What if the behind-the-scenes machinations of his supporters ultimately win the day? What if the pope lets civilly divorced and remarried Catholics receive communion?
Fr. James Schall identified the dilemma last year, when he pointed out that the elephant in the room is the question of heresy. If Church discipline of excluding Catholics who have obtained a civil divorce and remarriage from Communion is based on infallible Church doctrine about sin and repentance, and if the pope tries to change that discipline, wouldn’t that make the pope a heretic concerning that doctrine?
In the finest tradition of Jesuit discourse, Fr. Schall insisted that we talk about the elephant rather than staring at it. I agree because I know that God is not going to let us down, and neither is Pope Francis.
What is a heretic?
In order to even talk about the elephant, we have to identify it. A “heretic” is someone guilty of a heresy. According to the Catechism, “heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.” A heretic differs from an “apostate,” who is guilty of “apostasy” (the total repudiation of the.....
(Excerpt) Read more at crisismagazine.com ...
I believe the anti-Christ is the Iranian woman pulling all the strings behind the figure-head Indonesian-raised Muslim currently living in the USA courtesy of a fraudulent Hawai'ian birth certificate.
Obama doesn’t have the “spiritual leader” label and it will be a spiritual battle that will be fought. Also he just isn’t that smart. Evil? maybe. Smart, no. He is an agent that will help usher in the One World Government same as the Clintons, but not the main character. IMHO YMMV
Ooh, name names. I haven't considered a woman for the A-C position.
If there was ever a thread that should have had a caucus tag put on it, this was it.
In the mean time if you are looking something like the RC perspective, selling annulments so people are free to remarry, you won't find that in Geneva. I understand that is quite the cash cow for Rome BTW.
And that's all you have to contribute?
Yes. And if he is, he should resign.
Children of a “natural” marriage are always legitimate. Children whose parents’ marriage is annulled are always legitimate.
I child is considered illegitimate if the mother and father aren’t married, at least civilly.
You can click on the footnotes to see the Bible proof texts in the bottom window of the page:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XXIV.html
Most Presbyterian denominations, especially the big ones, no longer subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith 1646, but they should.
The solidly Reformed denominations that still hold to the WCF 1646 hold that the Biblical reasons for divorce are the same as the Bible says, adultery, or desertion as can not be remedied by the either the Church or Civil Courts, and that they ARE Biblically just causes for divorce.
The innocent party remains within the Church, the offending party would obviously be subject to Church discipline.
Known adulterers or those who abandon their families are to be cast out from the congration, thus “turning them over to God”, as if they were dead. Thus the innocent party would then normally remarry, the same as if their spouse had physically died, since the normal Biblical pattern for Christians is to marry and raise children. Of course, if an innocent spouse is on the older side and already has children, they frequently may choose to not marry again, which is certainly Biblically acceptable as long as they can refrain from lust and fornication and other related sinful behaviors of the wordly that the Bible tells us to refrain from.
If the guilty party then subsequently REPENTS (which would include turning away from the sin of adultery or abandonment as the case may be), Lord willing they will find a solidly Reformed congregation where they can enter into fellowship.
Any solidly Reformed church they approach will of course use due diligence in determining if the person truly has repented before admitting them as a member; lying, of course, would signify a lack of repentance.
Is Barry a queer muslim?
Bump
“And that’s all you have to contribute? “
Yes.
The article is obviously one by a Catholic and addressed to fellow Catholics, of whom I am not one. It deals with an internal debate over points of Catholic belief and doctrine. My opinion as a non-Catholic would be at best, superfluous, and at worst, trolling.
The Borja Popes were awful and were depicted in art as floating in the lake of fire! A bad pope can be judged by a just God and suffer like any other sinner. Your fancy hat and ring will not get you out of Hell’s fire. There was only ONE perfect human—and we nailed him to a cross in our foolishness.
The pope? Just a man.
An annulment is a finding and declaration by a Church tribunal that an attempted marriage never met canonical requirements: the vow was defecting ("null") from the git-go. It is based on a this-worldly investigation and judicial judgment of "no bond."
Not even the King of England could buy an annulment. The best he could do, alas, was to charge the Archbishop with treason and kill his exes.
An indulgence is a remission of temporal punishment due to already-confessed, forgiven sins. There is no investigation, no tribunal, no judgment made. It is a person already in a state of grace, making restitution for a wrong done in the past. It is other-worldly in the sense that if you don't make reparation for the harm you did, here, you'll be obliged to get things squared away in the hereafter.
I's true that Popes Leo X and Julius II sold indulgences, employing such enterprising agents as Johannes Tetzel; however, that's acknowledged to be an abuse and a serious sin (simony) and the three of them may be frying in hell for it, for all we know, right next to Simon Magus.
Conceptuallly, in a Venn diagram, these things don't overlap.
If I, a recovering moron, have understood you correctly!!
:o/
The parents may have had an illegitimate marriage, but there are no illegitimate children. Not in Canon Law.
Thank you for your courtesy and good sense, NRx, which I pray will be more widely imitated.
Protestants are the ones that pushed for one-year no-fault divorces, which basically destroyed any commitment to a marriage they entered into. Not Catholics, protestants. Let me make that perfectly clear.
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.