Tags
Catholic Church, Catholicism, Christianity, Jesus, love, sin
It will suprise no one that I am strongly in favour of what the Pope has recently had to say on the subject of the pastoral care of divorced Catholics. I am one myself, and the current system took a very long time to come to the conclusion which was obvious four years earlier. The idea that it is up to the Bishop, as the successor of the Apostles, to decide such matters in accordance with the laws of the Church, seems wise, sensible and a welcome reinforcement that it is the indvidual bishop, not some conference of them, who exercises the authority to bind and loose. Those whose vivid imaginations had imagined a liberal Pope capitualting to the demands of cardinal Kasper in such matters can calm down. If the repentant sinner cannot find redemption in Christ, whence can he or she find it? For anyone who appreciates the real presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist, the denial of it is torture; indeed, the more so as it denies him, or her, access to the healing which comes from communion with the Lord’s body and blood. It is an unspeakable mercy, it is a blessed balm for what ails us. To be denied it because one is unrepentant is one thing, to be denied it when one is repentant, is another. To be told that true repentance might include ending a marriage concluded outside the Church – with all the personal damage that will impose on others, would be monstrous. This is what mercy is for, and it is mercy that the Church shows here.
It is easy enough for those in a country where the existing tribunals work fairly promptly and efficiently – or at least exist and ought to – to forget about the vast swathes of the Catholic world where none of these things is true – where there are no tribunals and no access to their services. The Holy Father has not forgotten his children in such places. It is clear from the language he, himself, has employed, that he is very mindful of the need not to diminish the significance of the sacrament of marriage, but in acting as he is, he is not doing that; he is exercising the prerogative of mercy. There is no blanket pardon or exemption. it will still be necessary to present a case to the bishop, and he will always have the opinion of not accepting it; repentance and amendment of life are necessary still – as they are always to all of us. We are not rigorists – it is not the case that if we fall away we cannot get up; neither is it the case, as some seem to want, that one can only get up with huge mortification of the flesh and spirit; it is not given to us all to be the stuff of martyrs, and the Church has never demanded that of her children.
As the Pope recently reminded us – ‘if you cannot forgive, you are not a Christian.’ Some seem to think that it is easy to ask for forgiveness, or that the receiving of it should be made hard. But that was not Christ’s way – he asked only for repentance and the attempt to amend life. He did not insist on prolonged and painful penance. As anyone who has sincerely repented of their sins knows, one’s conscience can exact that any way. No, the Church offers what Christ offered to us all. We are, all of us, sinners, we are, none of us, worthy of the sacrifice Christ made for us – but, and what a marvel it is – we are offered forgiveness if we repent. That is the Church, that is Christ, that is the miracle of faith.
You make it sound as if until Pope Francis the Church has never offered forgiveness for sin. You also fail to mention that in order to be forgiven that one must stop committing the sin; in this instance to live as brother and sister in an irregular marriage. You cannot simply slough off what was condemned by Jesus Himself and disguise the whole thing under the banner of ‘mercy.’ Cardinal Kasper was interviewed by Arroyo some monthts back; If you haven’t watched these already, I would commend them to you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Is this not, though, to strain the quality of mercy until it becomes a set of rules? Christ sets one condition for our salvation, yet we have a whole set for something rather less important than that?
No one is sloughing off what Jesus said, but the Church is trying to find a solution to a major pastoral problem.
It sounds simple to say that people must live together as brother and sister, but life simply isn’t that simple. Where, for example, a couple who were not Catholic but are married, and one of whom comes into the Church, going for your option might put an intolerable strain on that marriage and damage children of it. If that is what one thinks Christ wanted, I suspect it isn’t.
The new proposals will allow Bishops to make a decision. I think Amercicans may have little idea of how hard it is to even get access to a tribunal in many parts of the world. In my own case it took the relevant person a year to even respond – because the pressure of business was so great. It took another five for anything to happen. Mercy? I think not. Bureaucratic ineptitude, certainly, and in ordinary life, one would have sued the idiots for incompetence.
LikeLike
Is this a bishops decision that includes nullity? If not, there is no cessation of the irregularity of the marriage situation. You make superlative claims to the reception of communion and yet those who choose sexual relations during this time of irregualrity whilst awaiting the decision of nullity are making a choice. We life by our choices. Each will have to decide if they consider the sexual relationship more important than the communion of the sacrament. If it takes 3 years, it takes 3 years. What is the freewill decision the people make: all choices have consequence. Each will choose according to their preference.
As to the children, you make it sound like the only people hurt are those in the new marriage and not the children of the broken valid marrige that failed. What about their rights? It is known to all Catholics that sin is not only against God but that our sin effects the innocent as well; another reason why Confession is both a confession to God and and confession to the community and the harm that is done to others. Both components, just as the spritual and the criminal or justice aspect must be settled. Nullity of the first marriage is necessary for Christ did not give us a ‘get out of jail free card’ – He laid down a maxim. The Church always understood this and has practiced it for time immemorial. That you are unhappy with the situration does not invalidate the sensibleness of the Church teaching. These things are obviously comlicated and I see no reason to abandon the first wife and children and to foster a non-chalant attitude toward marriage where one enters into the sacrament of marriage, knowing that the answer is now simple; if it doesn’t work there is always divorce to settle the issue and that the Church should respect this and deny the absolute words of Christ. We either protect the age old belief in the indissolubility of a valid sacramental marriage or we do not.
Besides, do you think the Bishop can handle the number of these cases by himself or is he to leave it to his priest who are not trained in ecclesial law? This cheapens the vows and makes of marriage one that is valid until one decides that they tire of their marriages. If the benefits are as robust and necessary and beyond natural gifts, the people involved need make a ‘choice’ and live within the confines of that choice until a decree of nullity is finalized. The Church does not create these problems, sinful or unprepared persons create the problem and yes, many innocent people suffer from these mistakes. I can get pardoned from stealing from a store but what about the victims and their suffering and loss? This is not compassion . . . to sweep the teachings of Christ under the rug. Yes, maybe we can hire more people and speed the process somewhat but outside of that there is little the Church can do. If they sepearate practice from teaching and the practice does not derive from the teaching then marriage becomes a sham.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anything which allows (as the proposals would) a Bishop to decide whether a prior marriage was valid is surely to be welcomed?
The claims I make for communion are simply those the Church makes. As my piece says, those who receive whilst in a state of sin do so to their own condemnation. I should have thought it a good thing to try to reduce as much as possible, the time someone was denied access to the Sacraments. My own five years were very hard; I bore them, but would understand someone who couldn’t. You seem to assume 3 years is some sort of norm – that may be in the USA, it isn’t here or many other places.
I’m not sure who is advocating a ‘get out of jail free’ line? Kasper is clearly not, and I cannot see where others are doing that.
I am afraid I disagree on the responsibility of the Church. In my experience it is useless at preparing people for marriage. If someone embarking on a career in montain climbing was prepared as badly for that as the Church prepares most of those going into marriage, the death toll would be dreadful. The Church has a responsibility to prepare people for marriage, and to deal with breakdowns in a responsible and timely manner. Justice delayed is justice denied.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then by all means make your push for better marriage preparation as I totally agree that it is abominable, but leave the sacrament of marriage alone and the necessity of sacramental nullity intact. We cannot do anything else . . . we are sworn to pass on the teachings of Christ and our new idea that mercy trumps Christ’s word is not mercy it is a rejection of Christ.
What bishop do you know that has so few of these cases that he can look into every single one of these. We are to get rid of the tribunals altogether then? If your diocese or others take up to 5 years then that is an area that needs be looked into. More money and resources for dealing with the number of cases that occur each year may demand that. This is nother way to try to expedite the ‘wait time’ while undergoing the process. For me, I would have taken the celibate route and received the sacrament as it only makes the new status of being in a ‘regular, sacramental marriage’ that more joyous and meaningful. But that is me. If people can’t do it then that is their personal choice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is anyone proposing otherwise? Nothing Kasper is saying threatens the idea of sacramental marriage. He says there will need to be a decree of nullity. Who is saying there needs be no such thing?
I am afraid I am something of a rigorist, and so abstained both from communion and the other thing. It did not seem right to me not to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are a rigorist as there is nothing Catholic Teaching to have prevented you from reception during that period of celibacy.
Yes, Kasper is threatening the idea of scramental marriage though he says not. He is creating a gateway (like a gateway drug) to diminish the teaching of Christ. Do we simply hand out nullity papers to anyone who wants them? That will be next and we both know that if left to parish priests by their Bishop to do this and cut the tme . . . many abuses will occur and our faith will be dumbed down another notch.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I know myself, and for me it was necessary.
I simply do not see this ‘gateway’ though I see your fear of it. I cannot see where he is saying, or indeed anyone else is, that we should hand out nullity papers willy-nilly.
If we cannot trust our priests and bishops, then who can we?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I will, when they are consistently teaching the same doctrine as the Church and not divided amongst themselves. As to who else we can trust; try Jesus and His infallible words.
LikeLiked by 2 people
His infallible words are to be read in the light of the Church, not one;s onw view of what they ought to mean. Down that ‘this is what Christ said’ route lies Boscoism 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
His words there were about as clear as His words of institution of the Eucharist or His words to Peter when He established the Church. We cannot change these . . . we were commissioned to keep these teachings and pass them on throughout the generations of Christians.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No one is, and despite you saying they are, you have adduced no evidence of Kasper, or anyone else saying that a valid sacramental marriage can be dissolved.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Only that he wants to allow those who are still in a sacramental marriage to recieve communion: he equates this with spiritual communion . . . which is sheer lunacy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My reading of it was that he wanted only those whose marriages were declared null – but perhaps I was wrong?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is hard to tell when you read the earlier translations of what he presented to the preliminary synod and look at some of his interviews concerning this. It appears he is a true protege of Hans Kung and about as good a politician as his master as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The ones I have seen do not suggest he is advocating communion for the divorced.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then why the controversy that has bishop against bishop?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because some are shroud waving. They want to keep the existing system, despite its failures, and are playing politics – you can always tell that when someone starts throwing the word liberal about 🙂
LikeLike
You’ve chosen your theologian to follow and I can do nothing about that. Let me only say that I am more confident in the traditional bishops who continue to teach what the Church has been teaching all along.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Which seems to have been that if you were powerful and ricj enough to influence the Pope you could get an annulment. If only Charleas V had not been Catherine of Aragon’s uncles and occupying Rome at the time, henry would have got his annulment as surely as every other monarch of that period who asked for one. I’m not sure that was a better system for most people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That sin exists within our Church in high places is scandalous but it has always been so. It still doesn’t make it right and the abuse of the system is no reason to change the system . . . for the new system will be corrupted by sin as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That the system has broken down or does not exist in many places is the reason.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The system didn’t break down . . . progressive and modernist priests have destroyed its effectiveness.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I suspect it was wider societal pressures that did that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aye, but it takes a willing heart to let the secular world into the Church and their teaching
LikeLiked by 1 person
With so many not in the Church, and the Church not bothering about evangelisation, who can be surprised?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You mean to tell me that the New Evangelizaation is not producing copious fruit? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, but we are having a good argument over the family, whilst in real life it disintegrates.
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙂 Indeed we are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, but where else is there to go? For only You have the words of eternal life?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think Geoffrey and others here would think they worship that same Jesus.
LikeLike
Worshipping God isn’t all it takes to get to Heaven. There a whole lot of other stuff. Take up your Cross and learn from me for I am meek and humble of heart. With God is a whole lot easier than without God. Doing what God wills is what gets one to Heaven, not just thinking one is compliant enough. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Or like my dad used to tell me, “If everyone in the neighborhood jumped off the Burlington-Bristol Bridge, would you follow?” Broad is the highway that leads to perdition and many are on it. I prefer the narrow gate. Few enter. Hope ya make it. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
My suffering is fine, others suffering is not. You cannot offer up the pain of others.
LikeLike
That may be what God tells you. You may end up surprised when his mercy is greater than your capacity to grasp it.
LikeLike
Broken or not, it still gets ya to Heaven on time and in fine shape.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let us have faith, hope and love for such a fine outcome.
LikeLike
Chalcedon, if riches and power could be a guarantee of an annulment, there’d be no such thing as an Anglican Church for the King would’ve been given his annulment and wouldn’t have had to off his wives. DUH. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Not true I’m afraid. Charles V, uncle of Catherine of Aragon, was occupying Rome with his army at the time. Any other time, Henry would have got his annulment – that was why he was so cross.
LikeLike
I’ve said this before elsewhere Dave, but I will repeat myself. There are priests who absolve from the sin of divorce and remarriage regularly in the Confessional now. They really cannot do this, but they do. They tell the parties that they’ve demonstrated sufficient sorrow over their sad state in life to be absolved and no annulment is necessary, so they never try for one and receive the Eucharist and love their priests for saving them all kinds of money and paperwork and all that jazz. They are truly sorry and that is all that counts. They get absolved. The rubber hits the road and the Church needs to be more merciful.
*** Check out Burke’s latest talk at Steubenville. He clearly exposes all this phoney mercy for what is really is: a lie that causes sacrilege upon sacrilege and does no one any good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7jxS5-wJ8c
The priests who do these things were looking to the Synod for help and persons like Kasper are their hope. He wants what they’ve been doing in the Confessional to be legitimized. It cannot be. Yet he has proposed it and thinks that because none of those who’ve been doing this unthinkable crime didn’t get struck by lightning after doing so have been doing so for years, it is okay to do. Those who are faithful among the Bishops are naturally and rightfully outraged. That is what is pitting Bishop against Bishop. Don’t worry though. This is nothing new. We’ve had them fighting before and we will have them fighting again. I’m actually thankful they’re starting to blow the dust off their boxing gloves and are getting warmed up for a few rounds in the ring. I hope they get used to it cause I’m tired of all the heresy in our Church and they only way to get rid of it is to take it on.
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed so Ginny . . . Burke is a true warrior thank God. As Fr. Amorth said today more Catholics are getting into heaven by invincible ignorance than any other method. This is simply one more area where that seems to be in play.
LikeLiked by 1 person
P.S. The link I gave you to the Cardinal’s speech at Steubenville doesn’t begin till over ten minutes into the video! Ooooopppps. Please listen to it. Just fast forward to the ten minute mark. It is very important. You’ll be listening to a Saint when you listen to the Cardinal. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rorate had a link to it as well. Did you see the videos they had with Schneider, Burke and others recently? It is quite good.
LikeLike
No, I haven’t and I probably won’t have much time to look at them today. But do give a link, can you? God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, this is welll worth a look:
LikeLike
Dave, you forgot the link………………………….hello?
LikeLike
oooopps my mistake. The links don’t show in my email but they are here at the site. Sorry Dave!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not interested in any FitBit wrist bands. Do you own stock perhaps? LOL. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave there are some really nice interviews with Schneider at Church Militant. I think you have to be a Premium Member to watch the long versions though. Mr. Voris got to interview him privately and he asked about all this stuff. It was very good. It would be worth your while to watch them too. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Ginny, I’ll see if I can find them.
LikeLike
Sorry, lets try this link, I don’t have any clue why that cam up:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let’s also put it this way: where did all this controversy come from? Was it not begun by Kasper at the pre-synod? Why the book by 11 Cardinals and the talks by the likes of Athanasius Schneider and Cardinal Burke? If Kasper is speaking in a pure Catholic sense then these men have also read him and understood him wrong and there should be a quick reconcilliation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No, it began, surely, with the catastrophic pastoral situation, to which Kasper, like others, wants to find a solution. I am not hearing what the solution is from those quick to criticise Kasper. What is their suggestion? We continue the current mess?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Their solution is what has been the teaching from the beginning though they are certainly open to putting more resources to bear on the situation to shorten the time required.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And given their utter failure on the abuse question, which has bankrupted so many dioceses, where, precisely is this money coming from, and where are the canon lawyers queing up for the jobs?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is the synod over yet? If the good bishops succeed we shall soon see their suggestions for the changes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, whilst they’ve made a lot of noise about what they don’t want, I’ve seen not a peep about what they propose to do to improve things. As so often, they are fertile in objections and sterile in suggestions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We are not supposed to hear such things. All we know is that German’s are ready to do their own thing regardless and go into schism and the more orthodox bishops are wanting to preserve our traditions.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, that’s what some newspapers say, but then I’m not sure I believe them! I still can’t find what the opponents of reform want to do to sort out the problems. Perhaps some think they don’t exist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I haven’t heard a single orthodox bishop say that there are not things that could help the process. What I have heard them say is that a process is necessary to annul a marriage to the best of their understanding.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Which is just what Kasper says in the links you provided – hence my puzzlement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess you are not hearing the same Kasper I am hearing? I see a polished Romanesque Politician maneuvering . . . very reminescent of old Hans.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I listened to what he said rather than what he looked like 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
That seems equivalent to me. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave, it is a sad natural outcome of the sins they’ve already committed. Man takes the sin and then the sin takes the man. Those who’ve been absolving the sin of divorce and remarriage in the Confessional are only going where that type of sin leads – out of the Church. They don’t believe what the Church teaches regarding divorce and remarriage or they wouldn’t absolve it away under false pretenses and as if they can. They are more deceived than the poor sinners who trust them with such matters. Yet the Holy Spirit who is the Author of all the laws governing the Church pulls at their hearts. They refuse to hear that still small voice and instead follow where those kinds of sins lead: refutation of much to the Church’s teaching. They’ve pulled the wool over their own eyes and cannot see where they went wrong and instead think the Church is the blind one, refusing mercy where they saw fit to give it. This is the real kernel of the nut. The burr under their saddles and their horse is bucking and kicking. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very true, my friend. Before I was married some Fr. who wanted to be called by his first name, said I could receive the Blessed Sacrament. Such abuse . . . it is rampant.
LikeLike
Chalcedon, I have to tell you a little something you probably don’t know, but here goes. A long time ago when the Church was first approached about the ordination of women, the Church refused as she should and so the retaliation that was decided upon by those in favor of women’s ordination was to simply stop teaching what the Church teaches. They knew what would happen in a short time: ignorance and a sharp decline in numbers of faithful. People would be left on their own for learning the faith as they were fed wacky theology in classes instead of solid catechesis. Well, the proof of this being true is in the pudding we are all getting pretty sick of eating these days. Massive ignorance among most Catholics. Seeing is believing. They got very even with us didn’t they? God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed – and I have a piece coming up in the British Catholic Herald in a few weeks on this!
LikeLike
Oh yippie! Send me an email link to the article if I can have one. I’ll email you a wooden nickel for it! I’d love to read it. What did you find out? Anything to rival Michael Voris and his gang? God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Come on, Dave. Whats a little heresy between friends? Don’t ya want to join the Cardinal in his final destination and reward for his spin doctoring to all things Catholic? You could have a little fun now and relax!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Ginnyfree, I’ve missed you here. Yes, life could be beautiful if we just embrace the love and the automatic mercy and walk around free as a bird. No penance due to sin, no consequences to yourself and others (even the innocents) and nothing to really atone for. I guess David and Bathsheba should never have been visited with consequences for their sins . . . and especially their innocent offspring.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Except nowhere have I, or as far as I can see, anyone else said anything about no repentance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Repentence is one thing but the consequene of the sin and the just punishment of God by letting those consequences occur has not been treated fairly. Sin sets its own course and the innocent get punished with the guilty often. It is a plain sign to all who have eyes that sin is to be avoided at all costs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This does not appear to be working. I am unsure of the morality of the notion that hurting the innocent is God’s way of warning us of sin. It seems pretty abhorrent. Would you hurt someone because of the sin of their father? I wouldn’t, and I’m not sure God would.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How many examples do you want me to provide from scripture, C? Why did Christ’s Apostles have to die and drink from the same chalice as He? I don’t know the full redemptive value of suffering but God knows. I also know that the innocent suffer in this life and that God can bring good from their suffering. It is our clear teaching that affirms this as well.
LikeLike
Not all, as Jesus reminds us, are called to be martyrs. If no earthly father would feed his children stones, why suppose our heavenly one chooses to?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because he doesn’t. His point was that we get what is best for us in the given situation and if you had the faith to accept Divine Providence you might just end up as a Canonized Saint. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh, I accepted and accept it, and if I were the only one to have suffered, I should have been happy thrice over. It is the hurt to those I love which is hardest to bear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course. And perhaps it is your own suffering for this which is the real test as it might not be such a scar on the others that you perceive it to be. Just saying . . . we have our own way of assimilating these things. Has God helped those confronted with these issues to look into their own hearts and reaped fruit from the evil? My guess is yes but you may doubt it and/or deny it. We shall find out if we make it to the Heavenaly Banquet.
LikeLiked by 2 people
My sufferings I brought on myself, and I have always attempted to mitigate the damage done to others by them. In this case, I put them through more suffering, and from their point of view, just for my own needs. No doubt one day I shall discover what it was for, but for now, it just seems to have reopened old wounds and made some people I love unhappy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave is right though Chacedon. No suffering is wasted when united to the Cross. It is a mighty part of the Economy of Salvation. Pain often brings people to their knees. Once there, they often find God waiting with open and loving arms. A bowed head cannot get a stiff neck. You can quote me on that. god bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s fine for me – not so much for others, and at least one of those now has no belief in God at all.
LikeLike
I understand my friend and I have a few serious problems myself that continue to haunt me and will until the day I die. But I have faith and hope that the All Good God knows what He is doing and that it all comes out for the better.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And so, my friend, must we all, so must we all 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed so, C. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is a Crucifix, not a Church picnic. All suffering is redemptive when united with the Cross. Take up your cross and follow me. Or if you prefer chicken barbecue and potato salad……………………………….Good luck with that. I’ll stay under the shadow of the Cross. It may not be easy, but the afterlife benefits are outta this world! God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s fine, but I lack the selfishness that says it is fine others should suffer so I am redeemed.
LikeLike
Why are you angry? Is it fair that what you did caused others to suffer? Whose fault is that? God’s? The Church’s? Neither is the right answer. By His stripes we are healed. Sounds like the we part could be also those others in your life who have been injured by sin. That is why some sins are so grave. They keep on causing pain and sorrow long after the sin has been committed. Those who lost loved ones, as I have to murder, know this very well. The sin of murder happened long ago and the murderer may well have sought and been given absolution by now. But the pain of the loss of the murder victim hasn’t been healed by his reconciliation to God. We all have pain. We all have sorrow. Most of it is caused by our own actions. Like the song said: “Nobody’s fault but mine, so I gotta save my soul tonight………………” Let the anger go Chalcedon. Let the Blood of Christ pour into the places that need it in the Confessional. Go tell the priest how angry you still are over all this. It may well be the very thing that is blocking your growth in the spiritual life. You need His peace and the only place I know of that gives it is that little dark box where my Savior waits for me. I meet the Sacred Heart of Jesus when I go and He pours His Precious Blood into my wounded soul each and every time. I think I can almost hear His Divine Heartbeat in the silence in the Church in the moments after I’ve said my Penance just sitting there basking in His Peace. Not as the world gives does He give. No therapist on earth can give me those moments. I know. I’ve sought that peace by other means and failed to find it. You need it. That is how God wills to give it. That is why He gave us the Sacrament of Penance, to heal us of the pain of sin. Just go. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
I have been there ginny. No doubt in some ideal world hurting others a second time so I could take communion would make me feel ok, but in this real life, it is not so. The first hurts were over long ago, and they fail to see why, as they see it, I had to say there was never a marriage in the first place. No doubt they will all burn in hell for it, and will I.
LikeLike
Hey Dave. You could be a very Saved Catholic. Bosco can explain how that works for ya. Wanna give it a go? Just ask him. I’m sure he’ll help you and then you can spend eternity with Cardinal Kasper, Hitler, Stalin, Judas Iscariot and dear ole Bosco too! Go for it! You won’t every have to wait in line with a bunch of silly old biddies in Church on a Saturday afternoon and can stay home and watch football like a normal sane man! God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is attactive Ginny but I think I keep on the path I have chosem . . . but thanks for the head’s up. 🙂
LikeLike
A difficult one for a Catholic. Your won treatment, C, would disgrace a third-world kleptocracy, and you are to be admired for the way you stuck to it. I looked at the clips Dave Smith provided, and I’m afraid I can’t see what the problem is. The Cardinal clearly says there are conditions, and those accusing him of offering a ‘back door’ to divorce are exaggerating. what do they want – lots of folks to live unhappily – yes, that’s what Christ came for, clearly. We know he really meant that if you sin here, you are stuffed for life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is a hard one, isn’t it? As the clips show, Kasper is not advocating a free for all, simply a sensible advocacy of how to deal with this.
LikeLike
I’m afraid I side with the commentaries at the end of the videos. Kasper has many inconsistencies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Only if you think, as you seem to, that he is advocating Catholic divorce. I really can’t see that he is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, just an inconstent practice that is not and any way derived from the teaching of marriage and which, if it lacks nullity, allows those in mortal sin to received the Sacrament which, in itself, only heaps more mortal sin upon those who receive unworthily.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is anyone proposing this? As I heard Kasper and read the new documents, they all point to the need for decrees of nullity, but for finding a better process for doing it? I can’t find anywhere where Kasper is saying what you seem to think he is saying.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did you listen to the commentary at the end of the videos? They point out the inconsistencies well I think. And Kasper has continually modified his statements even after the interview.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, I did, and I agree, but as he says, he is not putting forward proposals but contributing to a debate. I still haven’t spotted the place where he says hand out the papers willy-nilly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He denied that he was advocating a ‘rubber stamp’ nullity although his previous statements and subsequent statements insinuate the practice. What message does this send to those who are contemplating marriage for the first time? It it does ot work out there will be a fast track, easy method to normalize the problem. Nobody said living up to the Gospel was easy and I don’t see how we think that mercy is a function of making it easy and removing all damage that is incurred by our own sins. People get hurt by our sins and that is just the way it always has been and always will be.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I really don’t see that. I don’t know anyone entering marriage who would take that view, and if they did, then under the existing system, they would most likely be contracting an invalid marriage, surely?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You place too much faith that some modicum of Church Teaching on marriage is actually present these days. The best bet for that is the Traditionalists who still have extremely low divorce rates.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In many way that’s my starting point. The Church has so comprehensively failed in its catchetical mission that I doubt one marriage in 100 would be valid if its participants chose to leave each other. The thing is a mess. It would actually be better to say that all secular divorces up to now are recognised as nullities and that the Church is now going to seriously teach people what marriage is about. My guess is there would be a stampede to the registry office.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe, maybe not. One of the problems is that shortly after VII annulments and thus divorce rates took off in the Church. What used to be taught by custom (most Catholics living in large nuclear families) does not comport to society these days. As long as we have 3 or 4 generation of broken families now . . . even if the Church teaches as She ought it is still doubtful that we will get the same result we had in the past.
LikeLiked by 2 people
So what do you recommend, sticking with a broken system?
LikeLiked by 1 person
All I am saying is that it will now take a process of many years to slowly turn this around . . . as they have made a complete mess of thngs.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t think it acceptable for Christ’s Church to make souls pay the price for its mistakes. It has a pastoral duty to help its children, not load them down with yokes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And so you are against penance altogether and do not accept this practice of the Catholic Church. You are starting to sound like the spirit of VII crowd that simply said Christ died for your sins, you are saved and you will go to heaven . . . a Luther solution to sin boldly and sin often because there is nothing that can separate you from God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, I am, as I said in the piece, entirely in favour of penance. I am not as wealthy as the Kennedys and can’t afford to get the Church’s version of deluxe mercy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You do not believe in the tribunal and that there may have been valid reason for the annulments . . . I wonder as well but accept that it was done according to Canon Law. I disagree with many of the annulments if you really want to know how I feel . . . whether the person has pull in his diocese or not. I haven’t seen others getting less ‘mercy’ in receiving annulments . . . they are rampant.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Shall we say I am suspicious. No doubt the late Ted Kennedy repented properly and deserved that Requiem Mass, just as no doubt all those Democrats who support abortion are entitled to receive communion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sin is sin is sin, my friend. I’m afraid we shall not be rid of it this side of heaven.
LikeLike
It is, but the Church should not be in the business of welcoming the rich man and telling the poor man to sit at the back and wait. St James got it right first time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We speak of time for annulments . . . and it is only a guess because every marriage situation is different. Some are done in weeks and others years . . . our average is 3 years. You cannot simply equate Kennedy’s situation which we know nothing about with your own.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suspect we can. Had I been rich and powerful and a big donor to the Church, I suspect my ride would have been quicker. I dounbt anyone would have lost the letter for a year. Call me cynical, but do you really believe the Kennedy money played no part …?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I didn’t say that . . . only that we do not know and that the benefit of the doubt goes to the Church and not to scuttlebutt.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As they say, if you believe that in the case of the Kennedys, you’ll believe anything – even that HRC forgot about the emails 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sin and corruption finds its way into all things and especially the Church. It is after all the most desirous dessert of Scratch.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He has no sense. He’s a heretic!
LikeLike
Well, now, let’s see. As far as I can find, no competent authority has declared him so. I’m not fond of this habit of declaring those with whom one disagrees, heretics!
LikeLike
Just because he hasn’t been formally charged with heresy doesn’t mean he isn’t a heretic. Most folks who are heretics never get charged. Probably less than a tenth of 1% do, maybe even less. It is the same thing a being a tax cheat; unless one gets caught and charged one isn’t cheating right? Don’t fill out those forms with that kind of attitude. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
I’m afraid that isn’t what the Canon Law of the Church says. It also prescribes penalties for bearing false witness against your fathers in Christ. Another one for the little bix, ginny.
LikeLike
I have copy of a book by the esteemed Kasper called Jesus, the Christ. It has many heretical statements in it. It was first published there in Great Britain in 1976. My copy is younger, 1985. It is written so as to deceive and distort and I’m sure more than one innocent has fallen for it. He will answer for it. I have no fear of saying he is a heretic. I do not speak for the Church, nor do I pretend to, so when I give my opinion, it is simply that, a layperson’s opinion of the preaching and teaching of a Church figure. We all have ours. We are all supposed to be able to tell error from truth. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We are all entitled to an opinion. But calling a Cardinal a heretic is a cause of public scandal. Still, if you want to say you know best, no one can stop you.
LikeLike
Well, you can make all the statements you want to about the Church and the process whereby you got reconciled to God Himself and all the pain it caused and pass all kinds of judgment on the persons who served God by assisting you thru this process of reconciliation thus freeing you of your sins and it isn’t a bad thing? And now you get to pass judgement on me too! Have fun. Really a public scandal? Not quite. Next! God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you think calling a Prince of the Church a heretic is what the Church calls obedience, then you are, once more, allowing that beam in your eye to blind you. Still, we often compound for the suns we commit by commenting on those of others.
LikeLike
I must have missed the bits where I criticised any one unfairly. If you think it beyond criticism to lose a letter on annulment, fair enough, you clearly only wish to criticise Cardinals who have the nerve not to agree with you.
LikeLike
Hello Geoffrey. The Cardinal is a heretic and his option is not one that can and should be available to anyone who is attempting to live according to what Christ teaches about adultery and remarriage. You cannot commit adultery and receive the Eucharist. The adultery must end BEFORE Communion can be restored. Serial adultery and serial fornication is not what God intended nor can it be fostered, excused or protected by any in the clergy. One man, one woman till death do they part or an annulment must be sought. If the marriage cannot be annulled, then they aren’t even free to date!
This is what gets be every time. Two people break up, get a divorce and start looking around for a replacement and get one. Then they come to the Church expecting the Church to simply make it right! Well, if they haven’t gotten an annulment, they aren’t free to date to begin with, so how is it they have another marriage if they aren’t even datable yet? Answer: they don’t really believe what the Church teaches about marriage and divorce and annulments, but they want the Eucharist and feel they have a right to it because everyone in their family is Catholic. Hello!!??!!??? Earth to adulterer: you have landed and you cannot have the Eucharist! Repentance is a requirement for absolution and this means stopping the behavior that is mortally sinful before confessing it. It is proof of a firm purpose of amendment. Chalcedon is very correct.
I don’t expect you to accept this as you are a Protestant. I get that.
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
As someone who has ben married to the same woman for fifty years, I’m a hard one to offer advice on the indissolubility of marriage.
On Kasper, I saw C’s comment with which I agree. When you are Pope, chuck the fella out – but as you’re a woman, you don’t get to be Pope and do that.
I don’t know anyone is suggesting serial divorcees get a bye, just that your church seems awful het up on sex. So, by all measn, live with a woman not your wife, but as long as you don’t have sex, that’s fine? Guess you got to be a Jesuit for that one to make sense.
Me, we had a six month course before we got wed, twice a week for two hours at the Minister’s house, where he explained what we were getting into. If your church doesn’t do that, then it is asking for the touble it gets.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh Geoffrey! You stinky scoundrel you! LOL. ” Guess you got to be a Jesuit for that one to make sense.” You made me laugh so loud the neighbors heard! God bless. Ginnyfree.
My sides ache. reeeeeeally.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am, as they sound in these parts, ‘a caution’ 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
As a new reader, I am uncertain of your message in this reflection. There is no intent here, is there, to equate the Motu Proprio with those who have divorced and remarried? The Motu Proprio does not offer Communion to those who are divorced and remarried. Its goal is a speedy and more liberal application of the annulment procedures, so that couples who, before God, are convinced and have evidence that their marriages were not valid from the beginning, can approach a less onerous annulment process. This is not the same thing as permitting the reception of the Eucharist to those who are divorced and have remarried, that is, those who have not received an annulment. Divorced and remarried still must not receive Communion, that has not changed.
Your plea for mercy for those who have remarried without recourse to Church law is tender. It is often a very heartbreaking situation that does cause deep suffering. However, living as brother and sister is the holy option– difficult, true, yet, the graces abound. Those who will not practice chastity in this case too often focus on the difficulty rather than on the grace that God never refuses to give those who seek to love Him with all their heart and mind. We cannot reject Jesus’ own words that divorce and remarriage is adultery.
Jesus clearly intends that teaching to be binding–He does not give a teaching that is too difficult to keep, assuming one is in a state grace. One cannot be in a state of grace if one is living in persistent sin. Thus, the answer is to renounce marital relations within the new relationship, go to confession with the firm amendment to avoid relations, receive absolution and re-establish a state of grace, from which new and abounding graces will flow. This is very difficult, and is not something God would send upon us, it is the sorrowful result that we bring on ourselves, but God will give the grace to endure and even endure in joy for the sake of your love for your Savior.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Welcome here, Mary, and thank you for your comment.
You are right, and I am, of course, referring to the process by which the Church can decide whether a prior marriage was valid, which will, in turn, have a knock-on effect where another marriage has been contracted.
As I see it, part of the problem is that Church Law as it stands was codified for Catholics. The Church does not, for example, regard Anglican orders as valid, but does regard Anglican marriages as sacramental. So, if you are an Anglican entering the Church, perhaps years after a prior marriage broke down, and years after another, from the Anglican point of view, valid marriage was contracted, then you find yourself, if you become a Catholic, barred from communion. This seems to me a situation full of illogicalities.
As it happens, finding myself in that position, I did what the Church required – but it took five years to get around to doing it. It did irreperable damage to my relationship with my ex-wife (who refused to cooperate in the process) and my children, and nothing for my current relationship. I accept it as the consequence for my sins, but the other victims of that have had their sorrow increased. If that is what Jesus intends, he shouldn’t have bothered with the Prodigal Son parable.
As I say, I accept the consequences of my sin, but that others, hurt by it, should have been further hurt by may attempts at reparation and amendment of life, seems not quite in line with Christ’s mercy.
LikeLike
“The Church does not, for example, regard Anglican orders as valid, but does regard Anglican marriages as sacramental.”
You know full-well the vast difference of the two. Apostolic Priesthood is necessary for the other sacraments and thus rejected by the Catholic Church. In the case of marriage the two persons being married are the ministers of the sacrament. This is a case of equating apples and oranges.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also, the prodigal son did not, presumably, continue in his sin. You keep conflating that which is not consistent to the issue of this complicated issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed, but then his father did not say you must go through a three year programme to show me you are not going to sin again before I receive you back in full communion, in the meantime carry on cleaning out the pig sties.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Had he been married and showed up with a second wife . . . we do not know what his reception would be. The Church, however, has rightly made its hypothetical assessment on this . . . yet, you do not accept it and want change. As I say . . . if is simply a matter of time to get it done, then there are things that can be done but it will cost money and it will require the hiring of far mor canon lawyers than we employ at this time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How fortunate for him he simply assocaited with lots of loose women – a lesson for us all. clearly!
LikeLiked by 1 person
If we don’t see the gravity of an exchange of vows as being worse then we have failed greatly in explaining different sins and how binding a vow is made before God.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And if we do, then living in sin is a better option, because if you change in later life, you’ll have no problem? Best consort with dozens of prostitutes, then repent, than make one mistake and get married and it go wrong. No, there’s something wrong in a system where this would be sensible advice to a young person.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Either way there is a path back. If you don’t take it then you both end in the same place. That one path back to Life is harder than another shouldn’t concern us. That is the way it is: God has ordained it and the Church has ratified it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If the Church makes it easier to live in sin than to get married by making the path form one back easier than the other, then that seems an odd morality to be preaching. Yet is that not the clear implication of what you are saying? If so, you really can’t complain if few marry and choose to live in sin.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The world, the flesh and the devil make it easier to the fallen intellect of man to live in sin than to follow Christ. We are not worthy of some kind of humanly devised ‘equality’ of treatment for our sins. We each have our own stories some are worse than others . . . some rather easy. If it is just with God then that is enough.
I won’t complain that people are self-centered and look out for their own percieved temporal comfort in life. But I will warn all that they are making a dreadful mistake that may cost them their souls.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Except nowhere do we find Christ specifying the sort of legalistic minefield that the Church has; we do, however, find him saying much about those who heaped burdens on the faithful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The yoke is easy if you have love and keep His commandments. He did not say the yoke is easy if you don’t.
The legalism is on the side of all these new pastoral provisions and changes to Canon Law that will have to be made. It is quite simple right now . . . painful for some but simple. We accept the words of Christ as given and then we have a practice that is derived from that. That is not a legalistic minefield.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No, I have to dissent. Having borne that yoke without complaint for five years, it was extremely hard, damaged people I loved and did no known good. I am sure one day I shall understand the reasons, but no, it was the hardest thing I have ever done, and had I realised the effect on my family, I doubt I should have done it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re making up for lost time in the complaining department, C. 🙂
If the Blessed Sacrament was not worth your suffering or the suffering of your ex-wife and children then that is your opinion and you probably should not have become a Catholic. Others, I know would not have let anything stand in their way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I lack the selfishness to think that anything that might be of benefit to me is worth the suffering of others. Perhaps that is not very Catholic of me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because you lack to see what you will not see until in heaven . . . that there suffering was of benefit to them as well.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I can only hope it has been so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Have faith my friend, God’s ways are not our ways.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The fact that right up to the time of the very first raindrops falling on their heads before the great flood that destroyed all the living from the face of the earth they were giving and being given in marriage except for eight persons who got in a really large boat with a few stinky animals and birds and closed the hatch and waited for the rest of the story………………………………it says it all. That shows you what God really thought about all those marriages. God is not fooled. God bless. Ginnyfree
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good enough for me, Ginny. 🙂
LikeLike
If the two people concerned do not recognise it as a sacrament, why does the Catholic Church? This is simply illogical.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because we don’t know what each of them believed at the moment that they took their vows (it is Christian and not merely Catholic anyway . . . Biblical). Thus, the need for an investigation as to the state of mind of each minister at the time of the actually marriage ceremony.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed, but the likelihood of anyone in that situation actually remembering exactly what each of them believed at that exact moment and it being, when it comes to the tribunal, ‘we knew precisely that it was a life-long vow taken for ever’ is what, do you suppose?
LikeLiked by 1 person
And if that is true, what do you think? If it is valid marriage you have to choose between sexual relations and the Eucharist. There has been consequences to our decisions since Adam and Eve and we can argue all we want how unfair it is to receive the stain of Original Sin but that sin and the sufferings it brings to the ‘innocents’ we accept. Why not for this sin?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I simply think that many young people, presented with the seriousness of what they are about to do, won’t opt for it. Many now opt to live in sin, and more will do so. That might make it easier for them in later life, of course. I have a friend who lived with a woman for 20 years, had two children withher, left her, married a much younger woman, and had no problem with the Church authorities because he’d never been married. That seemed all wrong somehow.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In human terms and justice, I would agree. But in the Spiritual Realm of making Holy Vows to God it isn’t even close.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In which case, as with Constantine and others back then, the sensible thing is not to be a Christian until you are about to die then you have no problems. That was done frequently back when, and seems quite sensible from that point of view. Not sure it is the advice we’d want to be giving, but it does follow from what you say.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course not. God cannot be fooled by the tricks and loopholes of lawyers. It was condemned by the Church and is heaping a sin upon other sins.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Church seemed happ enough to accept Constantine – and happy enough to accept other death-bed repentances. Why suppose that it is fooling God? One might well, in extremis, repent most sincerely – I can think of one thief who did just that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Church is always happy to accept converts to the faith because we cannot read their hearts and know if they are sincere or not. Nothing strange in that. Which is precisely the point that the Church has . . . we do not know who is a good thief and who is not. But the good one stose heaven as Archbishop Sheen has often said.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The clear moral here is then do not get married unless you know you can stick together for ever. Most will get the signal – indeed, most are. How fortunate for Augustine that his concubine died and that he never married her.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Divine Providence friend. Uriah got a lousy deal as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do get uneasy here, as it is close to Calvinism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you can navigate yourself through that, my friend.
LikeLiked by 1 person
BINGO! You get another cigar! One man, one woman for life, till death do they part. If you cannot do that, then don’t marry. it’s positively Biblical. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
In which case, live in sin and only marry when the urge to sin leaves you. Isn’t that what we’ve got now?
LikeLike
If the reason for your “marriage” is sexual satisfaction, then you aren’t marrying for the right reasons and most likely it won’t be valid.
LikeLike
In which case why does the church need to labour the point?
LikeLike
Because dear boy they have to find out if it is valid before they can make a determination. They will answer to God for what they determine, so they cannot take it lightly. If the parties refuse to assist, what can they do? You’re beating a dead horse. If you had known how much grief it would cause in the future, would you have done what you did? I’m really sorry your actions caused a re-opening of wounds that you thought should remain forgotten. If you felt as poorly about it then as you do now, why bother? I still regret many of my past sins. It is a good thing because it turns my heart back to the Divine Mercy. I call out to God all the more. All you’re getting is more angry and bitter. What’s the difference? Do you want me to feel sorry for you because the bad decisions you made in your life caused pain and sorrow for others? Isn’t that a little too narcissistic? Let’s take out an ad in the local rag and you can invite all kinds of folks to your little pity party. I’ll refrain. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
No, there is neither pity, nor anger, simply sorrow. I am sad, but hardly surprised that the beam in your eye appears to cause you to miss that.
LikeLike
Somewhere in that book it says: “this saying is hard. It is better then not to marry!” Oh we of little faith. God wills it and provides the grave to live it in the Sacrament of Matrimony. That is the powerhouse that provides the grace for the couple and that is why it needs to be prepared for and received with as pure a heart as one’s first holy communion. From the font of the Sacred Heart of Jesus comes the grace of the Sacrament of Matrimony. Think of Mary at the wedding feast in Cana noticing the lack, not just of wine, but of the Sacrament. They have no wine, so they have no joy or ability. That is why when a marriage is on the rocks it naturally comes to mind that there was an impediment to the Sacrament and so none exists therefore and thereby the font of love isn’t full of the new wine of the Sacrament of Matrimony for the couple to draw from! That is why they naturally suspect an impediment when the marriage gets in trouble. No Sacrament, no grace; no grace then a marriage fails. Get it? God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
So, the moral is, sin around as much as you like, don’t bother getting married and repent later? Not sure about that one.
LikeLike
Nice try C, but you know better.
LikeLike
That is surely the lesson. How fortunate St Augustine never married his concubine.
LikeLike
When I read his Confessions I got the impression he wept because he realized the full gravity of his sexual sins, he was mocking the real marriages of the Christians he saw around him with his sham. He knew it in his bones that it was wrong. Why do you think you’re the only one to have fallen for this? You’re having a pity party. Get over it. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
At no point have I suggested that anyone who dies not repent should be forgiven. If you think the current system works, then you need to talk to those running it. If you think that putting fresh yokes on people is just what Jesus recommended, you need more time on your knees and less on that high horse.
LikeLike
Actually, that doesn’t work apparently. Unbaptized civil marriages still count. You can kill as many people as you want, punch a Bishop, spit on a Bible, whatever, that’s all forgiven at baptism…but a pagan wedding? Nope, you gotta get that bad boy annuled first.
Lucky for St. Augustine that the Church didn’t count concubinage as marriage…even when it went on for over a decade and resulted in a child…
LikeLiked by 1 person
The point I made earlier. Yes, better to live in sin a good long while, fool around with as many women as you like then, when you get repentance, it is much, much easier. But make one mistake and marry as an Anglican in a Church which accepts divorce, and you’d best stay there as the RCC will add to your burden mightily.
LikeLike
Even more fun: Be an unbaptized atheist who “married” an Anglican-apostate Wiccan in a civilly-contracted Wiccan handfasting…
LikeLike
Not sure whether the church regards civil handfastings as ‘valid’ – if so, then yes, another burden on the poor old convert.
LikeLike
If the state issued a license: “presumed valid” –as well I know– and in need of an annulment that takes just as long as one entered into by two Catholics before a Priest. Of course, if the Wiccan had been baptized Catholic instead of Anglican — or if the atheist had been baptized Catholic and *never told*, then the whole thing can be stamped by a parish Priest as “invalidity of form”…
Think about that for a minute (I have). Whether a $1000, year+, annulment is necessary or just a quick meeting in rectory may hinge on a decision made when the party applying was an infant.
All of which is to say nothing of the total absence of pastoral care during the actual process. If the Church is happy to receive converts, she might start doing ANYTHING to show it…
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’ll be telling us that they heap fresh burdens on the faithful next! And in other news, some calim the Pope is a Catholic still 🙂
LikeLike
Really? Pope Francis is a Catholic? Oh my! Some don’t think so and that is exactly why they like him. If they figure it out, will they leave again? God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, last time we looked he was. Odd the way some who used to say obey the Pope, now have their doubts.
LikeLike
Chalcedon, he may be receiving in sin and no one is stopping him. That doesn’t mean he is actually free to receive. Or could be no of the parties involved were Baptised. If none of them were Baptised, then they cannot be Sacramentally wed, so serial fornication wins the day! Worry about yourself and not all the sad examples around in the marketplace of fools. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He;s not receiving in sin according to the Church. He was never married to the first women, the second woman has never been married before, so there is no probelm according to Canon Law.
LikeLike
What are you C? jealous cause he “got away with it” and you didn’t? If it helps you get over your anger and sense of the injustice of it all, think of all the temporal punishment yet unanswered for in the next life. Hello? Bitterness isn’t doing anything to lighten your load. Let it go. He lived a different life and hurt other people? Is his grass really greener or are you bust enjoying a bitter little pity party? Invite a few more bittern hearts to the festivities and perhaps you can work up a real head of steam and blame God for it all the stomp out the door like so many others have! Keep it up! That’s exactly where it will get you. Learn from the thousands of others who’ve left. They all had reeeeeeeealllly good reasons for leaving the Church. Are you working on yours C? God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Not at all, I am simply pointing up the absurdity of the rules you seem to be praising. Sorry if that makes you feel uncomfortable, but perhaps you need to ask why?
LikeLike
BINGO! Give the man a cigar! If in the process of investigating the first marriage, they find that there was no intent to do as the Church does, (the Catholic Church and none other) then there is a case for nullity. Doesn’t mean you’ll get an annulment, just that there is a case for one. If the right questions don’t get asked and answered sufficiently than the persons investigating can only respond to what is spoken of and documented. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sounds a great system
LikeLike
Hear, hear, Mary. Well stated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am wondering about this process of annulment of marriage in the Catholic Church. Are the vast majority of cases that are considered granted annulment? If so does this suggest a rather hypocritical way in which to treat the indissolubility of marriage and the teachings of Christ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sadly Rob, with the large numbers now uncatechized or poorly prepared for marriage, it is becoming far too prevalent in the granting of these annulments. At one time, probably 1 out of 100 was accepted and now it seems to be 99 out of 100 which may be an exageration but it makes the point on how this has changed with the large numbers that now find themselves in irregular marriages.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Which is precisely why the current system, or lack thereof, has to change.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes it does. It almost seems like we have made a conscious decision to NOT teach doctrine in our Church and especially regarding marriage and the family (contraception is part of that). It is as if we are designing our pastoral teachings to accommodate as many divorces as possible. A change is definitely needed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This really has to stop – so much damage is being done to so many souls. Let’s worry about global warming later shall we?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Totally with you on that score, my friend.
LikeLike
I am not sure there are any stats Rob. I would guess that only those fairly sure they have an invalid marriage would go through the process.
LikeLike
Yo Rob! Long time no see! The Church isn’t nullifying a marriage. It is making a statement that there was an impediment to the institution of the Sacrament at the time of consent, so there was no Sacrament. The Church cannot remove the Sacrament or as you see it, nullify it. It can only state that there is no Sacrament. It can also say that there is a Sacrament. In that case, only death can free the parties to it for another marriage. It is a myth to think of the annulment process as Catholic divorce. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A bit of a tangent, but mentioning the Eucharist brought this to mind: why do the Catholics refer to the Bread as the “Host”? I take it this is an Anglicization of Latin “hostis”, which in classical Latin means “enemy”, but can also sometimes mean “host” or “guest”. Or is it a contraction of “holocaustum” – “burnt offering”?
LikeLike
The derivation is ‘hostia’ or sacrificial victim, as I understand it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, thank you. Clearly a Western Empire thing, then. The Byzantine half presumably has a different tradition.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Proof of the logic: never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to.
LikeLike
Just for your information, in the Diocese of Phoenix, I gather the tribunal takes two years…much too long. Within the last 10 years, the required Pre Cana is NINE months long.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, David. Looks like the cart is going ahead of the horse there too!
LikeLike
Did someone say horse? Be still my heart.
LikeLike
Look at the above picture. Bingo. A close up of the bent crooked cross, a well known Satanist symbol.
LikeLike
Bosco, dear bruvver, the Satanists use an upside-down cross, not a bent one.
The bent one is of Spanish origin, symbolizing (a) Jesus’s burden pulling him down, and (b) a crooked staff used by shepherds.
Perhaps you’d better delete your luvvly blogg now, as it seems to be in error from beginning to end.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My magnificent blog has pictures of Mary worshipers taken by other Mary worshipers. Pictures don’t lie. Are my pictures in error? Your site is as worthless as a screen door on a submarine.
Come to my site and find rest for your worthless soul
cherrybombcoutour.blogspot.com
Sign in and become a member.
LikeLike
They don’t, but you do, contstantly. Your whole time here is a monistry to the father of lies, which is why no one pays you any attention except to laugh at you. Still, if your father of lies wants to be laughed at, he couldn’t find a better missionary. The sad thing is you think we laugh because you are telling some truth, we laugh because we know the truth and can see that you don’t. But carry on babbling.
LikeLike
Im interested in your reasoning good brother. Please tell me how pictures of people bowing befor statues of a female make me a liar? I know you have seen the pics in my photojournalistic site. And im 100% sure you see them in your Roman temples. Why am I a bad person because I bring up that fact? Thanks in advance.
LikeLike
Bowing does not equal worship. If it did, then the English would be worshipping the Queen. You lie as you breathe. You cannot know what is in anyone’s mind or heart, and yet you accuse them of idol worship. You are so bone idle you won’t even read up on it.
LikeLike
Um, the queen is a human, not made by human hands. If you read the second command carefully you will notice it forbids bowing befor images made by human hands, graven images. In your haste to justify your religions rampant idolatry, you use bowing to humans as the reason its a good thing to bow befor wood and stone. Id take another look at my religion if I was you. But the good news is, if paul and Bosco can get saved, anyone can get saved.
LikeLike
In your haste to read the letter, you miss, as do all pharisees, the spirit. In the ancient world when people bowed to idols it was a form of worship. In the Christian world it is worship directed at the one God. I guess you are either to thyick or too blind to get the difference – or is it just you can’t understand it? Either way, it makes everything else you say lacking in credibility.
LikeLike
Good brother Eccles, nice try. That bent crooked cross is a sign to all the other Satanist in the clergy that they worship Satan. Pope Johnpaul had a upside down cross on his LazyBoy. I have a pic of that on my Lazy site, if you care to go see the truth. Its all there. All the Satanist symbols all over the Church of Mary. The all seeing eyes, sun symbols, pine cones and even a big fat obelisk is in the center of the Mary headquarters.
Time for the denials to start flying.
LikeLike
Of course, Bosco, and only you and a few nutters have noticed. And Bush brought down the Twin Towers, and no one landed on the moon, and the Illuminati run the world. You really are in that league Bosco – a total joke.
LikeLike
Im 100% sure you’ve seen the All Seeing Eye in your roman temple. If not, you can vist my all seeing site…cherrybombcoutour.blogspot.com and see the eye all over the C of M. You already know the Pontifex Maximus has a pine cone staff. Im still trying to see where I lied.
LikeLike
You lied all the way through. You advance the mad hypothesis that men who died rather than worship idols, somehow never noticed they were worshipping them. The problem is you know no history, have read very few books, and yet, like many profoundly ignorant people, pontificate as though you had.
LikeLike
Try 4 yrs of poli sci. Nothing but history. Political science is the study of history and how people act as nation states. But thanks for the insult.
LikeLike
Political science? Don’t make me laugh. It is history emptied of history. It was POl Sci which said invading Iraq was a good idea. Let’s all listen to POl Sci – if we want to know why our politics is where it is. Thanks for the laugh!
LikeLike
Plus, Jesus on the cross was the triumph for the Devil. He thought he won. Jesus isn’t on the cross anymore. But the church of Mary likes to keep Jesus on the cross. And if not on the cross, The C of M portrays him as a baby.
LikeLike
Let’s see. What are the two most significant parts of Christ’s life – his birth – the Incarnation, and his crucifixion, and you criticise his church for marking them. I suppose the church of Bosco has nothing to mark to uses random comment generators to spout nonsense, but even by your standards, this is is bonkers.
LikeLike
Some churches like the ‘Christian Brethren’ that I was brought up in use no symbols or images at all no crucifix or even an empty cross. I do not think that is the strict practice of Calvary Chapel which use the image of a dove.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your bretheren church is living up to the 2nd commandment. Good brother Chalcedon slings mud at me but his beloved religion is nothing but images.
LikeLike
Oddly enough, those who are not slaves to no imagination and who have some aesthetic appreciation, get spiritual satisfaction from art – you are like a blind man complaining that other people can see.
LikeLike
I paint oil on canvas. I have even sold a few. I hope people don’t bow down befor them.
LikeLike
You seem so culturally dense it is a wonder you manage to read the signs on lavatories.
LikeLike
There is a primitive tribe that worships Bosco as a god. I have sold them a few of his paintings as sacred relics. Can’t remember their name.
Oh yes, I can: Calvary Chapel.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If I wasn’t so understanding, I would wonder why someone as educated as you don’t see anything wrong with a religion that promotes bowing befor the works of their hands. But I do know why you don’t see anything wrong with that practice. You are one of 1.2 billion.
The road to destruction is broad and many be thereon
Jesus stands at the door and knocks.
LikeLike
It is because I am educated. So, unlike you, I understand that pictures don’t speak for themselves, and that in some cultures bowing is a sign of respect for what the image represents. No doubt you belong to the group that thinks it fine to pee on a picture of Jesus. Christians bow because they worship Jesus, not the picture. Even those of average intelligence should be able to understand that. I opened the door to Jesus a long time ago. I suggest you close the back door to satan soon.
LikeLike
Hello Chalcedon. Been a while but I needed to say a little something about this: ” No, the Church offers what Christ offered to us all. We are, all of us, sinners, we are, none of us, worthy of the sacrifice Christ made for us – but, and what a marvel it is – we are offered forgiveness if we repent. That is the Church, that is Christ, that is the miracle of faith.”
Very good! Very eloquent and VERY true. Bravo! Practically a perfect sentence.
The problem for some though is the “IF” in the equation, as in “IF we repent.” Those two little letters placed together BEFORE the operation of forgiveness that shows the requirement for a soul of a disposition of the soul in need of forgiveness thus limiting the ability of God to unbind the human soul from its sins contingent upon an action of said human soul in the form of repentance is repugnant to those who revel in the neo-universalism of today that shouts from the rooftops about the “unconditional love of God” that supercedes all acts of the human will so as to circumnavigate the respect God has towards the operation of human will and so delivering forgiveness of sin where there is no repentance. Their credo goes like this: God is love and He loves everyone equally. He died for all so He paid the debt for all. He wills all men to be saved, therefore all are. And there ya have it. God wills all men to be saved and so they have, in the words of one of their greatest cheerleaders, a “reasonable hope that all men might be saved.” So Chalcedon, toss the “if” and they’ll bite!
For those among the neo-universalist crowd, repentance is something one makes a show of once a year just in time for Easter at a Parish Penance Service near you where a very General Absolution can be had along with some lovely music and lighting for special effect and then you can take advantage of the extra priests disbursed about the worship space if you still would like to go to Confession afterwards, but it isn’t really necessary because you just listened to a homily about the various sins there are and nodded your little head at the designated time thusly showing God you’re really sorry and so receive the Absolution of whatever priest thinks this is what God intends for all sinners to be saved! Hell is what they sell and they are happy to do so.
I still go to Confession on Saturdays and I live in a parish with just over 3,000 registered families. There may be a total of six individuals in line on Saturdays with another 10 or so in the morning at the other designated time after Saturday’s Mas and sadly, most of them are from other parishes because they prefer the opportune time of day, namely Saturday morning as opposed to the afternoon in their own parishes. It isn’t available in those places except in the afternoon, so they come here to get it over and done with. These numbers prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the above mentioned credo of the neo-universalists is well established among this particular crowd of believers.
So there ya go Chalcedon. We are supposed to believe that repentance of sins is a requirement for their remission, but it sure doesn’t look that way when those words aren’t followed by any action at all that is noticeable to the naked eye.
One justification I’ve heard too often for this is a semi-pelagian mindset that states God doesn’t care much for outward appearances and cares more for the disposition of the heart than any show of sorrow one might have. Do all you will for God knows your heart isn’t all that bad, really. This also is the justification for not having any visible signs of piety as well as them being no longer necessary and even to be avoided as vain and phoney, etc. They base this upon the statement that God judges hearts not actions. Does this mean one can act badly still but if one feels badly about it in one’s heart, he or she doesn’t have to give any outward sign of sorrow or change one’s behaviors? They forget that a changed heart in a man or a woman usually shows in their life. I think on the Gospel reading for today as a certain woman washed our Lord’s feet with her tears and dried them with her hair and loved our Lord with all her being to the point of a passion that got recorded for all generations to see what repentance can and does and should look like. She’d be very scolded by the pew potatoes for all of it just as Jesus was by those observing this passionate repentance of this beloved of the Lord as she wept. A story such as this falls on deaf ears these days as they measure their sins against hers in their imaginations and make sure they couldn’t possibly be any where near as bad as she MUST have been considering………..sound familiar?
Personally over the years of arguing with such persons about their particular brand of heresy, I simply call them “Saved Catholics,” and yes they can be as frustrating as Bosco in their hardness of heart and spin cycle theology.
God bless you and thanks for the topic. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You rang?
LikeLike
No, we don’t need any idots today, thank you, Bosco.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well lookie what the cat dragged in.
LikeLike
Good to have you back with us, ginny. I think I prefer the version where Christ says ‘go sin no more’ to the ‘go sin no more and make sure we all know you repent by frequent confession’ – may be just me, of course 🙂
LikeLike
Here is what I perceive as the whole intent of Pope Francis in Mitis Iudex: “This direction was also indicated by the votes of the majority of my Brothers in the Episcopate, gathered in the recent extraordinary Synod, who called for faster and more accessible processes. In full harmony with this desire I have decided to introduce, by this Motu proprio, provisions that favour not the nullity of marriage but rather the speed of processes, along with the appropriate simplicity, so that the heart of the faithful who await clarification of their status is not long oppressed by the darkness of doubt due to the lengthy wait for a conclusion”
Speed and simplicity. Clarity. Pretty easy to see.
How he intends for this to happen is the whole nutshell. http://visnews-en.blogspot.com/2015/09/motu-proprio-mitis-iudex-dominus-iesus.html
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/a-first-look-at-mitis-iudex/
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/14/note-avoiding-the-requirements-of-mitis-would-not-be-easy-for-bishops/
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/a-second-look-at-mitis-especially-at-the-new-fast-track-annulment-process/
Happy reading. Hope it helps. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
I’m getting the distinct impression that ‘mercy’ seems to have been forgotten by Dave and ginny – can I ask you both what you think ‘mercy’ is in the sort of situations C describes and why you don’t seem to think it applies. I am reading a lawyer’s brief, not a Christian’s penance. Did someone die so we could sit in judgment on our fellows?
If I ever wondered why I never went into your church, you’ve both reminded me. I hear in what you both say nothing of the voice of Christ – sorry, but I have to tell it as it comes to me.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, Geoffrey, I can’t say as how I blame you for feeling that. It is certainly a formidable barrier to a convert, and I know of two friends who, seeing what I went through, went Orthodox and were received with suitable penance but no lawyer’s fees.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, we must always remember the lawyers – and if we don’t, they will.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s for sure 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
For whatever it is worth C, I admire you for doing hat you did – but any Church whichj demands that as a price has several screws loose.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You might think that, Geoffrey, I could not possibly comment.
LikeLiked by 2 people
🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey I know this may seem foreign to you, but it is NO MERCY to tell someone their adultery is okay. Ever hear of crocodile tears? Mercy speaks the truth in charity. Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery but He also told her to not do it anymore. Do you think she returned to the man’s embrace afterwards? Neither Dave nor I have said that God isn’t merciful, nor are we speaking of condemning those whose marriages aren’t regular. We’re simply stating the truth. You can take it or leave it. Most leave it. And yes, those who prefer sex lives to the Eucharist in relationships that are little less than serial fornication do not deserve to be rewarded for their sins with easy absolution and the Eucharist. To do so does more to condemn them than dragging them thru and legalistic tedium that you seem to think is too humiliating and painful to actually be merciful. But it is the way those who have come late to an understanding of the Sacraments must go to be fully reconciled to the Church. Life isn’t easy. I think it is a Cross. Most suffer. But were suffering is great, grace abounds to meet its challenges. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Now who, except your lurid imagination imagined anyone sayong such things? You should perhaps read what Kasper and others write rather then relying on lurid reports from mad Catholic sites which wind you up. Better for your blood pressure. I’d noted some time agom that life was a vale of tears, and as a result, try to help my fellow pilgrims; those hurling rocks at them from the moral high ground just make it all a little harder. That bit in the NT about not adding yoke, read and inwardly digest.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, Geoffrey dear. My BP is fine. Down a bit. Thanks for the advice. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Read my new one, it will help your BP rise 🙂
LikeLike
Hahahahahahahahaha
LikeLike
More rain for the parade: My wife, who just began teaching in a Catholic Academy, came home today to tell me,
“I have to stay late tomorrow, disassemble the prayer corner, and lock all the statues and pictures and prayer books in the closet.”
“Why on earth would you have to do that?”
“Because the Sunday School uses the classrooms on the weekend.”
“…?”
“According to the teachers who’ve been there a while, if you leave anything out, the Sunday School kids will break or steal it.”
“…what about the Sunday School teachers?”
“They’re why I have to lock my desk.”
So, yeah, now I’m thinking the bickering over annulments here is waaaaaaay down the list of stuff what needs dealing with.
[sigh]
LikeLiked by 1 person
The need to crucify real people for the image of a perfect vision is one which mankind often finds difficult to resist 🙂
LikeLike
The moral of the story is;…..Who cares what the Church of Mary says. Its just a club. It has no force of law. Live your life and poop on the Marys.
LikeLike
Well, there are surely many people who said who cares what Jesus said. You are one of them, so who cares? It’s your opinion. But you claim to know Jesus and yet you tell lies. Yes, all makes sense.
LikeLike
You must have mistaken me for someone else. I believe what Jesus said.
LikeLike
No. You don’t believe him when he said he founded a church; you don’t believe him when he said Peter was the rock on which he founded it; you don’t believe him when he says the gates of hell cannot prevail against his church. I believe him, you call him a liar. One of us follows Jesus, the other one just makes noises and then, by his example of lying, bears a real witness to what inspires him.
LikeLike
Ah, lad, that gave me a good laugh. Ever thought of taking up stand up comedy?
LikeLike
He should be on the stage – sweeping it 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
So much sorrow and death and misery and graft and theft and vice has issued forth from this Chair of Peter that its not even funny. This is where you trust your salvation?
Jesus stands at the door.
LikeLike
As I say, take it up with Jesus, he said it. I believe him, you call him a liar. Best of luck with that Bosco.
LikeLike
Does he tell you to lie lad? Does he tell you to read porn, lad? Get real. C is right, you should be on the stage – sweeping it.
LikeLike
Jehovas Witness is the true church of god. Just read their literature.
LikeLike
What’s that got to do with owt? You drunk again?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why do I keep getting slapped with porn? Is it because of my pornographic site?
LikeLike
Gold star – yes, that would be it.
LikeLike
Those are bonifide pics of real Mary priests. If one doesn’t like homosexuals and lesbians, they shouldn’t attend the Church of Mary.
LikeLike
No, they are not. You’ve been scammed – but that’s not hard given your prejudice.
LikeLike
How dare you besmirch my journalistic integrity. My integral site has pictures of popes bowing befor and serving statues of some female deity or another. I had one picture of Ratzinger kissing a Muslim cleric, but I took it down because I figured it was a fake.
LikeLike
Bosco, dear, all the photos on your site are fakes posed by actors. I was with you when you phoned up the agency, remember?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Who pulled your chain?
LikeLike
From time to time you need telling.
LikeLike
What was “this Rock”? The subject was…..Who do men say I am.
Peter said that Jesus is the Christ.
This is the Rock the Church is built on.
Think about it for one minute. Do you really think the church(body) of the living almighty God is built on a human?Im 100% sure the C of M is built on a man, but my help cometh from above.
Why don’t you call good brother Jeff a few nasty names. He don’t believe the C of M is gods true church either.
LikeLike
As I say, I believe Jesus. He changed Simon’s name to ‘Rock’ (You do know that Peter was not a name at the time and it means Rock, right). Thanks for proving my poit, I believe Jesus, you don’t.
LikeLike
Ive always understood Jesus to be the Rock….The Rock of Ages. Your cult of men always glorifies men. It even has a man it call the Holy Father. Now that’s bad. Its odd that this doesn’t bother you.
LikeLike
Jesus changed Simon’s name to Rock. Why?
LikeLike
I don’t know why he did that. I understand the original greek the name is small rock, a pebble.
LikeLike
You understand nothing, Jesus spoke in Aramaic, where the word Kepha means rock. You guys keep dancing like ballet stars – Jesus said it, and you guys wriggle. Explain it.
LikeLike
Jesus spoke Aramaic but the NT was first written in greek, a very specific language. They had a word for everything. And when they say brother, they mean brother. And when they say cousin, they mean cousin. I am told by reliable people the word used in the greek meant small rock. There are big rocks and there are small rocks, I guess.
Who are “you guys”. I thought you didn’t know any born again peoples.
LikeLike
They are wrong. The word first used, and still used in Aramaic means rock.
LikeLike
That paragraph is all about Jesus being the Messiah. Nowhere, from page one to the last page in the bible is Peter spoken of as the head of gods body. Nowhere. And why is that? If its so important, why no mention? And if he was, who says the C of M is gods body? The C of M says its gods body. But that’s just too gad damned bad, because the Mormons are the Church of Jesus Christ. It says so in their literature.
LikeLike
Jesus changes Simon;’s name to Rock. He then says ‘On this Rock I will build my church’. What does Jesus mean by this. Try actually answering the question instead of dancing round it.
LikeLike
This Rock is that Jesus is the Christ, which is what they were talking about. The Marys never quote the whole passage.
LikeLike
So, Jesus says, according to you ‘You are Rock, meaning I am rock’ get a better Bible 😄
LikeLike
“Have you not even read this Scripture: ‘THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone; –
1 Corinthians 10:4
And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)
douay rheims bible
LikeLike
Too bad the above picture is cut short, because an inch or two below the cut off is a pine cone. A well know occult item….the pine cone staff.
Let the denials begin.!
LikeLike
Of course, Bosco, and a church where people die for Jesus all over the world never noticed. You are a bad joke.
LikeLike
Interesting. You didn’t deny there is a pine cone on the Holy Fathers staff. There is hope for you yet.
LikeLike
I don’t know who did what to this keyboard, but is a gonner. It is all I can do to type this much. Im signing off till someone buys another keyboard of I have to get one.
May the all seeing eye watch over you as you bow befor the female deity.
LikeLike
Wise to back off – but I’ll remind you – whst did Jesus mean when he changed Simon’s name to Rock?
LikeLike
Of course not, what I deny is that he is satanic or uses it in satanic rituals.
LikeLike
Of course you deny it, and I expect that. You don’t believe the clergy are involved in satanic rituals. My mother didn’t believe man really went to the moon. I wouldn’t have believe church of Mary priests and clergy were involved in Satanism and occult if I didn’t hear it from reliable sources. Then, its backed up by all the occult symbols that are everywhere in the C of M. Look around my brother. Research on the Jesuits. They are waist deep in occult and satanic ritualism. You don’t want to know. You think these guys sit around with their hands folded in prayer all day and nite. Reality is stranger than fiction. have you ever seen a pic or a movie or even a cartoon of a bonfire and these guys in black hooded robes standing around it? Those are Jesuits doing whats called a Black Mass. There are two popes: a white pope and a black pope. The black pope is the Jesuit General. Bregoglio takes his orders from the Black pope. Their mission: to wipe Protestantism off the planet. In these modern times, they cant get away with what they used to do.
LikeLike
I think you need to read some history and fewer Chick tracts, Bosco. You do know that the Popes closed down the Jesuits for a long time, and that traditionalists regard them as liberals. Doesn’t sound as though you do.
LikeLike
I heard there was some friction. The dastardly deeds of the Jesuits botherd even the most wicked of clergymen. Well, the Jesuits never went away. And now you have one that you call Holy Father. (;-D Ever read what Abe Lincoln said about the Jesuits?
LikeLike
I did – but I’ve never thought tarring people with the same brush a fair way of going about things – have you?
LikeLike
Aye, sounds like ol Honest Abe got his hands on some Chick tracts (;-D
LikeLike
Oh that scuttlebutt goes back to the Reformation, far older than Abe.
LikeLike
Once you get saved, none of this will matter.
LikeLike
Like Paul, I am still running the race, sorry you have stopped. Acts is full of people who thought they were saved and fell away, hope you don’t join them.
LikeLike
Hello Chalcedon.
Re: the “good” Cardinal Kasper.
I found a nice little interview with him you probably already heard about, but the dust that was once settled around it got blown off recently, so here it is for you to decide whether or not there may be a little something not quite right with the poor Cardinal’s theology. Unless of course, you’re Protestant. Then there really is nothing wrong at all, and he seems a rather encouraging hope for a future when the Church will no longer interfere in the marital arrangements of her members and simply affirm them in their choices. Have good listen. http://edwardpentin.co.uk/statement-on-cardinal-kasper-interview/
The context for all this is found in C P& S in an article written by Nowakowski but its original place is OnePeterFive, his blog. https://catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/against-the-zeitgeist-the-role-of-independent-catholic-voices/
Stay informed my friend. The sand is no place for one’s head these days. History is being made.
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
If you like alarmist, one-sided misrepresentations, the the CP&S piece is the place to go, but I’ve never found such a prectice useful, or particularly Christian. If you, like them, are manufacturing a demon to fight, you will, of course, see in Ksper a demon. I listened to him and wonder which part of this you think heretical”
‘The teaching does not change but it can be made more profound, it can be different.’
A pair of blinkers, even self-donned, seldom helps one see things as they are.
LikeLike
Jesus yoke is easy and his burden is light.
LikeLiked by 1 person
C, seems you have won a battle, but I hope the war is not over. Although, I admit it’s going to be hard to over turn.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/09/important-admission-from-head-of.html#more
LikeLiked by 1 person
If, as I think we agreed, marriage preparation has been so awful, and the state of knowledge so poor, why would it suprirse us that many, even the majority of failed Catholic marriages turned out to be null? Would it not be more suprising the other way round – that is the most were not null?
LikeLike
My wife and I had no preparation for marriage she was 20 and I was 25 but we simply knew that Christ taught it was for keeps and on that basis we were married and those were the vows we made. What more does anyone need to know to make a marriage valid and to make it one that cannot be annulled.
Things have been difficult at times but we have worked through them; at one period perhaps more in obedience to Christ than anything else. We are glad and happy that we worked through those times and that our love really has lasted a lifetime.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think there is a real difference where both parties are Christian – they tend to think as you both did – and congratulations to you both.
LikeLike