Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pope Francis says most marriages today are ‘invalid’. This is a disaster for the Catholic Church
The Spectator ^ | June 17, 2016 | Damian Thompson

Posted on 06/16/2016 9:22:17 PM PDT by ebb tide

Pope Francis, spiritual leader of a billion people, has just informed them that ‘the great majority’ of sacramental marriages are invalid because couples don’t go into them with the right intentions. He was speaking at a press conference in Rome. Here’s the context, from the Catholic News Agency (my emphases):

‘I heard a bishop say some months ago that he met a boy that had finished his university studies, and said “I want to become a priest, but only for 10 years”. It’s the culture of the provisional. And this happens everywhere, also in priestly life, in religious life,’ he said.

‘It’s provisional, and because of this the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null. Because they say “yes, for the rest of my life!” but they don’t know what they are saying. Because they have a different culture. They say it, they have good will, but they don’t know.’

Uh? You can read the full report here but you won’t be much the wiser. The Pope, thinking aloud in the manner of some maverick parish priest after a couple of glasses of wine at dinner, has just told millions of his flock that they are not really married.

Did he mean to say that? What does he really think? What authority do his words carry?

And why should Catholics even have to ask these questions? Francis’s off-the-cuff ramblings on matters of extreme pastoral sensitivity are wreaking havoc in the Catholic Church, as I’ve written here.

Ross Douthat of the New York Times has just tweeted this response:

Screen Shot 2016-06-16 at 23.54.41

I suspect that even the Pope’s most liberal admirers will have difficulty extricating him from this mess.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Moral Issues
KEYWORDS: francischurch
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 521-525 next last
To: imardmd1
perfect human never-dying DNA came from Jehovah Elohim Then how did He die? (And there is no one named "Jehovah Elohim.)
441 posted on 06/22/2016 1:08:20 PM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

All I’m saying is that the Incarnation was/is God the Son becoming fully human, experiencing all there was and is to being human. So what I’ve described was part of the Incarnation. What you’ve described is not. What you describe is God not becoming fully man, because what you describe is Jesus not participating in the full human experience. The full human experience is that we each recieve chromosomes from our mother and father equally.

That’s what I describe hence I describe the Incarnation. You do not believe He received any of His chromosomes from Mary hence you do not believe in the Incarnation because you believe there is a portion of humanity Jesus did not share with us. This is just a fact.

Believe what you want I don’t care. I don’t understand why you have to become insulting


442 posted on 06/22/2016 1:09:16 PM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

I will not respond to this post beyond what I’ve written here because it’s insulting trash.


443 posted on 06/22/2016 1:10:05 PM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven
He shared some genes with Mary, received some of His genes from Her, just as any other normal human child does. This is what the Incarnation claims, that He was JUST like us in EVERY way, except sin!

No. Where did Adam's DNA, his body with nostrils come from? It was immobile, non-functional, until Jehovah Elohim breathed into it and it became a soul with absolutely living eternal life imparted to it to give it motion and ability to communicate abstractly with Jehovah.

You need to take a break and chew on this for a while. Your thesis has no logical or Biblical foundation, whatever depraved fountain of human imaginations it came from.

444 posted on 06/22/2016 1:12:12 PM PDT by imardmd1 (The LORD says: "I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire" Is. 54:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1
The poster claims that Christ got no genetic material from Mary. Therefore, no human genetic material.

That is not at all what I said.

What else could you possibly mean by "surrogate mother"? A surrogate mother has no genetic link to the baby.

445 posted on 06/22/2016 1:16:29 PM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

He was unfallen man — if he had remained unfallen, he would not have died.


446 posted on 06/22/2016 1:20:13 PM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1
"All of Jesus body was prepared entirely by God alone as the source, Mary not participating, according to this passage."

I'm sure that if you look at the passage again, you will notice that it de not say anything about God preparing Christ's body "alone." In the sense of the initial Creation, God "alone" made "everything" --- ot just the body of Christ, but yours and mine as well --- .but in the sense of human generation, God's creativity works through true human parenthood.

If He had separately created Christ to be not part of the human race, the human family tree, then Christ would not have been the Son of David, the Son of Abraham, the Son of Man, and the whole architecture of redemption falls apart.

This is very similar to the Muslim doctrine on Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus Son of Mary) whom they recognize only as a great man but strictly a creature, cfreatred my God in Mary's womb just as He created Adam. Before this thread, I had never heard a self-identified Christian espouse this.

(I am assuming you call yourself a Christian. If not, then forgive my error and just ignore the above.)

Frankly, I'm through with this discussion. The drive to make Mary not even the mother of Jesus, renders a major portion of the OT pointless, and is in its inescapable logical corollaries both anti-Semitic (making Jesus a non-Jew and removing Him from the children of Israel) as well as anti-human removing Him from the children of men.

We're done. Finis. God bless you.

447 posted on 06/22/2016 1:27:29 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Lord have mercy (50x))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven

Amen.


448 posted on 06/22/2016 1:28:55 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Lord have mercy (50x))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: maryz
(And there is no one named "Jehovah Elohim.)

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils
the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (Gen. 2:7 AV).

*******

The translators have substituted "LORD" in the text for the transliterated YHVH, which is pronounced "Yehovah."

Strong's number H3068
יהוה

yehôvâh
Brown, Driver, Briggs Definition:
Jehovah = “the existing One”
1) the proper name of the one true God
. . 1a) unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of H136
Part of Speech: noun proper deity
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H1961

=====

"God" here is translated from the Hebrew "Elohim" the uniplural noun, suggesting that there is more that one manifestation of the Godhesd:

Strong's Number H430:
אלהים

'ĕlôhı̂ym
BDB Definition:
1) (plural)
. . 1a) rulers, judges
. . 1b) divine ones
. . 1c) angels

. . 1d) gods 2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)
. . 2a) god, goddess
. . 2b) godlike one
. . 2c) works or special possessions of God
. . 2d) the (true) God
. . 2e) God
Part of Speech: noun masculine plural
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: plural of H433

********

Jehovah Elohim = LORD God wherever you find it in the Authorized Version.

I'm not sure what else you're aiming at. Illuminate me.

449 posted on 06/22/2016 1:45:26 PM PDT by imardmd1 (The LORD says: "I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire" Is. 54:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven

Was Adam fully human?


450 posted on 06/22/2016 1:45:56 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Democrats bait then switch; their fishy voters buy it every time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven

No. I don’t think that’s a possibility.

Scripture tells us that Joseph didn’t know her until after Jesus was born. The Holy Spirit in Scripture goes on to identify by name, His brothers and refers to *all His sisters*, which implies more than two.

The only requirement concerning the virginity of Mary was that she be virgin when she conceived and gave birth. Whatever happened after that, is of no consequence.

Most of this supposition by Catholicism about Mary and Joseph and pledges of virginity, sexless marriage, etc, is ONLY to bolster their wish that Mary remained virgin for her entire life, as if there were something to brag about or made her more holy or special or some other nonsense.

Having sex with your legal husband is NOT wrong, it’s NOT a sin, it doesn’t make any woman any less virtuous than she already is.

Sex is a gift to mankind for marriage. It was GOD’S idea and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with Mary having it and maybe even enjoying it.


451 posted on 06/22/2016 1:46:05 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven; MHGinTN
Matthew 3:9 And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.

God didn't tell us HOW He did it. We don't NEED to know how He did it.

Catholicism puts God in its handy little box explaining how God does everything when there is NO basis for those claims.

It's not *logical* that God *must have* done it that way, therefore it had to have happened that way.

452 posted on 06/22/2016 1:52:49 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Gone out and gotten a new source for old straw? And you don’t even believe you’re tossing out insults when you insult someone by inferring they are espousing muslim doctrine. Haha! Wadda piece of work.


453 posted on 06/22/2016 1:54:32 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Democrats bait then switch; their fishy voters buy it every time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1
transliterated YHVH, which is pronounced "Yehovah."

No, it's not pronounced that way. That form comes from the consonants of the tetragrammaton vocalized in Hebrew bibles with the vowels of Adonai to remind the one reading aloud to read it as "Adonai" (in prayer -- in other contexts such as study one reads it as "ha-Shem") since it's forbidden (except in OT times once year by the High Priest) to pronounce the tetragrammaton.

454 posted on 06/22/2016 1:58:36 PM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies]

To: maryz
What else could you possibly mean by "surrogate mother"? A surrogate mother has no genetic link to the baby.

It most certainly does.

As now practiced, the surrogate host mother gestating the zygote of another man and woman has the same human DNA structure, and with the right immunosuppression cocktail, can quite nicely and profitable bring it to term.

Did the DNA of this baby come from the host mother's egg(s)? No. But the baby is definitelu going to be human, the child of the source parents.

That is, until we manage to gestate a monkey or rabbit in a human host mother, I guess (and hope not). You never know what genetic manipulation is going to lead to, these days, but some imaginative people have quite strange goals.

However, don't ever ignore the factors that the God of the Bible is considered omnipotent and omniscient, in processing your reckonings.

455 posted on 06/22/2016 2:00:04 PM PDT by imardmd1 (The LORD says: "I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire" Is. 54:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

It depends what is meant by “fully human” in your question.

If you are asking “Was Adam ‘fully human’ in the ontological sense”, then my answer is yes.

If you are asking “Did Adam experience all that we humans today experience” then no he did not.

Was Adam born via a womb? No. Was he ever a fertilized egg? No. Etc.


456 posted on 06/22/2016 2:01:17 PM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: maryz
No, it's not pronounced that way.

Again, unless you've done a study on this word yourself, you've come up with the wrong conclusion drom fragile arguments of unreliable mentors. You seem to just keep repeating the same pattern of speaking authoritatively on something you do not understand and cannot validate. do your own homework. this thrust is far away from the point in view, so let's stay there.

457 posted on 06/22/2016 2:06:25 PM PDT by imardmd1 (The LORD says: "I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire" Is. 54:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1

That’s not the same thing. I suspect you know it.


458 posted on 06/22/2016 2:06:53 PM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven

And now you might think of applying the same notions to the Advent of Jesus, God with us. If you are open to applying your won reasoning, you might find that Jesus can be fully human without ever being a ‘fertilized egg’ (more accurately a fertilized oocyte; humans are not reptiles or chickens). Without using a sex cell from Mary, Mary could be a surrogate for gestating and bearing Jesus, without violating her vows/betrothal to Joseph. Think about it ...


459 posted on 06/22/2016 2:06:55 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Democrats bait then switch; their fishy voters buy it every time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1
The Jews say it's not pronounced your way -- and it's their word.
460 posted on 06/22/2016 2:08:38 PM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 521-525 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson