Free Republic

5 children 8 and under. Any other questions?

The National Association of Evangelicals, which represents more than 45,000 churches in the United States, released a report Tuesday showing that nearly 90 percent approve of contraception.

Does this surprise anyone? Protestants do as they please and interpret scripture as suits their desires.

Protestantism with it's sliding scale of "doctrines" is an inclined plane to the abyss of total unbelief.

One is either Catholic or anything they want to be (C.K. Chesterton).

Contraceptive use is the sword that divides people who LIVE THE FAITH from those that don't.

The homily is in the vernacular. The readings are usually read in the vernacular as part of the homily. The rest of the Mass is in a missal anyone can buy for $100 or so, Latin in the left column and English in the right. 60% of it (or thereabouts) is the same from week-to-week; once you know it, you know it.

$100 is high. We bought paperback Stedman Sunday missals for our congregation at $6 each NEW. All the Traditional Mass every day of the week missals are like 40-$50 today.

The Novus Ordo missalettres change every month, would cost more in a short time than the traditoinal missals which last forever. I still use a 1945 Lassance missal.

the Orthodox place the well being of the soul above the rules.

By sanctioning adultery, they place the comfort of the body here on earth ahead of the eternal soul. That marriage is indissoluble is an eternal law from God, from the beginning! Your Orthodox Churches is no different than the Protestants, changing Gods law to suit man.

The three marriages is a hypothetical possibility. It was meant for widowers and widows in extreme cases.

You are totally winging it and incoherent.

The Orthodox allow two divorces, and three marriages for people previously married two times in the orthodox Church, while the first two spouses are still alive.

A widower 's spouse is no longer alive, "till death do us part", parted the marriage, they can marry again.

A Catholic widower has no living spouse, therefore, can marry again in the Catholic Church. We are not talking about widowers.

The three marriages is a hypothetical possibility. It was meant for widowers and widows in extreme cases. You are totally winging it and incoherent.

The Orthodox allow two divorces, and three marriages for people previously married two times in the orthodox Church, while the first two spouses are still alive.

A widower 's spouse is no longer alive, "till death do us part", parted the marriage, they can marry again.

A Catholic widower has no living spouse, therefore, can marry again in the Catholic Church. We are not talking about widowers.

The three marriages is a hypothetical possibility. It was meant for widowers and widows in extreme cases. You are totally winging it and incoherent.

The Orthodox allow two divorces, and three marriages for people previously married two times in the orthodox Church. who's first two spouses are still alive. A widower 's spouse is no longer alive, "till death do us part", parted the marriage, they can marry again.

A Catholic widower has no living spouse, therefore, can marry again in the Catholic Church. We are not talking about widowers.

OF THE UNITY AND INDISSOLUBILITY OF MARRIAGE
Pope John Paul II

---

GENERAL AUDIENCE OF 5 SEPTEMBER
At the General Audience in St Peter’s Square on 5 September, attended by more than 20,000 people, Pope John Paul II gave the following address.

1. For some time now preparations have been going on for the next ordinary assembly of the Synod of Bishops, which will take place in Rome in autumn of next year. The theme of the Synod, “The role of the Christian family,” concentrates our attention on this community of human and Christian life, which has been fundamental from the beginning. The Lord Jesus used precisely this expression “from the beginning” in the talk about marriage, reported in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark. We wish to raise the question what this word “beginning” means. We also wish to clarify why Christ referred to the “beginning” on that occasion and, therefore, we propose a more precise analysis of the relative text of Holy Scripture.

Clear-cut responses

2. During the talk with the Pharisees, who asked him the question about the indissolubility of marriage, Jesus Christ referred twice to the “beginning.” The talk took place in the following way:

“And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?’ He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.’ They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?’ He said to them, ‘For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so’” (Mt 19:3ff., cf. also Mk 10:2ff.).

Christ did not accept the discussion at the level at which his interlocutors tried to introduce it. In a certain sense he did not approve of the dimension that they tried to give the problem. He avoided getting caught up in juridico-casuistical controversies. On the contrary, he referred twice to “the beginning.” Acting in this way, he made a clear reference to the relative words in Genesis, which his interlocutors too knew by heart. From those words of the ancient revelation, Christ drew the conclusion and the talk ended.

From the beginning

3. “The beginning” means, therefore, that which Genesis speaks about. Christ quoted Genesis 1:27 in summary form: “In the beginning the Creator made them male and female.” The original passage reads textually as follows: “God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Subsequently, the Master referred to Genesis 2:24: “Therefore, a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Quoting these words almost in full, Christ gave them an even more explicit normative meaning (since it could be supported that in Genesis they express de facto statements: “leaves. cleaves. they become one flesh”). The normative meaning is plausible since Christ did not confine himself only to the quotation itself, but added: “So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” That “let not man put asunder” is decisive. In the light of these words of Christ, Genesis 2:24 sets forth the principle of the unity and indissolubility of marriage as the very content of the Word of God, expressed in the most ancient revelation.

The eternal law

4. It could be maintained at this point that the problem is exhausted, that Jesus Christ’s words confirm the eternal law formulated and set up by God from “the beginning” as the creation of man. It might also seem that the Master, confirming this original law of the Creator, did nothing but establish exclusively his own normative meaning, referring to the authority itself of the first Legislator. However, that significant expression “from the beginning,” repeated twice, clearly induced his interlocutors to reflect on the way in which man was formed in the mystery of creation, precisely as “male and female,” in order to understand correctly the normative sense of the words of Genesis. This is no less valid for the people of today than for those of that time. Therefore, in the present study, considering all this, we must put ourselves precisely in the position of Christ’s interlocutors today.

Preparation for the Synod

5. During the following Wednesday reflections at the general audiences, we will try, as Christ’s interlocutors today, to dwell at greater length on St. Matthew’s words (19:3ff.). To respond to the indication, inserted in them by Christ, we will try to penetrate toward that “beginning,” to which he referred in such a significant way. Thus we will follow from a distance the great work which participants in the forthcoming Synod of Bishops are undertaking on this subject just now. Together with them, numerous groups of pastors and laymen are taking part in it, feeling especially responsible with regard to the role which Christ assigned to marriage and the Christian family, the role that he has always given, and still gives in our age, in the modern world.

The cycle of reflections we are beginning today, with the intention of continuing it during the following Wednesday meetings, also has the purpose, among other things, of accompanying from afar, so to speak, the work of preparation for the Synod. However, it will not touch its subject directly, but will turn our attention to the deep roots from which this subject springs.

---

Taken from:
L’Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
10 September 1979, page 1
L’Osservatore Romano is the newspaper of the Holy See.
The Weekly Edition in English is published for the US by:

The Cathedral Foundation
L’Osservatore Romano English Edition
320 Cathedral St.
Baltimore, MD 21201
Subscriptions: (410) 547-5315
Fax: (410) 332-1069
lormail@catholicreview.org

So, because you can't find "the maximum number of marriages that the Latin Church will grant", " THEN YOU conclude that "the number of marriages that the Latin Church will allow is virtually infinite - to the lifespan of the individual"?

Yes. Do you have anything else to offer?

Google : The indissolubility of marriage

God Bless,

It was Markbsnr who wrote that “finesse”. I was just copying it to you and highlighting it.

Leoni wrote: A Catholic can separate from their spouse and as long as they don't remarry there is no sin, there is NO PROBLEM! This is basic elementary school Catholicism, my 8 year old knows this, COME ON!

MarkBsnr answered: A broken home is no problem to you? And you call yourself Catholic?

You are right, it is a problem for the children and all the people that come in contact with the divorcees. It is a scandal. On the other hand, someimes it is for the good of the children (a drunkard wife beater). Either way, it is not a sin to separate/divorce if the two people just can't live together. There may be though, other sins related to the separation, like: neglect of home, causing hard feeling, revenge, refusing reconciliation, detraction, rash judgements... to name a few. BUT the separation is not directly a sin.

Remarrying is adultery and would be a mortal sin.

There is no point in continuing the discussion with you since you only post your opinions, since you have yet to sight one traditional or scriptural source for the Orthodox allowing it's members to marry 3 times in the Orthodox Church while their first two spouses are still alive. That was my simple question. The Orthodox have been doing that, according to you, since like the beginning of the Greek Orthodox separation from the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church had granted like 35-50 annulments WORLDWIDE per year in the 1930's to 1950's, those numbers are in line with the history/tradition of the Catholic Church.

An annulment is not a divorce. An annulment was granted for marriages that never took, because the sacrament had no efficacy because for example:

- A person was forced to marry. - One of the parties had already been married in the Church before, and had hidden the information - One of the parties did not want to have children - the marriage was never consummated

In other words the sacrament had no efficacy because the parties basically married under false pretenses (or it was never consummated). That is why there were only 35-50 per year Worldwide.

The post Vatican II 50,000-90,000 annulments in just the USA (USA despite having only 5% of the worldwide population of Catholics, grants 80% of the worldwide annulments)is an aberration in history, like the Arian heresy it will be corrected in time. It is not the normal operating procedure of the first 1960 years of the Catholic Church. On the other hand, the Orthodox three marriages is their normal operating procedure from day one.

A married Catholic who marries another, while his spouse is still alive is excommunicated from the Catholic Church, they can't go to communion, because he is living in adultery, a MORTAL SIN

You have to be kidding me! I personally know several Catholics who were married (one was married six times), and they all go to church and receive communion.

We are talking about the Orthodox Churches allowing an Orthodox to be married in the Orthodox Church 3 times by an Orthodox priest. That is their doctrine.

The identical situation in the Catholic Church:

A married Catholic who marries another Catholic in the Catholic Church, can't remmarry a second time anywhere while his spouse is still alive or else he is excommunicated from the Catholic Church, they can't go to communion, because he is living in adultery, a MORTAL SIN.

Your acquaintance who married 6 times(???) likely married outside of the Catholic Church, and thus is not married in the eyes of the Church, he is LIVING in Adultery. I had a cousin who was married in the Catholic Church, he divorced his wife and remarried civilly, he went to communion, till people found out he was remarried. They told the priest and the priest told him that he could not come go to communion. He did not know. Those communions that he received had no efficacy sins he was in a state of mortal sin.

I have 5 children ages 8 and below, I don’t have the time to spoon feed an adult basic Catholic teaching. If you don’t know that a Catholic marriage is “till death do us part”, and can’t find a source, I can’t help you. You also don’t know what an annulment is, and I already told you how to find out. An annulment is not a divorce. I gave yopu more than enough information.

Those are two questions.

Do you believe that Pope Benedict XVI is a valid Pope

Yes.

Do you believe that Pope Benedict XVI is in union with the Catholic Church in his teachings?

In some things he is 180 degrees opposed to what the pre-Vatican II popes taught. The SSPX is at this moment having doctrinal discussion with the Vatican on the matter. The SSPX is not sedevacantes, neither are 99% of the traditionalists who have the same opinion as I stated above with regard to Vatican II (that on some doctrinal points it is opposed to tradition of 1960 years). That does not mean that 99% of the trads agree with me on every popint, just that they are not sedevacantes.

The Church as a whole generally opposed remarriage more than divorce. Divorce for reasons of adultery was always acceptable to the Church, but by the 9th century in western Europe divorces pretty much ceased. Rome also had civil divorce laws. As a Christian-only country, obviously divorces in the Roman Empire were not handled by the Church. That means the Church did accept civil divorces and apparently did so until the 9th century.

STRAWMAN! I am not talking about divorce. You and MarkBsnr keep focusing on divorce, why? It is not a sin to divorce, I've made it quite clear the problem is remmariage while the original spouse or spouses are still alive!

A Catholic can separate from their spouse and as long as they don't remarry there is no sin, there is NO PROBLEM! This is basic elementary school Catholicism, my 8 year old knows this, COME ON!

Leoni wrote: Granting three marriages inside the (Orthodox)church while the first two spouses are still alive, is a heretical soul killing doctrine, a doctrine of Orthodox church authorized adultery.

MarkBsnr answered: But not the Latin Church? I am unable to find the maximum number of marriages that the Latin Church will grant - there are no guidelines that I can find - so theoretically the number of marriages that the Latin Church will allow is virtually infinite - to the lifespan of the individual. There are no limits to the number of annulments that the Latin Church will grant either, according my research.

Leoni responds: I commented in another posting "What a mess is your knowledge of Catholicism!" What religion are you anyways?" AND you answer "Catholic".

I find it hard to believe that you are Catholic. In all sincerity, you should not be posting anything. You don't know your own Faith.

I am unable to find the maximum number of marriages that the Latin Church will grant - there are no guidelines that I can find - so theoretically the number of marriages that the Latin Church will allow is virtually infinite - to the lifespan of the individual.

So, because you can't find "the maximum number of marriages that the Latin Church will grant", " THEN YOU conclude that "the number of marriages that the Latin Church will allow is virtually infinite - to the lifespan of the individual"?

How many minutes did you use of your time to do that "research"?

Any Catholic knows marriage is for life. The couple marry "till death do us part". Were you not married in the Church? A married Catholic who marries another, while his spouse is still alive is excommunicated from the Catholic Church, they can't go to communion, because he is living in adultery, a MORTAL SIN. That is why I said "Granting three marriages inside the (Orthodox)church while the first two spouses are still alive, is a heretical soul killing doctrine, a doctrine of Orthodox church authorized adultery.

There are no limits to the number of annulments that the Latin Church will grant either, according my research.

Come on! How many minutes did you spend with this "research". What is an annulment? What does it mean? I'd suggest you read a definition made prior to 1960. (Prior to 1960's and going back to the early Church, it was likely no different with the number of worldwide annulments as in the 1930' to 1950's, years for which I have statistics, and they are that there were an average of like 35-50 annulments granted WORLDWIDE by the Catholic Church. In the 1970 to 1990's the USA bishops alone granted 50,000 to 90,000 annulments!. Obviously, they changed something. Rome has overturned like 90% of all the annulments granted by the USA bishops when they have been appealed by one of the spouses, nevertheless, very few have been appealed comparatively speaking. IT IS AN ABERATION from Catholic history, by rebellious, USA Bishops who have lost all fear of God, and either lost the Faith or their marbles.

The Orthodox Church as a matter of doctrine allows a person to marry three times while their first two spouses still live.The aberrant USA "Catholic "bishops grant annulments in rebellion to the Faith, not as a practice of the Church. BIG DIFFERENCE! One is wrong by doctrine, the other accomplishes the same by rebellion.

Any Catholic that has a USA annulment is likely fooling themselves. 35 annulments WORLD WIDE per year in the 1930's, 50,000 to 90,000 per year in the USA in the post-Vatican II era. What are the chances of any of these 50,000 to 90,000 per year annulments being valid in the eyes of God. Slim and none!

Leoni wrote: Granting three marriages inside the (Orthodox)church while the first two spouses are still alive, is a heretical soul killing doctrine, a doctrine of Orthodox church authorized adultery.

MarkBsnr answered: But not the Latin Church? I am unable to find the maximum number of marriages that the Latin Church will grant - there are no guidelines that I can find - so theoretically the number of marriages that the Latin Church will allow is virtually infinite - to the lifespan of the individual. There are no limits to the number of annulments that the Latin Church will grant either, according my research.

I commented in another posting "What a mess is your knowledge of Catholicism!" What religion are you anyways?" AND you answer "Catholic".

I find it hard to believe that you are Catholic. In all sincerity, you should not be posting anything. You don't know your own Faith.

I am unable to find the maximum number of marriages that the Latin Church will grant - there are no guidelines that I can find - so theoretically the number of marriages that the Latin Church will allow is virtually infinite - to the lifespan of the individual.

So, because you can't find "the maximum number of marriages that the Latin Church will grant", " THEN YOU conclude that "the number of marriages that the Latin Church will allow is virtually infinite - to the lifespan of the individual"?

How many minutes did you use of your time to do that "research"?

Any Catholic knows marriage is for life. The couple marry "till death do us part". Were you not married in the Church? A married Catholic who marries another, while his spouse is still alive is excommunicated from the Catholic Church, they can't go to communion, because he is living in adultery, a MORTAL SIN. That is why I said "Granting three marriages inside the (Orthodox)church while the first two spouses are still alive, is a heretical soul killing doctrine, a doctrine of Orthodox church authorized adultery.

There are no limits to the number of annulments that the Latin Church will grant either, according my research.

Come on! How many minutes did you spend with this "research". What is an annulment? What does it mean? I'd suggest you read a definition made prior to 1960. (Prior to 1960's and going back to the early Church, it was likely no different with the number of worldwide annulments as in the 1930' to 1950's, years for which I have statistics, and they are that there were an average of like 35-50 annulments granted WORLDWIDE by the Catholic Church. In the 1970 to 1990's the USA bishops alone granted 50,000 to 90,000 annulments!. Obviously, they changed something. Rome has overturned like 90% of all the annulments granted by the USA bishops when they have been appealed by one of the spouses, nevertheless, very few have been appealed comparitively speaking. IT IS AN ABERATION from Catholic history, by rebelious, USA Bishops who have lost all fear of God, and either lost the Faith or their marbles.

The Orthodox Church as a matter of doctrine allows a person to marry three times while their first two spouses still live.The aberrant USA "Catholic "bishops grant annulments in rebelion to the Faith, not as a practice of the Church. BIG DIFFERENCE! One is wrong by doctrine, the other accomplishes the same by rebelion.

Any Catholic that has a USA annulment is likely fooloing themselves. 35 annulments WORLD WIDE per year in the 1930's, 50,000 to 90,000 per year in the USA in the post-Vatican II era. What are the chances of any of these 50,000 to 90,000 per year annulments eing valid in the eyes of God. Slim and none!

The Orthodox have Catholicism more pure than the excommunicated Feeneyites have, for sure.

You better call all the Diocene Archbishops that have approved "Feeneyite" St. Benedict Centers offering masses daily (some even Novus Ordo), and call the Vatican too, inform them that they are dealing with heretics.

Shows how much you know. You call Catholics heretics, the so-called Orthodox just like catholics.

What religion are you anyways?

I am talking about the Catholic Church, not a Feeneyite breakaway excommunicated cult. Pope BXVI is the current Pope and there is currently no vacancy in the Chair of St. Peter. The Latin Bishop (BXVI) heads the Latin branch of the Church. Do you count yourself in this Church, with BXVI as the head, primus inter pares?

What a mess is your knowledge of Catholicism! The "Feeneyites" as you call them, are 99% not sedevacantes, that's two different things. The pope is the supreme pontiff that is Catholic Dogma, the Orthodox bishops are schismatic and heretical, that they admit themselves when they call Catholics the same. I am not a sedevacates.

What religion are you anyways, you know very little about Catholicism and it looks like you are not a source to ask any questions to about the schismatic Orthodox?

The Early Church Fathers learned directly from the apostles and those that were with the apostles. The Holy Spirit was with them for sure. If they had a consensus, then we know it was of the Holy Ghost. As for us, we are just one person, who knows if it's the Holy Ghost or something else?

“There are as many sects now and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow has nothing to do with baptism. Another one denies the sacraments. A third believes there is another world between this one and the last day. Some teach that Christ is not God. Some say this, some say that. There is no rustic so rude that if he dreams or fancies anything believes it must be the whisper of the Holy Spirit and that he himself must be a prophet.”(Martin Luther)