Documents? Why don't they simply use this:
God's Word never fails.
Posted on 12/04/2016 4:34:01 PM PST by marshmallow
Cardinal Kevin Farrell, the prefect of the Dicastery for Laity, the Family and Life, has again blasted critics of Pope Francis and his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia. Previously Cardinal Farrell has publicly criticised Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia for issuing guidelines implementing Amoris Laetitia in continuity with the Magisterium. Cardinal Farrell made his latest comments to the "progressive" Catholic newspaper The Tablet.
The Prefect for Laity, the Family and Life "criticised opponents of Amoris Laetitia for closing their minds to 'certain nuances that exist in the life of people'. He went on to observe that its critics "wished the world were 'more perfect then it truly is'".
Responding to The Tablet's question, has Pope Francis "made enemies"?, Cardinal Farrell responded that that "could be a correct observation". He went on to describe those who oppose the Pope as people who "have their own point of view and vision and their own misunderstandings."
Cardinal Farrell dismisses the controversy over Amoris Laetitia as just another "difference of opinion" in the Church:
The cardinal adds that he had "never known a document in the Catholic Church where there wasn't some criticism by some people. It doesn't surprise me in the least that there would be differences of opinion -- there are differences of opinion as to which way you say the Hail Mary; there are differences of opinion as to how we celebrate the Mass and which language we use".
(Excerpt) Read more at ewtn.co.uk ...
Documents? Why don't they simply use this:
God's Word never fails.
I don’t have a dog in this hunt as I am not Catholic.
However, he did identify the problem, ‘certain nuances that exist in the life of people’. If it wasn’t for “nuances”, we all would still be in the Garden of Eden.
That’s exactly what we’re talking about.
He’s spinning it as fast as he can.
Who appointed Farrell to the College of Cardinals?
Francis..not even a month ago.
Satan finally exposed VC II to bright light, poured water on it and fed it after midnight.
Does the Bible teach that one ought to baptize infants, as the Lutherans and Presbyterians believe, or not, as the Baptists, Mennonites, and Church of Christ teach?
This is sickening. Ever since VC II, heretics have been claiming Satan's work's are instead those of the Holy Ghost.
Prayers up for Holy Mother Church.
First off every Catholic know an annulment recognizes an objective fact. It does not change reality. So everyone who ever suffered through an annulment only did so for the sake of church law not because they were married and needed it undone. Anyone who doesn’t want to go through it and believes there first marriage isn’t valid has at least a leg to stand on in my mind: only they and God know the truth.
That's not true. Many annulments that have been appealed and subsequently have been reversed.
Synods have no magisterial function.
And the Holy Spirit does not choose the Pope.
Bergoglio’s bitches constantly appeal to pious superstitions.
An annulment is intended to be a recognition of an objective fact. I.e., unlike a divorce, it is not purported to CREATE a fact.
Do you deny annulments have been overturned, e.g. Joseph Kennedy?
Correctamundo. But the argument right now is over the MEANING of God's Word, specifically what Jesus meant when he spoke about divorce in Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:2.
When He says that a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, did He mean it in the same way He did when He spoke about having lustful thoughts at the sight of a sexy woman being the same as committing adultery with her, or did He mean that the second marriage was a state of continuous adultery?
I've been very close to Bible Christians and Bible churches for many years. I don't know of one that takes the accusation of continuous adultery in a second marriage literally. The Eastern Orthodox churches permit a second marriage after a penitential procedure, but they do not call the remarried man an adulterer.
However, this is the tradition of the Roman Church, and you must admit that, in this case at least, there is ample scriptural support for their position.
Matthew 19: 3 - 9
Seems pretty clear to me.
Thou shalt not commit aduterey.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.
Does that answer your question?
The Evangelical Statement of Faith (1943) begins: "We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God"
There is no Bible Church nor are there any "Bible Christians" who dispute this. However, Christians who criticize the Roman Church for "not following the Bible", seldom follow the "infallible, authoritative Word of God" themselves when it comes to divorce and remarriage, whereas the Roman Church, at least up until Francis I, has been trying to do so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.