Posted on 04/10/2017 12:57:43 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Why is there confusion in the Catholic Church over Amoris Laetitia, and what consequences does it have for Church unity? I argue here that the confusion is ultimately over two de fide dogmas of Christian faith and that one consequence of the confusion is de facto schism within the Catholic Church.
When de fide (“of the faith”) is used in Catholic theology to designate a doctrine, it signifies a truth that pertains to Divine Revelation. The term Divine Revelation refers to truths by which God chose to reveal himself and his will to humanity in order to reconcile the world to himself so men and women might live united with him imperfectly in this world and, after death and judgment, perfectly with him in the Kingdom. Thus, the Church considers de fide doctrines necessary for salvation. Their status in Catholic teaching is irreformable. And their mode of proclamation is infallible.
This essay has three aims. First, it introduces and explains the theological concept of “secondary objects of infallibility” and shows how almost all of the truths pertaining to sexual matters taught by the Catholic Church belong to the category of secondary objects of infallibility, and so are rightly designated de fide doctrines. Second, it argues that beginning with the intra-ecclesial dissent from the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae, the Catholic Church has existed in a grave state of disunity over de fide doctrines, and that this disunity is deepened by the problems caused by Amoris Laetitia. Finally, it offers practical advice to the hierarchy and laity for responding to the crisis.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
I refuse to engage in the absurd enterprise of basing a theological conclusion on a single translation of a single verse of Scripture.
All Christians rejected divorce until very recent times. I.e., the Catholic position is the historic Christian position.
Where in the Scriptures does Jesus, or any of the apostles, explain why adultery, and ONLY adultery, dissolves a marriage?
Are there two or more passages in the New Testament that corroborate the claim that Jesus taught that adultery ends a marriage?
Let us Prots leave our Catholic FRiends to fight amoungst themselves on this day.
what note?
This would apply to a wife as well.
And no...your questions don't apply to me.
I almost busted a gut...a catholic wanting more than one verse to support a belief! This will be fun later...but we'll stick to the topic for now. Tell you what Art...do some research on your own.
The verses are there. Let's see if you can find them.
To be clear...adultery doesn't end the marriage. There is an option for the couple to stay together.
Then why in the world are you a Roman Catholic????
You don’t even try to dampen your contempt and hate, do you?
Happy Easter.
I challenge you to find the texts yourself and you think that's contempt and hate?
Wow!
Some Catholics are very thin skinned.
The “Note” added by Douay Rheims that I have included at the bottom of the quoted scripture. It says the exact opposite of what you are saying.
The D/R Bible (which is, essentially, the original translation of the Latin, Greek and Arabic texts by St Jerome) was the “Catholic Bible” up until the Second Vatican Council. In the early 1970’s, the Modernist pope (Paul VI) and Modernist bishops abandoned that Bible and adopted the “politically correct” New American Bible.
The original word “fornication” in that specific scripture passage was re-interpreted and re-written as “(unless the marriage is unlawful)” which fit nicely into the Modernist view of so-called “Catholic annulments”. There has been over 50,000 per year since that time.
As noted, the Douay Rheims Bible acknowledges precisely what Jesus actually said––and meant. One may separate from your spouse over fornication, but they may not remarry while their spouse is alive.
Both Bibles are online.
The New American Bible (NAB) is a Catholic Bible translation first published in 1970. It is the basis of the revised Lectionary, and is the only translation approved for use at Mass in the dioceses of the United States and the Philippines,[1][2] and is also an approved Bible translation by the Episcopal Church in the United States. [3]
Stemming originally from the Confraternity Bible, a translation of the Vulgate by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, the project transitioned to translating the original biblical languages in response to Pope Pius XII's 1943 encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu. The effort eventually became the New American Bible under the liturgical principles and reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Bible
The "except it be" is the allowance for divorce due to marital unfaithfulness.
The "exception clause" is Jesus' statement in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 "except for marital unfaithfulness." It gives an "exception" for remarriage after a divorce being considered adultery. Matthew 5:32 reads, "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." Similarly, Matthew 19:9 reads, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." So, what precisely is "marital unfaithfulness," and why is it an exception to Jesus' statement that remarriage after a divorce is adultery?
The meaning of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is clear. If a person gets a divorce and then remarries, it is considered adultery unless the exception clause is in effect. The phrase "marital unfaithfulness" is a translation of the Greek word porneia, the word from which we get our modern word "pornography." The essential meaning of porneia is "sexual perversion." In Greek literature around the same time as the New Testament, porneia was used to refer to adultery, fornication, prostitution, incest, and idolatry. It is used 25 times in the New Testament, most often translated "fornication."
The meaning of porneia in the New Testament seems to be the general concept of sexual perversion. Other Greek words are used to refer to specific forms of sexual perversion, such as adultery. With this meaning in mind, according to the exception clause, any participation in sexual perversion/misconduct is an exception to Jesus' statement that remarriage after a divorce is adultery. If one spouse commits adultery, or any act of sexual perversion, and a divorce results, the "innocent" spouse is free to remarry without it being considered adulterous.
for more:https://www.gotquestions.org/exception-clause.html
Beyond ironic, no?
Are you perhaps projecting?
First, there is "Petrine privilege, also known as the privilege of the faith or favour of the faith, is a ground recognised in Catholic canon law allowing for dissolution by the Pope of a valid natural marriage between a baptised and a non-baptised person, for the sake of the salvation of the soul of someone who is thus enabled to marry in the Church." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrine_privilege
Can. 1143 §1. A marriage entered into by two non-baptized persons is dissolved by means of the pauline privilege in favor of the faith of the party who has received baptism by the very fact that a new marriage is contracted by the same party, provided that the non-baptized party departs. - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P44.HTM
Then we have history as relates to clerics:
THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF NICEA, A.D. 325: Whatever presbyter or deacon shall put away his wife without the offence of fornication, or for any other cause of which we have spoken above, and shall east her out of doors . . . such a person shall be east out of the clergy, if he were a clergyman; if a layman he shall be forbidden the communion of the faithful.. . . But if that woman[untruly charged by her husband with adultery], that is to say his wife, spurns his society on account of the injury he has done her and the charge he has brought against her, of which she is innocent, let her freely be put away and let a bill of repudiation be written for her, noting the false accusation which had been brought against her. And then if she should wish to marry some other faithful man, it is right for he; to do so, nor does the Church forbid it; and the same permission extends as well to men as to women, since there is equal reason for it for each. SOURCE: Henry R. Percival, ed., The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church CANON LXVI. Vol XIV of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, edd. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, (repr. Edinburgh: T&T Clark; Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988): https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/nicea1.txt
Even in the tenth century most rural priests had wives, and many urban clergy were also married, which presented a problem, a primary one being economic. A consequence which relates to divorce, the provincial council at Bourges in 1031 decreed that priests should separate from their wives, instead of attempting to cohabit chastely...The councils of Rome in 1049, 1050, and 1059 once again forbade clerics in major orders from having sexual relations with their wives and decreed that clerics dismiss any women they kept in their houses (including their wives) [which legislation had force under the code of laws known as "Las Siete Partidas,"drawn up by Alfonso the Wise]...
Similar legislation emerged from synods and councils for the next fifty year s, and in 1123, the council known as Lateran I prohibited clerical marriage and concubinage, decl aring that ordination to a major order (subdiaconate, diaconate, and priesthood) created an impediment to marriage. Clerics in major orders could no longer marry; existing clerical marriages were stripped of their legal status. Lateran II, in 1139, repeated these injunctions and made provisions for enforcement: clerical marriages would be considered invalid, both priests and their wives were to perform penance, and married clergy who resisted were to be deprived of both their clerical offices and their benefices.
The Second Lateran Council also forbade parishioners from attending a mass celebrated by an unchaste priest. 9 Together, the first and second Lateran councils finally and irrevocably decreed marriage a canonical crime for clerics in major orders; women who had married priests were denounced as concubines; children of priests were declared illegitimate. Lateran III (1179) reiterated the pronouncement that clerics who lived with women would be deprived of their benefices, and by the end of the twelfth century, marriage was an impediment to clerical orders. The change was not an easy one; while Peter Damian and other clerics supported the reforms, many resisted – sometimes violently. The struggle to enforce clerical celibacy had begun. 10...
[describing the findings of Catholic Henry C. Lea, "History of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church"] clerical marriage was widespread throughout Europe at beginning of the eleventh century, clerical dynasties were ubiquitous, and “the standard of morality was extremely low... the clergy scarcely distinguishable from the laity in purity of life or devotion to their sacred calling.” 12 (Janelle Werner, “JUST AS THE PRIESTS HAVE THEIR WIVES”: PRIESTS AND CONCUBINES IN ENGLAND, 1375-1549, pp. 36-39: https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/indexablecontent/uuid:3b4c2b8e-f983-4220-9a6f-7fada717870a)
And as divorce is linked to the development of clerical celibacy, I think this information warrants including:
While many thousands of church women were driven out to the roads, a conclave of Italian bishops in 1076 tried to excommunicate Pope Gregory for the crime of destroying families.[xxxiii] Sigebert of Gembloux wrote, “Many have seen in the ban on attending mass of a married priest an open contradiction to the teaching of the fathers. This has led to such a great scandal that the church has never been split by a greater schism.”[xxxiv] Again Gregory fired the protesting clerics. In real concern, the Eastern Church Patriarch Petros of Antioch suggested that the Pope must have lost record of the old Council of Nicea ruling on clerical marriage from 325, possibly due to general destruction of records when the Goths or Vandals sacked Rome.[xxxv] That ruling from Nicea read in part, “Whatever presbyter or deacon shall put away his wife without the offense of fornication … and shall cast her out of doors … such a person shall be cast out of the clergy …”[xxxvi]
Many priests grew violent to defend their families. In the Paris Synod of 1074, Abbot Galter of Saint Martin demanded the flock follow its shepherd in celibacy. A mob of outraged priests beat him, spit on him, and threw him in the street. In the same year Archbishop John of Rouen threatened to excommunicate protesting priests, and had to flee for his life under a hail of stones. In furious debate, the celibate party denounced its opponents as fornicators trying to prostitute the church. Married priests hurled back accusations that their foes were sodomites, whose obvious preference for homosexuality made them hate married families.[xxxvii] For decades church synods regularly broke into fistfights, with monks and priests smashing each other’s faces. In 1233, protesters murdered papal legate Conrad of Marburg, who was touring Germany partly to enforce chastity.[xxxviii] In England, furious priests locked their churches, hid their families, and tried to keep them in secret.[xxxix]
As many clerical couples still clung to each other, the hierarchy applied stronger measures. In 1089, Pope Urban II ruled that if a priest did not dispose of his wife, the local prince could enslave the woman... - https://newtopiamagazine.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/how-the-church-lost-its-wives
In France the efforts of reform made by the predecessors of Gregory had little effect. A Paris synod of 1074 declared Gregory's decrees unbearable and unreasonable. At a stormy synod at Poitiers, in 1078, his legate obtained the adoption of a canon which threatened with excommunication all who should listen to mass by a priest whom they knew to be guilty of simony or concubinage. But the bishops were unable to carry out the canon without the aid of the secular arm. The Norman clergy in 1072 drove the archbishop of Rouen from a council with a shower of stones. William the Conqueror came to his aid in 1080 at a synod of Lillebonne, which forbade ordained persons to keep women in their houses. But clerical marriages continued, the nuptials were made public, and male children succeeded to benefices by a recognized right of primogeniture. William the Conqueror, who assisted the hopeless reform in Normandy, prevented it in his subject province of Britanny, where the clergy, as described by Pascal II, in the early part of the twelfth century, were setting the canons at defiance and indulging in enormities hateful to God and man (Primogeniture is the right of the firstborn to the inheritance—H.V.).
At last, the Gregorian enforcement of sacerdotal celibacy triumphed in the whole Roman Church, but at the fearful sacrifice of sacerdotal chastity. The hierarchical aim was attained, but not the angelic purity of the priesthood. The private morals of the priest were sacrificed to hierarchical ambition. Concubinage and licentiousness took the place of holy matrimony. The acts of councils abound in complaints of clerical immorality and the vices of unchastity and drunkenness. "The records of the Middle Ages are full of the evidences that indiscriminate license of the worst kind prevailed throughout every rank of the hierarchy." The corruption again reached the papacy, especially in the fifteenth century. John XXIII and Alexander VI rivaled in wickedness and lewdness the worst popes of the tenth and eleventh centuries. - https://standardbearer.rfpa.org/articles/church-and-sacraments-gregory-and-papacy-continued
More by God's grace.
So much for the Catholic church being champions of families and marriage.
The irony is not lost.
It never ceases to amaze me that divorce would even be an issue when a Catholic could just get a church approved divorce aka an annulment, and avoid the whole can’t take communion mess.
And since they teach that taking communion is essential to getting to heaven cause you have to eat Jesus to have His life in you, ie be saved, they refuse to forgive and hence consign the people to hell.
Apparently you are unaware of the fact that Jimmy Wales (the co-founder and CEO of Wikipedia) is not only a committed globalist and “climate change” loyalist, he is a confirmed atheist. Those so aware recognize that virtually all religious “information” presented by Wikipedia is invariably so skewed so as to militate unsuspecting readers into accepting anti-Catholic, anti-Christian and pro-secular points of view––especially on the more esoteric subject matters. His “religious” moderators subtly promote the Modernist, secular point of view and are completely unreliable.
That being said, you may either accept the information I have offered to you or reject it. I really don’t care. One thing is for certain, however, I have absolutely no interest in debating it with you.
Have a good day!
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.