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 wrestle not against flesh and blood.
If this has been going on for that long, there’s only one source for it.
(Ducking for cover - not from you)
Honestly, if the situation in the world is being set up for the end times, and I don’t know where you stand on that, then even if Trump is in office, we’re still in deep trouble.
There’s only one body of Christ and He is building it by adding members to it through the new birth, saved by faith.
Nowhere did Jesus ever given a denominational label to His body.
That’s claims made by men, each claiming to be the church He was talking about.
I don’t expect spiritual truths to make sense to you.
That's hysterical coming from someone who quotes the early church fathers.
And *mother of Jesus* is more accurate and lines up with how the Holy Spirit inspired Scripture.
The political sphere is pretty useless there but it helps if they acknowledge the only solution as well.
Thought I would mention the political option in the previous post though just to make certain people's heads pop a bit more than usual ;-)
LOL ... rascal.
Widely considered by whom? Heretics?
He’s right.Do you want me to donate to your site now or later runalong.
My site???
So how about your own marriage? Is it valid and how would you know? Is your spouse having doubts now?
Wow. What insight you bring.
It’s “new” and its “American”. What more can I say?
DR is the only translation to render the Greek this way.
The Greek for daily is ἐπιούσιον. It means for the morrow, necessary, sufficient.
Genesis 3:15
15I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. DR
DR is the only translation to render Genesis 3:15 this way.
Bad tanslation....bad theology.
What more can I say?
Uh. How about, can you say "SHE's the mother of my Lord"?
And after a suitable couple of seconds can you permit yourself to add, "And HE's God"?
Socialists have only one goal in mind-to unite the world for takeover. It the same in banking, industry, government, and (unfortunately) the church through world-wide ecumenism. It’s power that is craved and they’ll do it at the expense of doctrinal integrity.
While some will tout the early church displayed tendency of socialist behavior (having all things in common), this is a poor misreading of the scriptures. When the people of Israel asked for a king to rule them, God, through Samuel, told them of all the calamities that would happen to the people by appointing rulers over them. The people wanted it anyway.
When we replace God as our King with an earthly ruler, then we will find ourselves subject to slavery.
Less; of course; our own FR Catholics that would not follow this man ANYWHERE!
And this is WHY Jesus was NOT married:
There were NONE that could pass Mary's requirements!
Oy Vey!!
If Jesus was a doctor; maybe; but he's The SON of GOD!!!
The term "JAP" and the associated stereotype gained attention beginning in the 1970s with the publication of several non-fiction articles such as Barbara Meyer's Cosmopolitan article "Sex and the Jewish Girl" and the 1971 cover article in New York magazine by Julie Baumgold, "The Persistence of the Jewish Princess".[53] "JAP" jokes became prevalent in the late 1970s and early 1980s.[54][55] According to Riv-Ellen Prell, the JAP stereotype's rise to prominence in the 1970s resulted from pressures on the Jewish middle class to maintain a visibly affluent lifestyle as post-war affluence declined.[50][56] The concept was the butt of jokes and spoofed by many, including Jews.[57]
The stereotypical subject, as described in these sources, is over-indulged by her parents with attention and money, resulting in the princess having both unrealistic expectations and guilt, accompanied by skill in the manipulation of guilt in others, resulting in a deficient love life.[53] The stereotype has been described as "a sexually repressive, self-centered, materialistic and lazy female,"[58] who is "spoiled, overly-concerned with appearance, and indifferent to sex", the last being her most notable trait.[54][55]
You seem to be; shall we say; a wee bit judgmental.
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.