See: The Poem of The Man God, Volume Four, 492 "The Pharisees and the Adulterous Woman" and the commentary.
I post something about the serious issue of women being abused and this is your response? I have been trying to cut you a lot of slack LV because I know you are from Slovakia and there is a translation issue, but this is just rude in any language.
And here, Leo, is the text to which you refer: 5 Jesus says: « What hurt Me was the lack of charity and sincerity in the accusers. Not because they lied in accusing. The woman was really guilty. But they were insincere being scandalised at something they had committed thousands of times and that only greater cunning and better luck had allowed to remain concealed. The woman, at her first sin, had not been so cunning and lucky. But none of the accusers, both male and female - because also women accused her in their hearts even if they did not raise their voices - were free from sin. He is an adulterer who commits the act and he who desires the act and craves for it with all his might. Both he who sins and he who wishes to sin are lustful. It is not sufficient not to do evil. It is also necessary not to desire to do it. Remember, Mary, the first word of your Master, when I called you from the edge of the precipice where you were: “It is not sufficient not to do evil. It is also necessary not to desire to do it” He who cherishes sensual thoughts and excites sensual feelings by means of literature and performances sought for such purpose and through pernicious habits, is equally impure as he who commits the sin materially. I dare say: he is more guilty. Because with his thoughts he goes against nature, not only against morals. I am not referring to those who commit real acts against nature. The only extenuating circumstance for such person is an organic disease or mental illness. He who does not have such an extenuating circumstance is inferior to the filthiest beast by ten degrees. One ought to be free from sin in order to condemn with justice. I refer you to past dictations, when I speak of the essential conditions to be a judge. I was not unaware of the hearts of those Pharisees and scribes, or of the hearts of those people who had joined them in insulting the guilty woman. Sinners against God and their neighbour, they had sinned against faith, against their parents, against their neighbour and above all they had committed many sins against their wives. If by means of a miracle I had ordered their blood to write their sins on their foreheads, among the many charges that of “adulterers” by deed or by desire would have reigned supreme. I said: “It is what comes from the heart that contaminates man”. And with the exception of My heart there was no one among the judges whose heart was pure. They lacked sincerity and charity. Not even their being like her in their hunger for lust induced them to be charitable. 6 It was I Who was charitable to the dejected woman. I, the Only One, Who should have been disgusted with her. But remember this: “The kinder one is, the more compassionate one is to culprits”. One is not lenient to the fault itself. No. But one is indulgent to weak people who have not resisted temptation. Man! Oh! More than a fragile reed and a thin bearbine, he is easily inclined to yield to temptation and to cling to whatever may make him hope to find solace. Because many times sin is committed, particularly by the weaker sex, owing to such search for comfort. I therefore say that he who has no love for his wife, or for his own daughter, is ninety percent responsible for the sin of his wife or of his daughter and will have to answer for them. Both the stupid love, which is nothing but foolish slavery imposed by a man on his wife or by a father on his daughter, and the neglect of love or even worse, a sin of lechery which leads a man to other love affairs and parents to other cares than their children, are incentives to adultery and prostitution and are condemned by Me as such. You are beings gifted with reason and guided by a divine law and by a moral law. To degrade yourselves to the behaviour of savages or of brutes should horrify your great pride. But pride, which in this case would be also useful, is used by you for completely different matters. 7 I looked at Peter and John in different ways, because I wanted to say to the former: “Peter, make sure you are not lacking in charity and sincerity as well”, and I also wanted to say to him as My future Pontiff: “Remember this hour and in future judge as your Master did”; whilst to the latter, a young man with the soul of a child, I wanted to say: “You can judge, but you do not, because your heart is like Mine. Thank you, My beloved, for being so much Mine, as to be a second I”. I sent the two disciples away before calling the woman as I did not wish to increase her mortification with the presence of two witnesses. Learn, o pitiless men. No matter how guilty a man is, he is to be treated with respect and charity. You must not rejoice at his annihilation, you must not be pitiless, not even with curious glances. Have mercy on those who fall! I pointed out to the guilty woman the way she should follow to redeem herself: to go back to her house, to ask humbly to be forgiven and to obtain forgiveness through an upright life; not to yield any more to the flesh; not to trespass on divine Goodness and human kindness in order not to expiate more severely than at present for two or many sins. God forgives and He forgives because He is Goodness. But man, although I said: “Forgive your brother seventy times seven”, is not capable of forgiving twice. I did not wish her peace and I did not give her My blessing because she was not fully detached from her sin, as is required to be forgiven. In her flesh and unfortunately not even in her heart there was no nausea for sin. When Mary of Magdala savoured My Word, she became disgusted with sin and came to Me, full of good will to change completely. But this woman still hesitated between the voices of the flesh and those of the spirit. And in the excitement of the moment, she had not yet been able to use the axe against the stump of the flesh and cut it off in order to go, once she was mutilated of her greedy weight, to the Kingdom of God. Mutilated of what is ruin, but increased with what is salvation. Do you want to know whether she was saved? I was not the Saviour for everybody. I wanted to be so, but I was not because not everyone wanted to be saved. And that was one of the most piercing arrows in My agony at Gethsemane.
The more rude is to say: defend women from LV (who tries defend them before greater sins and perverse men), because I have know several abused women in my life. LV know also few women with the same destiny. But I hate adultery and divorce. Every man can have only one wife (while is alive)! The more rude is to defend perverse doctrines. I don't understand how can a man love another man more than God.
Thank you for the reference, but this book was formerly on the Index and has been rejected by, among others, the Pope Emeritus. I'll continue to stick with the Gospels and the Magisterium. There are already too many proposed alternatives.
LV, Not one person here was defending adultery or divorce. NOT ONE! Have you been paying attention to the discussion at all? No one is defending "perverse doctrines". You are the one hurling false accusations!
To support an annulment of marriage is heinous. It means to support adultety and divorce. Therefore pope makes also henious things if he supports annulments. My God said Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate! His true Church set laws. I hate false doctrines. Every priest who separates what God has joined together becomes a new Lucifer.
You misunderstand the process of annulment. One cannot separate what was never joined in the first place. Annulment is the defining by the Catholic Church that no marriage existed. There are certainly abuses of the annulment process, but this does not change the validity of a proper annulment. This is a longstanding doctrine of the Catholic Church.
If you want to say there are abuses of the annulment process then I would have to agree with you. It would seem there are many, many abuses. If you are saying that there is no such thing as an annulment then you are wrong. Period! An annulment simply states that no sacrament of matrimony took place. The same thing can happen for every sacrament. People can make bad confessions and no sacrament takes place. A priests can say the wrong words at a baptism and no sacrament takes place. etc.
I wonder Little Voice , since English is not your native language. if there might be some misunderstanding here? Do you understand the word, 'Annulment', in English? Ľudia sú tu hovorí o annulmet neopúšťa, takže chápete?
Anyone who doesn't give up all for God is not worthy of Him or His Kingdom. The relationships we participate in with our bodies (the Temple of God") are extremely serious and need to be completely holy or not at all. Jesus did not just come as a spirit and throw His earthly body to the wolves to be consumed, He came as Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, and gave Himself as a Sacrifice to GOD the Father wholly and was then resurrected wholly. The Eucharist is partaking in that WHOLE sacrifice and to take it in any state of serious, unrepented, and unconfessed sin is to bring down the just judgement of the Father. Our bodies very cells participate in the sacrifice and need to be clean to consume the body of Christ. Jesus talks about this many, many times! He talks of how in His kingdom we will live like the Holy Angels with no husband or wife. He talks about the "better" way to follow Him by remaining pure in body. He encourages all that belong to Him or want to belong to Him to seek His Kingdom in this world. Please don't be fooled in these times. Save yourselves! Keep yourselves pure. If you are unsure in any physical relationship on this earth DON'T!
N No, he didnt, nor did he throw the law of Moses at her. He gave her a chance, as he is divine mercy personified. The Gospel tells us what we need to know about salvation and about Jesus, and this eposide demostrates a willingess from Jesus to instigate a new law of love and compassion. He was" unequivocal" that only those free from any personal sin could throw the first stone. I am convinced that Jesus would not approve of throwing the tag of mortal sin to anyone in a situation of objective grave matter. Only God judges the heart!
Prov 24:24-25 Whoever says to the guilty, "you are innocent"--peoples will curse him and nations denounce him. But it will go well with those who convict the guilty, and rich blessing will come upon them. John 16:8 "When he [the Holy Spirit] comes, he will convict the world, and show where right and wrong and judgment lie. He will convict them of wrong..." Eph 5:11,13 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose [YLT: convict] them... Everything exposed by the light becomes visible. John 12:43 For they loved praise from men more than praise from God. Jer 35:15 "Again and again I sent all my servants, the prophets, to you. They said, 'Each of you must turn from your wicked ways and reform your actions...' But you have not paid attention or listened to me." (2 Chr 7:14) Eze 3:18-19 "When I say to a wicked man, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself." Eze 3:20-21 "Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. Since you did not warn him, he will die for his sin. The righteous things he did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the righteous man not to sin and he does not sin, he will surely live because he took warning, and you will have saved yourself."
Was Christ being, 'Judgemental? Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. He did not say, 'Go and talk it over with your Parish Priest and work something out '. He said it was wrong , plain and simple This is what the Church has taught from the very beginning taught by Jesus and led by the Holy Spirit. Magister and Mater. ...up to now that is...
I understand very well. Almost 90% annulments are wrong I expect. I quoted MV's dictations. You can read the opinion of your God.
But it is Pope Francis and his supporters who are taking it upon themselves to judge that people are worthy of receiving the Eucharist in situations that were never considered valid before. Carmel333 described very clearly above what is at stake. Surely prudence should dictate that one should not take the risk of defiling the reception of Christ Himself? Yet Pope Francis suggests that a priest judge the heart of a sinner to be worthy despite the absence of a firm purpose of amendment.
A properly ordered tribunal sets out to determine if in fact a marriage took place. The judgment when pronounced is basically stating that hey you guys were never married and here is why.Hence the marriage is annulled. That is not to say that abuses do not happen.
