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.
We don't know exactly what Mary's plans were --- that is, what was stated in her ketubah with Joseph --- but as a virtuous person she would not have intended to defraud him of his marital right. So it's a reasonable inference from evidence that they did not have the usual ketubah, and thus the usual obligation to have sex.
Judaism does not have a tradition of consecrated celibates, but we do know from Scripture (Luke 2:37) that the prophetess Anna never left the Temple, but prayed there night and day after she was widowed. Sometimes I wonder if Mary anticipated a similar celibate vocation (as virgin rather than widow) and thus realized that she was somehow similarly consecrated ---although she did not know beforehand that the reason was that she was to be the Mother of God.
In any case I cannot assume she would defraud Joseph of the marital union to which he would have otherwise had an honorable right. So I can only suppose that continence was a part of their ketubah, or at least was in some way agreed.
After all, if it were a common, ordinary marriage, it would have been a violation of fidelity on her part to have a baby by somebody else.
That’s interesting. Has Rush actually used the term “drive-by Catholicism”?
It is obvious this is an agenda hit piece. Little tired of freepers kidding about not reading the articles.
If you are only reading the headlines you are no better than a liberal...........................
We can't know people's hidden thoughts or the secret dispositions of their hearts, but we can now their public acts. Just for two examples: a person who wears an emblem of the LGBT movement is signaling public support for the sin of sodomy Another example: a person who gets a civil divorce and then contracts a second "marriage," is in a manifest, public, documented legal quasi-marital union based on adulterous relations.
In one of the few instances I ever heard of where Catholics were publicly denied Holy Communion and it was publicly made to stick, was in the case of something called the "Rainbow Sash Movement" Activists wore these sashes symbolizing their demand for "Gay Rights," and went into the Catholic Church (I think it was in Australia? Melbourne?) and presented themselves for Holy Communion They were turned away by the Archbishop and by every priest in his diocese.
Similarly, divorced/remarried Catholics (as their first marriages, not annulled, are presumed valid) are in public, manifest state of "marital" union with somebody who is not their spouse in the eyes of God. Therefore they are not to present themselves for the Most Blessed Sacrament unless they are abstaining from specifically adulterous acts, that is, if they are living in complete sexual continence "as brother and sister".
Selah ... Amen.
When you use the term 'mother of god' you imply, knowingly, a deceit which without explanation claims Mary to be equal or superior to GOD> I suspect the catholic mind desires to raise Mary to equal status with God, in a fashion similar to the Mormonism way of claiming Jesus is 'a' god and The Father Almighty is 'a' god, etc. And of course, your religion claims she can hear and assimilate millions of prayers each minute, then forward them on to her son, requiring him to then give prominence to those prayers forwarded since they arrive 'from the mother of god'.
BTW, it is obvious that your assertion contradicts itself: " but as a virtuous person she would not have intended to defraud him of his marital right; so it's a reasonable inference from evidence that they did not have the usual ketubah, and thus the usual obligation to have sex." You probably haven't a clue that your assertion actually impugns GOD for defrauding Joseph, but such is the catholic mind twisted.
“They were turned away by the Archbishop and by every priest in his diocese.” Doin’ right things ... they acted courageously by our debauched modern world’s view. But in reality they were being true to their vows. The Bible refers to such fidelity as ‘steadfast’ ...
It’s a sham. When I was growing up, you had to eat fish on Fridays. Now it is okay to eat meat. Kennedys use their money and influence to get priests to annul their marriages so that they could marry again in the church. Who are they fooling? Like just about anything else, the Catholic church is for sale to the highest bidder. Their strictures mean nothing and they are changing (or “evolving”) all the time to fit the social mores of the times.
1190 AD, the sale of ‘indulgences’ instituted by the Pope, to pay for the building projects in Rome.
Thank you Exactly.
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Therefore Mary is the Mother of God.
It only means that she gave birth to a Person, Jesus, who is God. That's as Biblical as you can get.
in fact, to the contrary, God has no source: He is *her* source: she is a creature and handmaid, He is Creator and Lord. Jesus the Eternal Word, existed from all eternity, co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit He did not come into existence when He was conceived or when He was born from the Virgin's womb.
When Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to Mary (Luke 1:43) "Who am I, that the mother of My Lord should come to me?" --- where was Our Lord? Our Eternal Lord and God Jesus was in womb of a this only-human girl from Galilee at that point in time, because she was His mother. Theotokos. She gave Him birth. She did not give Him "existence" --- He was pre-existent forever --- but she gave Him birth when "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us."
Please do not spout nonsense about Mary being a "goddess." This is blasphemy.
If the catholic claim of Mary's perpetual virginity is true she entered the marriage under false pretenses as outlined by the pope which would render their marriage null if we're understanding this claim.
He has not used that term. I’m appropriating it for purposes of illustration. Notice the poster has not responded to the simple question I asked.
If ebb tide does answer, please ping me. As a Catholic, I’m interested in how ebb would reply.
You continue to play word games; what does the word Mother mean to 99% of the world, especially the under educated world? Yeah, and that’s why the deceit is continuing to be perpetrated, to hook the unwary into attributing abilities to the Mother of Jesus that are goddess-like. And frankly, it is tiresome to see this same deception perpetrated almost daily at FR. Show me in the catholiciism catechism where the meaning as you have posted it in order to support the mother of god notion as something short of goddesshood can be found. I’ll read it ... and yes, the catholic deception is a blasphemy. Interesting that you can cite that yet continue to play this game over the powers of the Catholic Mary answering millions of prayers every hour, 24/7.
MOTHER: 1 a : a female parent
b : a woman in authority;
You and your catholic apologists use the term 'Mother of God' as a very deceptive technique and that is not silly. Maridolatry is at the heart of Catholicism and we see how it is continued. If catholic apologists were honest, they would see that using that phrase is deceiving the average person and drawing them into idolatry, for even you, MRS DON-o know it is blasphemy to raise the mother of Jesus beyond her true status as mother of the man Jesus, who also has the Spirit of God. Mary did not mother The Spirit of God, she mothered the child/boy Jesus, she mothered the physical being named Jeshua.
But catholic hierarchy was not content to have Mary merely a mother of a boy, they started early on to fabricate notions about the Mother of Jesus.
423 AD was a banner year for the inception of Maridolatry, 650 AD was another, instituting a feast in honor of 'the mother pf god; 1439 AD was an important year in the developing idolatry over Mary's powers, since it is the year Purgatory was declared real and Mary subsequently given power to shorten or eliminate a dead catholic's stay there by faithful adoration of Mary (the Rosary, Brown scalpulae anyone?).
In 1545 AD the 'Traditions' of catholic religion were given equal authority with The Word of God, scriptures, and in 1854 the Doctrine of Immaculate conception was formalized (some tradition that!); in 1950 AD the assumption of Mary's dead body was formalized by Rome, and since then the deceptive title of 'mother of god' has become a banner call to all who must follow the sacraments of Rome and rely on Mary as a mediatrix and co-redemptrix.
Yeah, Maridolatry is blasphemous.
We’d all like to know. So far a steadfast refusal to answer a question.....or any question. Hence the drive by observation.
And why couldn’t catholics eat meat on Fridays??
Beats the heck out of me. I grew up Baptist in a Catholic neighborhood and the school cafeterias only served fish sticks or pizza on Fridays because nobody else could eat meat. For whatever reason.
This is more of the made up rules in catholicism with no Scriptural support.
When we do fast, we are not to brag about it or do it to be seen by men.
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.