Skip to comments.
In Wake of Dubia Card. Farrell Again Blasts Critics of Pope & Amoris Laetitia
EWTN Great Britain ^
| 12/3/16
| Deacon Nick Donnelly
Posted on 12/04/2016 4:34:01 PM PST by marshmallow
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
To: marshmallow
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 -- Documents? Why don't they simply use this:
God's Word never fails.
2
posted on
12/04/2016 4:39:10 PM PST
by
SkyPilot
("I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6)
To: marshmallow
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.
3
posted on
12/04/2016 4:41:59 PM PST
by
alternatives?
(Why have an army if there are no borders?)
To: SkyPilot
That’s exactly what we’re talking about.
4
posted on
12/04/2016 4:44:13 PM PST
by
BlessedBeGod
(To restore all things in Christ. ~~~~ Appeasing evil is cowardice.)
To: marshmallow
He’s spinning it as fast as he can.
5
posted on
12/04/2016 4:45:33 PM PST
by
BlessedBeGod
(To restore all things in Christ. ~~~~ Appeasing evil is cowardice.)
To: marshmallow
Who appointed Farrell to the College of Cardinals?
6
posted on
12/04/2016 4:52:36 PM PST
by
Steelfish
To: Steelfish
Francis..not even a month ago.
7
posted on
12/04/2016 4:55:18 PM PST
by
piusv
(Pray for a return to the pre-Vatican II (Catholic) Faith)
To: Steelfish; piusv
Who appointed Farrell to the College of Cardinals?Satan finally exposed VC II to bright light, poured water on it and fed it after midnight.
8
posted on
12/04/2016 4:59:49 PM PST
by
ebb tide
(We have a rogue curia in Rome.)
To: SkyPilot
Yes, and it's also crystal clear, unambiguous, perfectly translated in every word, and admitting of only one possible interpretation in all cases, which is why evangelicals always all agree on exactly what it means at all times, right?
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?
9
posted on
12/04/2016 5:05:47 PM PST
by
Campion
(Halten Sie sich unbedingt an die Lehre!)
To: marshmallow
Basically this is the Holy Spirit speaking to us. Do we believe that the Holy Spirit wasn't there in the first synod? Do we believe he wasn't in the second synod? Do we believe that he didn't inspire our Holy Father Pope Francis in writing this document?This is sickening. Ever since VC II, heretics have been claiming Satan's work's are instead those of the Holy Ghost.
10
posted on
12/04/2016 5:10:34 PM PST
by
ebb tide
(We have a rogue curia in Rome.)
To: marshmallow
Prayers up for Holy Mother Church.
11
posted on
12/04/2016 5:29:37 PM PST
by
Bigg Red
(To Thee, O Lord, I lift my soul. Thank you for saving our Republic.)
To: marshmallow
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.
12
posted on
12/04/2016 5:38:52 PM PST
by
WriteOn
(Truth)
To: WriteOn
First off every Catholic know an annulment recognizes an objective fact. That's not true. Many annulments that have been appealed and subsequently have been reversed.
13
posted on
12/04/2016 6:05:08 PM PST
by
ebb tide
(We have a rogue curia in Rome.)
To: ebb tide
Synods have no magisterial function.
And the Holy Spirit does not choose the Pope.
Bergoglio’s bitches constantly appeal to pious superstitions.
14
posted on
12/04/2016 6:21:53 PM PST
by
Arthur McGowan
(https://youtu.be/IYUYya6bPGw)
To: ebb tide
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.
15
posted on
12/04/2016 6:24:13 PM PST
by
Arthur McGowan
(https://youtu.be/IYUYya6bPGw)
To: Arthur McGowan
Do you deny annulments have been overturned, e.g. Joseph Kennedy?
16
posted on
12/04/2016 6:29:40 PM PST
by
ebb tide
(We have a rogue curia in Rome.)
To: SkyPilot
God's Word never fails 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.
17
posted on
12/04/2016 6:35:26 PM PST
by
Jim Noble
(Die Gedanken sind Frei)
To: Jim Noble
3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause? 4 He answered, Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. 7 They said to him, Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away? 8 He said to them, Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. Matthew 19: 3 - 9
Seems pretty clear to me.
18
posted on
12/04/2016 6:44:00 PM PST
by
SkyPilot
("I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6)
To: Jim Noble
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?Thou shalt not commit aduterey.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.
Does that answer your question?
19
posted on
12/04/2016 6:46:36 PM PST
by
ebb tide
(We have a rogue curia in Rome.)
To: ebb tide; SkyPilot
I understand your posts, but you didn't understand mine.
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.
20
posted on
12/04/2016 6:53:21 PM PST
by
Jim Noble
(Die Gedanken sind Frei)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson