Confusion only comes from you know who. I don't trust anything I read anymore. I know my faith and thanks be to God. I don't know if the evil one has found a weakness with our Holy Father because he doesn't address these confusing statements and because he's surrounded by servants of the evil one. But these things must happen imho for the Glory of God in the end! I'm just trying to live my faith the best I can and hopefully be prepared to lose everything if it's God's will and pray for our Holy Father and all priests. We'll know if we need to jump ship in the future. God won't abandon us. God Bless!
My argument was a purely exegetical one: reading Christ's words, it would seem that He is exempting the person wronged by infidelity from the charge of adultery in the case of subsequent divorce - although nothing can be definitely concluded about remarriage from this Scripture in isolation. I take your point about a re-appraisal of the rules for annulment (which presumably is a question of Canon Law, not doctrine per se) as the easiest way to sort all this out - which is going to be necessary in order for Catholic-Orthodox reconciliation to proceed, apart from anything else.
With all due respect Peter (and I truly mean it, I usually find your posts very informative), I strongly disagree with your interpretation of this Bible passage. I think going back to the language it is written in would clear up a lot of misconceptions. See here: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=103 "The problem with the fornication/adultery argument is that the Greek context rules out it meaning adultery. The word translated as fornication (or adultery in many Bibles) is the Greek word porneia, which is a term encompassing all forms of sexual immorality. Yet in this verse, and the surrounding verses, the specific word moichao is used for adultery. Now why would the evangelist, intending to refer to adultery, suddenly switch to a generic word and then go back to the specific? The answer is that he is not giving an excuse on grounds of adultery, but rather an excuse if the marriage itself is immoral."
I don't think it would be a "bombshell" as it seemed to have happened at least once before. We must be vigilant in watching. I think prayer is very much needed: http://vatican.com/articles/popes/pope_honorius_i-a1110
Here is another article concerning Pope Honorius which I believe is worth reading as it may (God forbid) have relevance to our current situation: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3301
Possible insights to Popes way of thinking,..theological formation?? http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/francis-hails-late-cardinal-carlo-martini
Thanks for the comment. Let me try to be as precise as possible here. i) What I am trying to do in this instance is to see what can and cannot be logically inferred from Matthew 19:9, whereas of course the larger question of divorce/annulment/re-marriage is far broader than that and includes many other issues (for example, the list of possible grounds for annulment contains many things which are not immediately derived from this one verse). I have to say that I don't find the argument in the discussion thread to which you provided the link fully convincing. Looking at the Greek, it is true that two words, 'porneia' and 'moichao' are used, the first one being a more generic term for sexual immorality. However, it doesn't logically follow on exegetical grounds alone that if 'moichao' specifically designates adultery, then 'porneia' excludes it (the contrary would seem to be the case). To say that Christ is providing 'an excuse if the marriage itself is immoral' rather than referring to marital unfaithfulness is the commentator's interpretation, not a strict logical deduction. Furthermore, if you read on in the thread concerned, there is a citation from Canon Law which needs to be taken into account with regard to the question of adultery and its impact on marriage: Can. 1152 §1 It is earnestly recommended that a spouse, motivated by christian charity and solicitous for the good of the family, should not refuse to pardon an adulterous partner and should not sunder the conjugal life. Nevertheless, if that spouse has not either expressly or tacitly condoned the other’s fault, he or she has the right to sever the common conjugal life, provided he or she has not consented to the adultery, nor been the cause of it, nor also committed adultery. I acknowledge that formally, adultery does not presently constitute in itself grounds for annulment. However, the passage above indicates that it does constitute official grounds for the severance of conjugal life - and it is difficult to think that singling this out in this way has nothing to do with Matthew 19:9. ii) A distinction needs to be made between contemplating changing doctrine and changing Canon law. The first would be illegimate on the part of the Pope, not necessarily so the second (there is a very interesting passage on just this distinction in the visions of Ida Peerdeman, the seer connected with the approved apparitions of Amsterdam). It can be argued that the Church's current stance on communion for the remarried is in the second category because the arrangements for annulment, the alteration of which would be necessary in order for the present position to change, are governed by Canon Law - which can be changed as it is not simply a logical deduction from Scripture or dogmatics. This being the case, those such as the German bishops arguing in favour of communion for the remarried may or may not be mistaken, but they are not automatically heretical for discussing the possibility. iii) Nobody knows the precise circumstances involved in the case which occasioned Pope Francis's phone call. So our discussion of Matthew 19:9 may or may not have direct relevance to this. There could be other factors involved. iv) Before considering that all this is cut and dried, and that Pope Francis has crossed a red line, CCC 2386 is worth a read as a plea for moral nuance - 2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage. In other words this is all a complex and painful discussion with no simplistic solutions on offer, as Benedict XVI also seems to have acknowledged: http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/e...francesco-francis-francisco-divorziati-28480/
I'm all in favour of prayer and vigilance, but I think we need to be specific about what is being implied by this comparison: I take it that we're talking about a possibility in which a Pope could make a clear doctrinal error without that compromising the notion of Papal infallibility? That is certainly not outside the bounds of reason, but I think that we have to admit that what is in the background of this whole discussion on this particular forum are all the alleged eschatological prophecies about wholesale heresy in the Vatican and a Pope who would lead the Church into downright apostasy. That as far as I can see is the principal reason for the nervousness of so many posts here. We all know that such prophecies exist both in Catholic and non-Catholic sources - and I'm not just talking about MDM. Many of us however are adamant that even if some of them may be authentic, to identify them with Pope Francis is a real mistake. The kind of drastic changes to Church teaching referred to in this purported prophetic material aren't on the level of privately expressing a position at variance with current Canon Law on allowing communion for the remarried. What is being prophesied is a thoroughgoing capitulation to 'theological modernism', the elimination of belief in the Real Eucharistic Presence, etc. As the implementation of such changes would require official doctrinal pronouncements from the very top, I don't myself see any way that such prophecies could be fulfilled by a legitimately-elected Pontiff protected by the charism of infallibility. Would have to be an anti-Pope of some sort. So I think that for now, lowering the panic level around Pope Francis is definitely in order.
Bernadette, I think we all agree with you that we all know our faith and are all trying to live it to the best of our ability with God given grace he has bestowed upon us. The question is, what if anything will faithful Catholics, who know their faith, do when they see a doctrine changed, either implicitly or explicitly? We need to ask ourselves this question now, lest we fall to loyalty to a person rather than God. This is why this discussion is so very important to have. None of us, at least I can speak to my self on this, have given up on Pope Francis. We all pray for him daily as is out mission. To question or understand where a person, and in this case the Holy Father, is coming from is not being disloyal or sinful. It is using our intellect, based on constant teachings of the faith, to discern if what is being said and done is sound. As long as this discussion remains in the spirit of truth is a good thing. If it turns to false accusations or uncharitable then I assume Padraig will end it.
You know Peter I always like your posts and appreciate them. You clearly put so much time study and scholarship into them. But more than that your posts are dispassionate in the best possible sense , in that you are seeking to uncover the truth rather than to prove yourself right. This lack of ego and dedication is so very rare it delights me and I suspect many others on the forum . Your posts are always grounds for standing back a little and reflecting. You , perhaps by accident cause me to think of something I hadn't before. This was a private Pastoral chat between the Holy Father and a lady who came to him for advice. Given that this was so Pope Francis could not reveal its details. So he is kinda going into all this with his hands tied behind his back..well maybe. She is telling the world what she alleges he said, he , on the other hand has to keep his mouth shut on grounds of confidentiality. A terrible situation of course. But it raises the question of a Pope getting into such a conversation in the first place (sigh). A place were he could be and has in fact become something of a sitting duck. To be honest I never thought that there might be a Pastor stupid enough to refuse communion to a divorced person who had been divorced through no fault of their own. This might indeed throw light on the Popes remarks about some priests, 'Being more Papist than the Pope himself'. This being so I understand the Holy Father being irate. As to the rest Canon Law and so on. Its all speculation. None of us know what was said in the that phone call, which in my opinion should never have taken place in the first place. What makes folks nervous is the fear that the lady's account may be on the button. You are right that the direction of Catholic Prophecy makes folks like myself even more trigger happy than usual. If this had been just a one off incident I would sleep a lot easier in my bed at nights. But its far from being a one off. But I am more than happy to continue , like Mary, to store these things in my heart and pray over them. I just pray to the good Lord there are no more strange transatlantic phone calls to raise my already high blood pressure. No more strange events to shock and startle.
I wouldn't want to take an ax to Pope Francis, not at all. I do think it is reasonable to ask questions. From all that the Holy Father has been saying since he took the chair of Peter he has been kicking us hard up the ass to bestir ourselves ,get up on our feet and shout out questions. If you don't ask questions how are you ever going to find answers? If God wanted us to be mindless robots why in heaven did He send us the Holy Spirit? Of course we are free to ask questions, no matter how hard. Pope Francis would love it and would chime in with both hands. He strikes me as a man who has spent his entire life asking hard questions and finding hard answers.
Pope Francis Preaches "Indissolubility of Christian Matrimony" “Christian matrimony is a lifelong covenant of love between one man and one woman," he also said. © ANDREAS SOLARO / AFP Pope Francis on April 25 stressed the need for bishops and priests to give a “consistent witness” to Christian moral teaching, including the lifelong nature of Christian marriage, and to teach these truths “with great compassion.” “The holiness and indissolubility of Christian matrimony, often disintegrating under tremendous pressure from the secular world, must be deepened by clear doctrine and supported by the witness of committed married couples,” Pope Francis said. “Christian matrimony is a lifelong covenant of love between one man and one woman; it entails real sacrifices in order to turn away from illusory notions of sexual freedom and in order to foster conjugal fidelity.” The Pope’s remarks came in a meeting with bishops from South Africa, Zimbabwe and Swaziland, who were making their routine ad limina visit to the Holy Father, Vatican Radio reports. Pope Francis noted the pastoral challenges presented by marital separation and divorce, even in Christian families, and the lack of a stable home for many children. “We also observe with great concern, and can only deplore, an increase in violence against women and children,” he continued. “All these realities threaten the sanctity of marriage, the stability of life in the home and consequently the life of society as a whole.” He stressed the need to continue “indispensable” marriage preparation programs that give “new hope” to young people for their futures as husbands, wives, fathers and mothers. Pope Francis’ comments follow media reports about the contents of a recent phone call he allegedly made to a remarried divorced woman in Argentina. The woman claimed that the Pope told her she could receive Holy Communion. Catholic teaching recognizes the nature of matrimony as indissoluble, so a new marriage can only be contracted if the first union was found to be invalid. Those who have entered a new union without a recognition of annulment may not be admitted to Communion. On April 24, Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said that the media coverage of the woman cannot be confirmed as reliable and is “a source of misunderstanding and confusion.” In his comments to the southern African bishops, Pope Francis also noted the damage caused by abortion and an attitude of disrespect for life. “Abortion compounds the grief of many women who now carry with them deep physical and spiritual wounds after succumbing to the pressures of a secular culture which devalues God’s gift of sexuality and the right to life of the unborn,” he said. In addition, the Holy Father acknowledged the bishops’ reports that some Catholics are turning away from the Church to other groups, as well as a decline in family size that is affecting the number of vocations to the priesthood and religious life. “In this sea of difficulties, we bishops and priests must give a consistent witness to the moral teaching of the Gospel,” he said. “I am confident that you will not weaken in your resolve to teach the truth ‘in season and out of season’ (2 Tim 4), sustained by prayer and discernment, and always with great compassion.” The Pope also recognized several other concerns of the southern Africa bishops, including the plight of refugees and migrants, dishonesty and corruption in society, and unemployment. “Most of your people can identify at once with Jesus who was poor and marginalized, who had no place to lay his head,” he observed. “In addressing these pastoral needs, I ask you to offer, in addition to the material support which you provide, the greater support of spiritual assistance and sound moral guidance, remembering that the absence of Christ is the greatest poverty of all.” Despite the challenges facing the bishops, the Pope praised their “flourishing parishes” and their efforts to train permanent deacons and lay catechists. He praised African clergy and vowed religious who served “God’s most vulnerable sons and daughters,” including widows, single mothers, the divorced, children at risk, and the region’s several million AIDS orphans. “Truly the richness and joy of the Gospel is being lived and shared by Catholics with others around them,” the Pope said. “I pray that they will continue to persevere in building up the Lord’s Kingdom with their lives that testify to the truth, and with the work of their hands that ease the sufferings of so many.” He encouraged the bishops to “rekindle the precious gift of faith so as to renew your dedicated service to God’s people!” “May the saints of Africa sustain you by their intercession. May Our Lady of Africa be always at your side, and may she guide you as you share in the teaching, sanctifying and governing mission of Christ,” he concluded. Courtesy of Catholic News Agency sources: Catholic News Agency
I am new to this discussion but one question keeps coming to my head. Since we don't know the details of this conversation could the Pope, being the Pope, give his approval because he annulled the marriage? Can a Pope do this or would it have to go through the proper motions. Kind of like when Jesus would frequently forgive sins on the sabbath or break other traditions because well he was Jesus. Can the Pope as the head of the church and thus head of all church laws and processes have given his consent because he knew she was not sinning and her marriage was not valid?
Andy, the answer is yes he could. But it would be a really bad precedence for him to set, as other bishops and priests would 'willy nilly', do the same and this would be great deceit and confusion to the whole divorce and remarriage debate. It would be very imprudent to say the least, since he would have to have had substantial communication with her, to know why she had 2 divorces and determine that she indeed was never married in God's eye to either man.
OK. This whole thing is based on what someone said the Pope said in a private conversation. How in the world do we get from there to changes in the teachings of the Universal Church? I think, instead of saying, "This woman lied", Pope Francis made his statement about the indissolubility of Christian Matrimony. He puts himself in a precarious position with these phone conversations, but I can tell you, people hear what they want to hear. I run into families all the time who say, "The lady who met us at the hospital before we came home said someone would stay with grandma 24 hours a day," or similar outlandish promises. Quite interesting when I'm able to say, "I was that lady, and I said nothing of the kind." And still, they don't blink!!! They will argue with me about what I said. Sigh.
The latest Taylor Marshall podcast touched very briefly with this subject. He was speaking with the Church's teaching on the four levels of hell and was talking about Limbo when he said (I think during the papacy of Benedict XVI) a church document looking at Limbo was grabbed by MSM with the headline "Pope changes Church doctrine". Marshall made the excellent point (very relevant to this thread) that is in the MSM best interest to try to convince the world, the protestants and maybe even themselves, that the Church changed doctrine ( which it didn't). The MSM aim is to weaken the Churchs moral position and make people ask - " Well, if the Church can change teachings on issue X, then why not change teachings on women protests, homosexuality, contraception etc etc etc". Confusion reigns yes, but the media are responsible for whipping up a storm based on a "she-said-he-said" source. Why didn't the media whip this storm up and ram the Church teaching down or necks last year during the abortion debate? Or why not harp on about Church teaching on confession when the Taoiseach tried to make priests break the seal of confession? I've had enough. This is the reason why I put so little faith in MSM nowadays.
By the way someone gave me a heads up of a possible rebellion brewing up in the Vatican: http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/711...opposition-to-pope-francis-within-roman-curia The Pope's Second in Command, Cardinal Mardreiga of Honduras
