/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>2906

I had that sickening feeling of intuition he would do this.

I was glad to see them shoot down homosex, but this…it's almost scripted how this would go down.

God have mercy on us all.

>>2906

I guess he technically isn't saying anything doctrinal wrong (as far as I understand it), but at least the way its phrased in the article it makes it sound like he's trying to make excuses for divorce in the modern world.

Maybe the full speech has some more encouragement for those considering divorce? These vows are eternal after all, and it wouldn't do to just leave after the first fight or the first slap in the face or whathaveyou, I'd say.

Let's hope for the best so that our Catholic brothers may have peace of mind.

>>2913

>it's almost scripted how this would go down.

Do you think he'll cave to the demands and threats of liberals and jews?

>>2919

This soon? No. Too quick.

If anything, it would take at least two/three more liberal popes in succession before the idea of homosex being okay would even be toyed with.

Hopefully, that won't hapen.

>>2920

I believe you're right, it would be just too chaotic and against Scripture to do so.

That said, I think the Vatican ought to do more to promote proper morality in all of its countries, as opposed to just not being very vocal about things that are being praised and put on a pedestal in the secular world (like homosexuality) but that are clearly against scripture.

This is a war we're fighting, and those on the side of the devil are doing everything they can to bring about a world of filth and disease, while we just try and mind our our business. We'll come to regret it if we don't put aside our grievances, our pride and our misconceptions and start fighting back.

>>2920

That is how it works, it is rare you go all the way at once. Instead they slowly loosen things up until you arrive at a completely different place to were you started. It is evolutionary, rather than revolutionary.

>>2922

Oh I agree, my Mormon friend.

The thing is, if a fully traditional, orthodox, unabashed catholic man were to occupy the seat of Peter, the western world would collectively shit itself over how based he is.

A man can dream, though.

>>2923

That's how subversion works. Get on in the inside, plant ideas, further them gently.

This is strange coming from a Lutheran, but good insight.

>>2925

Oh, I don't know, maybe not rush into a marriage?

Or maybe take time to develop a spiritual relationship with each other?

Or better yet, include God in the equation.

Nobody said it would be easy.

>>2925

These are not my rules.

But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Mathew 5:32

"For example, a man who divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery. And anyone who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."

Luke 16:18

>>2924

>This is strange coming from a Lutheran, but good insight.

Who would know better about it than a Lutheran?

The pope is right. There are several marriages hat break down so badly that they cause great stress to the parties involved from the husband to to the wife to the children. I've known cases of families where father and mother are fighting almost every day and the children are suffering as a consequence of that for many many years in most cases scarring them permanently. In these cases it is better that the family has a peaceful separation.

The family is important. When it faces a crisis, it is important that every possible effort is made to preserve it. However, once things break down irretrievably, it is important that further damage to the children is reduced as much as possible.

In my experience, children do suffer from separation of mother and father but they suffer far worse from watching Mom and Dad fight it out daily with no end in sight.

>>2929

In that same passage Christ says that if your eye causes you sin, to pluck it out. This is the problem with interpreting the bible literally. I see Christ as a guide.

If Christ was asked the same question in the context of watching children suffer fighting dads and moms, his answer would be worded differently.

>>2920

>>2924

This is not how Catholicism works. Both, pederasty and marriage, are dogma. Dogma does not evolve. Dogma does not change.

The pope can't change that.

If the pope contradicts dogma he becomes a heretic and ceases to be pope.

I guess this is hard for protties to understand. God does not change. God is the source of all good. Ergo morals never change.

What was considered good by the church in the past cannot be considered bad later on.

>>2906

The pope never talked at all about divorce. The media is lying here essentially. He talked about partners temporarily living not together. Which can be justified.

>>2925

>which can lead to anger, domestic abuse (wrath), cheating on your spouse (adultery) and many other problems.

There is no such thing as a broken marriage. But if there was it would lead to neither of those things.

People need to work on themselves and on eachother and strive for holyness.

>inner-peace and happiness?

new age terms that do not matter.

Life is hard. Especially leading a morally good life.

>>2939

>If the pope contradicts dogma he becomes a heretic and ceases to be pope.

Is it within the realm of possibility that; were this to happen; that the heretical pope would simply be able to persuade and convince (uneducated) people that he is still legitimate and maintain all the power and resources of his office? Do you think it possible that (uneducated) people would just rather follow him instead of a legitimate pope if his circumstances were not as extravagant and rich as the heretical pope?

>What was considered good by the church in the past cannot be considered bad later on.

This is interesting. This pope and some of his predecessors have apologized to others for many things, essentially admitting that the church was wrong about stuff. Like the Spanish Inquisition (a Spanish institution but sanctioned and approved via Papal Bull) or more recently the Waldensians in Europe.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765675954/Pope-Forgive-Catholic-persecution-of-evangelical-Christians.html

How does that work? Is it the difference between practice and doctrine? Doctrine is eternal but practice is how men understand it and enforce it, and that is subject to change?

>The media is lying here essentially

I'm glad to hear you say that. It wouldn't be the first time they've done this to Pope Francis.

>Life is hard. Especially leading a morally good life.

This.

>>2952

>Is it within the realm of possibility that; were this to happen; that the heretical pope would simply be able to persuade and convince (uneducated) people that he is still legitimate and maintain all the power and resources of his office? Do you think it possible that (uneducated) people would just rather follow him instead of a legitimate pope if his circumstances were not as extravagant and rich as the heretical pope?

Yes it would be possible. This is what sedevacantists rely their reasoning on.

>This is interesting. This pope and some of his predecessors have apologized to others for many things, essentially admitting that the church was wrong about stuff. Like the Spanish Inquisition (a Spanish institution but sanctioned and approved via Papal Bull) or more recently the Waldensians in Europe.

I explained this in the Inquisition thread. Essentially this is no matter of faith but their personal opinion. You should read the thread though.

>How does that work? Is it the difference between practice and doctrine? Doctrine is eternal but practice is how men understand it and enforce it, and that is subject to change?

Yes.

>>2954

>Yes it would be possible.

Many wager that it will happen and introduce the apocalypse btw

>>2959

>Do you ever fear that you could find yourself in their shoes, Sedes I mean?

I don't even want to think about that. At the moment I sympathize with SSPX or at least FSSP, but Francis I is a valid pope.

>Is there some science to it? By that I mean, is there some way to predict or make an educated guess as to which pope will be the one to become heretical and lead the church astray?

The book of revelations. I am sure that people have thought up a lot of stuff, but essentially we can't know. It will come like a thieve in the night.

>>2960

I see. Thank you, you've answered my questions and I'm satisfied. Sorry, the thought of having one's Church go apostate is just always in the back of my head and it scares me a lot.

Nevermind the fact that Jesus Christ Himself condoned divorce in the case of infidelity.

I mean, what more do you need?

>7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

>8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

>except for sexual immorality,

I mean, this isn't difficult to understand: Jesus is OK with divorcing your slut of a wife if she cheated on you.

>>3397

>>3397

This verse seems like a strong argument for monogamy.

Where should be the problem with me marrying again and doing another woman if I can be polygamous? She would just be my 2nd, 3rd or 4th wife…

>>3413

>This verse seems like a strong argument for monogamy.

Watching this thread closely. I'd like an answer to this as well.

>>3413

>>3417

Because polygamy = 1 man, many women.

If SHE goes on to marry another man, SHE cheats on you.

There is no problem with YOU, a man, marrying another woman because you can have many.

This is about the unfairly divorced woman (read: undivorced) is bound to be adulterous next time. You caused it to happen.

That said, you don't need to deduce whether the Jews were polygamous or not, this is historically known and verifiable easily.

>>3608

Addendum: polygyny is what I meant; when we talk of "polygamy" in the Bible, it's always polygyny: 1 man having many women.

The case remains: the Jews were still polygamous at the time of Christ, and He didn't bring that change. The only people who were monogamous back then were the Romans and the Greek. Monogamy for Christians remains to be justified.

>>3608

>>3613

But if this interpretation was true again no one on a neutral footing would ever come up with this the verse makes no sense.

If I divorce my wife I'd commit adultery according to you interpretation because I'd force her to remarry somehow.

But I only commit adultery if I divorce her AND remarry according to the verse. Why?

>>3629

There's no neutral footing here: either Jews were polygamous or they were not. Given that the Old Testament has plenty of polygamous unions and that the Jews were polygamous, nobody reading the Bible would assume monogamous marriage here, simply because the rest of the book assumes polygamy. So if there was a neutral footing, it'd be polygamy for the reason cited. There's no reason, to my knowledge, to assume monogamy because there's nothing to base monogamy on: Roman influence came later, and only at the point where Christianity becomes their state religion, where a great many pagan ideas come into Christianity, monogamy being one among them. If you can explain Christian monogamy any other way, I'm all ears.

>If I divorce my wife I'd commit adultery according to you interpretation because I'd force her to remarry somehow.

Adultery may have a larger meaning, I don't know. The adultery may even reside in the simple fact of considering one woman your wife and the other not. If I have time, I'll look into it.

>But I only commit adultery if I divorce her AND remarry according to the verse. Why?

Back then, if I am not mistaken, you couldn't be a single woman for very long. So if your wife doesn't belong to you anymore, she must belong to someone else, automatically, so it is assumed that merely divorcing her implies her remarriage. Your own marriage to another, new wife may be mentioned only in passing. I suppose losing a wife means you'll want to replace her with another, so she can do the job the previous one did, keeping in mind that families back then were very busy and had specifically assigned tasks.

I wonder what the experts say about this.

>>3629

>But I only commit adultery if I divorce her AND remarry according to the verse. Why?

Other possibility: the first wife has more right than the second, who has more rights than the third, etc.

If this is a thing, which it very well may be since it works this way amongst brothers, then remarrying a third wife instead of the real third wife makes the husband sleep with the "wrong" wife.

Just making guesses here. I'm reading up about it, though.