Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 10/19/2015 3:00:20 PM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: markomalley

Of course they didn’t. What a silly question.


2 posted on 10/19/2015 3:03:32 PM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard the Third: I'd like to drive away not only the Turks (moslims) but all my foes.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

**Like Thomas More and John the Baptist, Fisher was beheaded, and like them, he is called “saint.”**

Thank you Sts. Thomas More and John Fisher!


3 posted on 10/19/2015 3:24:33 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley
The idea that Catholics should be allowed to remarry and receive communion did not begin with the letter signed by Cardinal Kasper and other members of the German episcopate in 1993. Another country’s episcopate – England’s – pioneered this experiment in Christian doctrine nearly 500 years ago. At stake then was not just whether any Catholic could remarry, but whether the king could, since his wife had not borne him a son.

Oh for love of algore! People act like Henry VIII asking for an annulment was the first time it ever happened.

The Roman Catholic Church has a history of granting royal annulments on sometimes dubious legal grounds and they tend to be captious in their granting.

Let's consider what happened in 1152. Eleanor of Aquitaine and Poitou's marriage to Louis VII of France because she had given him two daughters and no heir.

The official reason was consanguinity which was the same grounds Henry VIII claimed.

She then, with the Catholic Church's blessing married Henry II who was every bit as closely related as she was to Louis.

Turned out it the problem was with the stallion not the mare as she went on to give sight children, five sons and three daughters and all of this was with the blessing of the Pope.

In 1499 Louis XII of France was granted an annulment on much shakier legal grounds with the goal of marrying another woman.

So while Henry VIII, nasty man that he was, makes a convenient whipping boy to act like what he did was unheard of is to ignore history.

Like it or not none of the grants or denials in any of these cases were based on any sort of firm Roman Catholic Church law but on the political leanings of the popes at the time.

4 posted on 10/19/2015 3:25:37 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Proud Infidel, Gun Nut, Religious Fanatic and Freedom Fiend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All
A Man for This Season, and All Seasons
St. Thomas More:"An Act of Parliament, directly oppugnant..." [Catholic Caucus]
Catholics Urged to Imitate St. Thomas More in Contraception Battle
St. Thomas More, Martyr, Remembered June 22
On the spot where Thomas More was condemned, a stirring defence of the faith (2 historic firsts)
Primacy of Truth over Power. St. Thomas More, Man for This Season

Thomas More for Our Season
Saint Thomas More, Patron of Lawyers and Jurists, Martyr
Dads: Men for All Seasons
( St.) THOMAS MORE AS STATESMAN: A BRIEF SKETCH
St. Thomas More: A Man for This Season
Life of Thomas More
St Thomas More
St. Thomas More and Modern Martyrdom
St. Thomas More Bearing Witness Long After His Death
Saint Thomas More,Martyr, Chancellor of England 1535

5 posted on 10/19/2015 3:29:01 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley
For example, should sacramental communion be allowed only for the once-remarried? What about people remarried twice, or three times?

Great question.

7 posted on 10/19/2015 3:46:41 PM PDT by BlessedBeGod (To restore all things in Christ. -- Pope St. Pius X /// Democrats are Cruz'n for a Bruisin' in 2016!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

If this heresy is allowed to happen, under the pretense of letting local bishops show “mercy”, it will be on Pope Francis and no one. Makes no mistake he’s the architect. He’s bound and determined to get his way, without actually changing doctrine. So he puts his liberal henchmen like Cupich and Kaspar in high level positions at the Synod, when both of them should be exiled to the furthest reaches of Siberia. They also want unrepentant, openly living in sin sodomites to receive communion, all in the name of “mercy”. Welcome to Francis World. Jesus weeps.


8 posted on 10/19/2015 3:49:25 PM PDT by NKP_Vet (In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle,stand like a rock ~ T, Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

`Saint’ More burned his share of `reformist heretics’ while he was chancellor.


9 posted on 10/19/2015 4:06:42 PM PDT by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

If a divorced person is remarried, he is committing adultery until he leaves his remarriage. If he does not, he is still committing adultery continuously by remaining in the state of continual desire for adultery. That being so, how can he receive communion in a state of sin? The whole question is ridiculous.

The bishops who postulated this cannot be thinking. The same is true in the case of homosexuality. If a man still considers to dabble in homosexual relationships, he continues to sin. There again, that person continues to live in sin and is not supposed to receive communion according to church rule.

Who even brought this up? Pope Francis? We have to look at both issues really hard. According to logic, both premises are ridiculous.


14 posted on 10/19/2015 4:36:07 PM PDT by maxwellsmart_agent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

bkmk


16 posted on 10/19/2015 4:52:56 PM PDT by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley
Last May, Cardinal Kasper claimed in an interview with Commonweal that we “can’t say whether it is ongoing adultery” when a repentant, divorced Christian nonetheless engages in “sexual relations” in a new union.

Jesus had no problems saying it was adultery. I love my church but I cannot agree that those divorced and remarried should be able to accept the sacraments.

18 posted on 10/19/2015 4:55:29 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley
Do the German bishops believe that Sts. Thomas More and John Fischer sacrificed their lives in vain?

Good question. What we've learned since then, watching the parade of human folly, is that they didn't sacrifice their lives in error, either.

Someone up-thread was trying to make hay out of the idea that, over the centuries, judgments of nullity were at times bent by political considerations. I wouldn't be surprised. Interesting for the historian or the novelist, but irrelevant here. In moral terms, Henry's case wasn't a close one. It was as cold-blooded and venal as it was logically ridiculous.

22 posted on 10/19/2015 5:10:07 PM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

As usual, there is a simple solution. German bishops have always chafed under Rome’s orthodoxy. Fine, let declare their heresy for all to hear. Then go their separate way. Catholicism has survived much worse and will survive this latest heresy.


32 posted on 10/19/2015 6:31:38 PM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners. And to the NSA trolls, FU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS3Ra0TayTs


54 posted on 10/20/2015 3:02:23 PM PDT by mware
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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