Please consider supporting this campaign to support a Seminarian from Toronto at the ICRSS

Please consider supporting this campaign to support a Seminarian from Toronto at the ICRSS
Click on photo for direct link to secure donation page

Friday, 17 June 2016

Pope Bergoglio calls most Catholic marriages invalid. What else might be "invalid?"

About a year ago, heresiarch, Walter Kasper made a statement that Pope Francis believed that most Catholic sacramental marriages were invalid. Now, Jorge Bergoglio, the Bishop of Rome, has actually said it himself.

This Pope even has the temerity to state that fornicating cohabitation can be a source of grace.

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/NewsBriefs/Default.aspx?rssGuid=most-marriages-today-are-invalid-pope-francis-suggests-51752/

Pope Francis said Thursday that the great majority of sacramental marriages today are not valid, because couples do not enter into them with a proper understanding of permanence and commitment.
“We live in a culture of the provisional,” the Pope said in impromptu remarks June 16. After addressing the Diocese of Rome’s pastoral congress, he held a question-and-answer session.
A layman asked about the “crisis of marriage” and how Catholics can help educate youth in love, help them learn about sacramental marriage, and help them overcome “their resistance, delusions and fears.”
The Pope answered from his own experience.
“I heard a bishop say some months ago that he met a boy that had finished his university studies, and said ‘I want to become a priest, but only for 10 years.’ It’s the culture of the provisional. And this happens everywhere, also in priestly life, in religious life,” he said.
“It’s provisional, and because of this the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null. Because they say “yes, for the rest of my life!” but they don’t know what they are saying. Because they have a different culture. They say it, they have good will, but they don’t know.”
He added that a majority of couples attending marriage prep courses in Argentina typically cohabitated.
“They prefer to cohabitate, and this is a challenge, a task. Not to ask ‘why don’t you marry?’ No, to accompany, to wait, and to help them to mature, help fidelity to mature.”
He said that in Argentina’s northeast countryside, couples have a child and live together. They have a civil wedding when the child goes to school, and when they become grandparents they “get married religiously.”
“It’s a superstition, because marriage frightens the husband. It’s a superstition we have to overcome,” the Pope said. “I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, and I am sure that this is a real marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity, but there are local superstitions, etc.”


This is stupidity and ridiculousness. More importantly, it is objectively heretical! 


Will any bishop or cardinal have the courage to call him out?

Now, according to an analysis by New Catholic at Rorate, the Vatican communications czars are even outright lying in their attempt to cover up Bergoglio's latest insanity:


[NC: One important editorial note. This morning, the Vatican released a transcript of the papal talk, scandalously tampering with what was really said by the Pope. What the Pope said, and was recorded, and is available on video here (starts at 1:14:20), was, "una grande maggioranza dei nostri matrimoni sacramentali sono nulli" ("a great majority of our Sacramental matrimonies are null"). The transcript released by the Vatican says, "una parte", "a part/portion", instead of "a great majority".]
It has been noticed by others!


If there are sacramentally invalid marriages, then only a tribunal, properly founded, can declare that. The Pope has a role to play directly in specific circumstances, the Petrine Privilege, but even then; it is only after a Tribunal has investigated and recommended. He has, on more than this occasion, undermined the whole process of annulments established over hundreds of years. 


Aside from insulting married Catholics, he has even opened the door for some of them to question whether or not their marriage is valid and that if the Pope doesn't think so, then hey, "let's divorce" and with the garbage he has introduced in Amoris Laetitia, we can all just begin again, with or without a decree of nullity.


If the Pope can question that the majority of marriages are invalid I would like to raise this question.


What about the majority of priestly ordinations or episcopal consecrations?


Given the number of effeminates and sodomites ordained, were they valid priests? 


Was child pornography aficionado, Raymond Lahey, the former Bishop of Antigonish validly ordained? If not, then neither were the priests, marriages, confirmations or Masses at which he was involved as a priest.

See where this goes?


The bigger question is this?


Given Bergoglio's comments, was his election as Bishop of Rome even valid?


35 comments:

Anonymous said...

God have Mercy on us ....Is his papacy even valid?

TLM said...

BIG QUESTION INDEED, the validity of this Papacy. In another article, he said even the priesthood has this problem. They don't 'understand' what they are getting into. He is so full of complete bull! Will not someone in the Vatican find the duck tape PLEASE??!!!

Vox Cantoris said...

For his mouth, or to tape h

Vox Cantoris said...

For his mouth, or to tape h

F said...

Heretics all around us, the scale is indeed reminiscent of Arian crisis. Imperet eis Dominus!

St. Benedict's Thistle said...

I am beginning to think Mundabor is right...it's got to be cocaine. ;-)

Dan said...

Jesus wept, and I weep too. Only a couple of half-hearted challenges from our so called Shepherds. I've lost all faith in them.

Kathleen1031 said...

I've stopped watching and hoping for the Bishops to do anything.
We are hearing it is the laity that is supposed to do something. Really?? The laity is supposed to call a press conference and say the words we all long to hear, although it pains us, that the pope is teaching heresy and has surrounded himself with evil men who spout anti-Catholic nonsense day and night? That Christ is the same today as He was yesterday and a thousands years ago and what we are being told today is a diabolical lie?
To counter this is the job of the men who took the vow before God to defend His church and His sheep. They promised to do it, and they have abandoned their promise.
If only our Cardinals had some of the zeal of Islam.
God have mercy on us. Our Lady please intercede for us.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Anonymous @ 7:46an, No, heretics can't be popes.

Anonymous said...

LMAO,

Yes, this is Karl.

Peter Lamb said...

Bergoglio: “I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, and I am sure that this is a real marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity ..."

Well, Jorge is entitled to change his mind now and then:
In his motu proprios Jorge not only made receiving a declaration of nullity easier, faster, and free, he added new grounds for pronouncing a marriage null and void, such as “brief conjugal cohabitation”, “defect of faith”, and “abortion procured to avoid procreation”!

Now Jorge claims that cohabitating fornicators possess "fidelity" which must just "mature"! That's so NWO! We have partial and full communion; partial and full truth and now immature and mature fidelity. I wonder if we will ever get partial and full pregnancy?

Now we know what Bergoglio meant in "On Heaven and Earth" which he co-authored with Rabbi Abraham Skorka. Then he said that "co-habitation certainly does not have the fullness, or the greatness of marriage". (p. 116).
Note again: Fornication has the partial, marriage has the fullness!

Or should that be the other way around?:
"I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, and I am sure that this is a real marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity…"?

For the confused:
Jorge says that when the partners in fornication are attached to each other in their mortal sin, for long enough, God eventually blesses them and rewards them with the "grace of a real marriage" (i.e. sacramental grace.)! Blasphemy,foul and disgusting beyond words!

On the other hand, Jorge is only applying to fornication what Saint [sic] JP II taught. That heretic claimed that it is God Himself who is responsible for the firmness with which non-Christians adhere to their false religions:
"... the firm belief of the followers of the non-Christian religions [is] a belief that is also an effect of the Spirit of truth operating outside the visible confines of the Mystical Body ..."
(Antipope John Paul II, Encyclical Redemptor Hominis, n. 6).(Please forget the outdated dogma that "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus est"!)

"Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter" (Is 5:20).

For Jorge there is no essential difference between holy matrimony and fornication, between vice and virtue, between holiness and sin, between truth and error, between God and the devil. When a man and a woman sin long enough together, they mature into a "real marriage". He has done away with black and white — everything is now fifty shades of grey! The Novus Ordo Church is a judeo-masonic sect straight from the pit of hell.
Does Jorge pass for the Vicar of Christ?
What more must he say, or do, to convince so many Catholics that he is the vicar of lucifer?

Dan said...

Rhetorical questions: if the wishy-washy watered-down crapola that passes for faith these days occurred at the beginning of Christianity, and if the first bishops were as politically correct pampered cowards as those we have now... would anyone have bothered being a martyr? Would we even have a church?

Not only has the smoke of Satan entered the church, it's a bonfire, and this pope and almost the entire hierarchy are helping to burn it down.


The questions are rhetorical because we know the answers.

Mark Docherty said...

16 June 2016, the feast of the institution of the sacrament of cohabitation. https://nonvenipacem.com/2016/06/17/pope-abrogates-sacrament-of-matrimony-institutes-sacrament-of-cohabitation/

TLM said...

LOL...yes Vox, the duck tape to cover his MOUTH!! Surely at least SOMEONE in Rome has thought of it!

Anonymous said...

Payback for the criticism of Amoris Laetitia by Catholics,casting aspersions on all Catholic married couples .Shows a vindictive streak lurking beneath the surface.The reason so many cohabitate is financial 80% of the time ,the woman will be classed as a single mother if living in a country which pays single parent allowance .Many of the male partners are not registered at the same address as the partner.At one point single parents were given prioity over married couples with regard to public housing,political polices have made getting married a liability.

S Murrin said...

The holy father does make a valid point ....we all know that the vast majority of catholics practise artifical birth control...therefore, there goes one end of marriage ...procreation......and we also know that a significant number of marriages fail and unlike years ago, many catholics see divorce as an option even before marrying ....so there also goes the unitive second end of marriage being for life. The church will also marry a couple unable to reproduce either because of age or cindition, therefore failing to procreate.

Mark Thomas said...

New Catholic at Rorate..."This morning, the Vatican released a transcript of the papal talk, scandalously tampering with what was really said by the Pope."

Vatican spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, declared the following today: "When it’s a matter of topics of a certain importance, the revised text is always submitted to the pope himself. This is what happened in this case, thus the published text was expressly approved by the pope."

His Holiness Pope Francis has made it clear that the published text has reflected his official comments on the topic at hand. Therefore, Pope Francis does not claim that "a great majority of our Sacramental matrimonies are null".

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Vox Cantoris said...

S. Muntin wrote: "The holy father does make a valid point ....we all know that the vast majority of catholics practise artificial birth control...therefore, there goes one end of marriage ...procreation......and we also know that a significant number of marriages fail and unlike years ago, many catholics see divorce as an option even before marrying ....so there also goes the unitive second end of marriage being for life. The church will also marry a couple unable to reproduce either because of age or condition, therefore failing to procreate."

Whoa, hold on there!

1. Contraception does not invalidate a marriage unless the intent is to be forever closed to children. It is certainly wrong and mortally sinful, but in itself is not grounds.

2. A "pre-nuptial" agreement is certainly valid cause for a decree of nullity and it is one of the question when a couple marries and they are require to sign that they have not signed one, at least here in Canada and I imagine most places. Now, if they lie, well, ....

3. Age is not an impediment to sacramental marriage even if children are not part of it. The issue is artificial contraception.







Leah said...

This all dates back to the first day of Vatican II when all the bishops abdicated their Oath Against Modernism. If ever a cardinal wanted to retake the reigns, he would need to start there.

Anonymous said...

Remember the story of the emperor's new clothes. Only a child had the courage to speak the truth.

Anonymous said...

Atta boy, Vox!

Mark Thomas said...

S Murrin said..."The holy father does make a valid point..."

We have to be certain as to the point that our Holy Father made in regard to sacramental marriages". He authorized a critical change to the Vatican's official transcript of his comments in question.

Pope Francis has made it known that he believes that only "a part of our sacramental marriages are null." There is a major difference between that and the notion that "the great majority of sacramental marriages today are not valid". Again, the Holy See stated that Pope Francis made the above change to the official transcript in question.

It is vital that we take heed that he does not believe that "the great majority of sacramental marriages today are not valid".

Pax.

Mark Thomas


Mark Thomas said...

I understand the tremendous alarm and disillusion that commenters expressed in regard to the notion that Pope Francis believed that "the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null". I was just as amazed initially as the next Catholic in that regard. However, I calmed down in light of the following:

1. His Holiness Pope Francis has a history of having offered puzzling statements. Many statements of his have been misrepresented by Catholics and non-Catholics. But he has offered controversial statements that have not been misrepresented.

2. Either way, Pope Francis cannot possibly change the True Religion — Catholicism.

3. His off-the-cuff statements have been subjected often to clarification.

4. Therefore, when it concerns Pope Francis and his controversial statements, it is best to remain calm and wait for the Holy See to clarify said statements.

That has been the case in regard to the current controversy. Pope Francis authorized a correction to the original notion that he believed that "a great majority of sacramental marriages are null".

Pope Francis changed that to "a part of our sacramental marriages are null".

Again, we are best served in regard to Pope Francis and controversial statements to just remain calm. We know that as long as he remains Pope, His Holiness will offer certain off-the-cuff statements that will generate controversy (although it's just as likely that the "controversies" will flow from his having been misrepresented by various parties).

But remain calm. Pope Francis cannot possibly change the Faith. In fact, he has made it clear that that such is not his intention by any means. Just take his controversial comments in stride as inevitable clarifications approved by him will follow...or it will prove that he had been misrepresented.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Vox Cantoris said...

Mark,

He cannot change the faith, the doctrine, "but doctrine changes when pastoral contexts shift and new insights emerge."

He should not have said it but he did, because he believes it, notwithstanding.

He also said that there is "grace" in fornicating cohabitation. That comment, was not clarified.

To coin a phrase from Hollywood, "Houston, we have a problem."

Dan said...

The Pope may not be able to change doctrine, but he can sure go a long way to disillusion any remaining faithful priest who tries to fight against the prevailing culture. How is a priest supposed to stand for doctrine with a "pope" like this? God forbid if the next pope is similar.

Believe me the average "catholic" is eating up the words of this pope and will make the future of faithful priests (and bloggers) miserable.

THAT'S how a pope can change the Church.

Mark Thomas said...

Vox said..."He should not have said it but he did, because he believes it, notwithstanding. He also said that there is "grace" in fornicating cohabitation. That comment, was not clarified."

Vox, we are unable to say with certainty that His Holiness Pope Francis believes that the great majority of sacramental marriages are null. In fact, all signs point to a case of exaggerated use of speech by Pope Francis. That doesn't mean that his original comment in question was prudent.

But Vox, please consider the following:

1. Pope Francis authorized the major change in the official Vatican transcript from a "great majority" to just "a part of our sacramental marriages are null". That represents his official comment on the issue at hand. As he doesn't hesitate to speak his mind, we have to accept that he has offered in the official transcript his true feelings on the matter.

2. CNA/EWTN news on January 22, 2016 A.D., reported the following story:

In speech to Rota, Pope Francis shows annulment conditions aren't loosening

By Elise Harris

Vatican City, Jan 22, 2016 / 11:38 am (CNA/EWTN News).- In his annual speech to the Holy See's main court on Friday, Pope Francis affirmed the indissolubility of marriage and clarified that poorly developed “personal faith” is not itself a grounds for finding that a marriage is null.

“It should be clearly affirmed that the quality of faith is not an essential condition for matrimonial consent,” the Pope said in his Jan. 22 address to the judges of the Roman Rota at the Vatican's Clementine Hall.
=================================================================================

Vox, as to your second point...cohabitation...you are correct. That point was not clarified (as far as I know) yesterday. That said, Vox, Holy Mother Church long ago "clarified" that issue. The Church rejects cohabitation...and Pope Francis is unable, even if he desired, to legitimize cohabitation.

We must not allow anybody or anything, including, most definitely, non-magisterial comments even from a Pope, to shake us from holding fast to the True Religion.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Vox Cantoris said...

Mark, it is important to reinforce to casual Catholics that the Pope has not and cannot change these things.

However, the damage is done by his statement to those who did listen.

Did not Cardinal Kasper say about a year ago that the Pope believed this? Now, Pope Francis has said it himself.

He only called it back because those around him must have realised the massive blowback worldwide.

Yes, he is our Pope. In charity, perhaps what is really happening here is some form of dementia. If that is the case, then he has a duty to withdraw from the Papacy.

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas said... As he doesn't hesitate to speak his mind, we have to accept that he has offered in the official transcript his true feelings on the matter.

Mark Thomas said... Pope Francis changed that to "a part of our sacramental marriages are null."

Changing the transcript to reflect "a part" doesn't change the original statement, nor does it infer that the pope is somehow taking his original statement back.

The original statement states that the majority of marriages are invalid; the second statement says "a part" are invalid.

Those statements agree.

If I say "the majority of the Canadian population is Eskimo" and then later change that statement to say "part of the Canadian population is Eskimo," there is no change from the original statement, and the second statement does not clarify the issue.

DJR

Mark Thomas said...

DJR...

I disagree. There is a monumental difference between the transcript's statement in question and Pope Francis' original statement in question.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas said...DJR... I disagree. There is a monumental difference between the transcript's statement in question and Pope Francis' original statement in question.

Did the pope state that there is a difference? If not, then it's mere conjecture to assert so. The pope speaks for himself; no one else does.

I will believe there is a difference when the pope publicly states so. Until then, I see no reason to think that.

Nor is there any reason to believe that the pope made the change to the transcript. He certainly has not admitted doing so. Until he does, I see no reason to believe that either.

DJR

Mark Thomas said...

DJR, we just have to disagree with each other. Okay.

Father Zuhlsdorf has posted an excellent analysis of Pope Francis' corrected remark in light of the Pope's 2016 A.D. comments on marriage during an address to the Roman Rota.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/06/pope-francis-v-pope-francis-about-indissolubility-and-marriage/

Between his 2016 A.D. remarks in question and the corrected transcript, it is obvious that Pope Francis doesn't believe that the great majority of sacramental marriages are null. That is good enough for me.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas said... Between his 2016 A.D. remarks in question and the corrected transcript, it is obvious that Pope Francis doesn't believe that the great majority of sacramental marriages are null. That is good enough for me.

In other words, you are accusing the Holy Father of lying.

Pope Francis made a public statement, in front of many eyewitnesses, where he stated that "it’s provisional, and because of this, the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null."

But you are stating that, although the pope said that, he does not actually believe it. In other words, he was lying.

That's the only conclusion one can come to if you are correct.

And you base your opinion, not on something the pope said to correct the initial statement but, rather, something that the pope may, or may not, even know about.

Mark, you do the exact same thing you decry in others. You are twisting the pope's words to suit your preconceived notions instead of accepting them for what they actually say.

If is true that the pope says things that he does not believe, and you are most certainly insinuating that, then you would be hard pressed to demonstrate the validity of many of the other points you've attempted to get across about the pope, e.g., the pope's alleged opposition to "gay marriage" while ordinary in Argentina.

What do you use to produce "proof" that then-cardinal Bergoglio was against "gay marriage"? You cite his statement.

However, now you're telling us that the pope makes public statements regarding various matters while not actually believing what he is saying in those statements.

If the pope does not believe that the majority of sacramental marriages are invalid, even though he EXPLICITLY SAID so in front of many witnesses, then it's difficult to understand why someone should have to accept your assertion that he was against "gay marriage" in Argentina.

He made statements that he was against it, but so what?

According to you, the pope says things he does not believe, so the fact that he claimed to be against "gay marriage" is not proof of anything.

That statement is as much proof of his opposition to "gay marriage" as his statement regarding the invalidity of the majority of sacramental marriages is proof of what he thinks on that topic, which you hold is not proof at all.

With all due respect to you, your position is not sound. A rational, thinking person could never hold it.

And it's unfair of you to accuse "Traditionalists," and others, of commandeering the pope's words to fit their notions, when you yourself are guilty of the exact same thing.

The pope made very clear what he thought regarding the majority of sacramental marriages, and yet you twist that to say the exact opposite of what the pope actually said.


DJR

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."Mark, you do the exact same thing you decry in others. You are twisting the pope's words to suit your preconceived notions instead of accepting them for what they actually say."

DJR, we disagree. I don't know as to how I have twisted Pope Francis' words. His official remark as contained in the official final transcript in question differ dramatically from the notion that a great majority of sacramental marriages are null.

Then, as Father Zuhlsdorf noted, the official remark in 100 percent in keeping with Pope Francis' January 2016 A.D. address to the Roman Rota. Pope Francis' address to the Roman Rota, as Father Zuhlsdorf noted, as to who is married and who isn't, "were clear".

Father Zuhlsdorf noted: "So, in January 2016 Pope Francis said is decidedly NOT off-the-cuff remarks, and precisely to an audience concerned with these matters, that lack of understanding of the ends of marriage and it’s indissolubility does NOT invalidate a marriage. Only when lack of formation and error affect the person’s will would they possibly, and not necessarily, invalidate marriage. Even so, marriages are assumed to be valid until they are reasonably demonstrated to be otherwise."

Pope Francis' address to the Roman Rota as well as his statement in last week's official transcript have made it 100 percent clear that he has not claimed that the great majority of sacramental marriages are null.

DJR, how does that constitute my having twisted his words? It doesn't.

I will stand by Pope Francis' official comments in question as they reflect that which he wishes the Faithful to know and embrace.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Peter Lamb said...

Bergoglio: "...it’s provisional, and because of this the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null. Because they say ‘yes, for the rest of my life!’ but they don’t know what they are saying. ..."

So, if I get it right, Francis maintains that even though people pledge "until death do us part" in their wedding vows, they don’t mean it because they "don’t know" - even though they are saying the words in their vernacular language, in a most solemn moment of their lives. So, we can no longer assume that people mean what they say. In today’s "culture", words don’t mean what they mean. Hmm?

The Catholic Church thinks differently:

190. § 1." In order that matrimonial consent be possible it is necessary that the contracting parties at least be not lacking in the knowledge that marriage is the permanent union of man and woman for the procreation of children."

198." A simple error as to the unity, indissolubility, or sacramental character of marriage, even if it be cause of the contract, does not vitiate the consent. Error as to the essential object of the contract vitiates the consent, like ignorance. Error as to the essential properties does not, as long as it remains simply an error of the mind, whether antecedent or concomitant. Thus, a man who intends to form a real contract of marriage, although he does not believe in its indissolubility or sacredness, will be married validly, provided he does not exclude those properties by a positive act of the will, even though he would exclude them if he thought of it. His consent is directed expressly to the marriage contract and by way of consequence to the properties which are inseparable from it. His prevailing intention is to contract marriage; his views on the properties of marriage are errors in the mind which do not affect the primary object of the will.
If, however, he would exclude those properties and make that exclusion the primary object of his will, this then would prevail over his intention of marrying and the consent would be vitiated, because one can not will marriage without willing an indissoluble union. But this requires more than a theoretical error; it supposes a positive act of the will, placing a condition, making consent depend on something else than the substantial element of the contract.
That positive act is a fact which must be proved and is not presumed. Hence the difficulty of annulling a marriage on the ground of error as to quality…"

200. 1." When a contracting party utters externally and seriously words expressing consent, he is supposed [=understood] to consent internally. His consent is supposed to be absolute if it is expressed absolutely. “Nobody is to be considered as having said what was not on his mind.”
This, however, is only a presumption, and if in reality the internal consent was wanting, no matter what the external words might have been, the contract would be null in itself and before God."
(Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac, "Marriage Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law", [New York, NY: Benziger Brothers, 1919.)

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas said.... DJR, how does that constitute my having twisted his words? It doesn't.

You're dissembling and being dishonest, and you know it.

The pope said the following words, publicly and in front of witnesses:

“It’s provisional, and because of this the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null."

Answer the question: Did the pope believe those words when he stated them?

If your answer is yes, then your point has no merit.

If your answer is no, you're claiming that the pope is a liar.

Which is it?

DJR