Friday, June 17, 2016

Pope Francis Falsely Suggests Most Marriages Invalid

In one of his infamous "off the cuff remarks," Pope Francis suggested most marriages are not valid, apparently because the weak hocus-pocus of the fake sacrament of matrimony does not overcome the failure of couples to truly subjectively appreciate the commitment they are making.

Once the Bear would have gotten excited about the latest from the Mouth From the South. However, not any more.

It is simple reality to observe what good Catholics are supposed to overlook: that Pope Francis is has no idea about anything he says. He lacks credibility, as in should not be believed. He (like so many) has no respect for reality. He's leading the Unicorn Cavalry in an all-out assault against the Catholic Faith.

If the Pope opens his mouth and pronounces on a matter relating to morality and a sacrament, it is teaching. He's the Pope. If he wants avoid misrepresenting the beliefs of the Catholic Church, he should end his pontificate or stay silent. Being "off the cuff" does not somehow magically change anything. If he said something equally as stupid about some socially sensitive matter that lefties cared about, you would see just how seriously the Pope gets taken in the teaching department!

If the Bear says something, who cares? He has no office, no authority, no recognition by the world. If the Pope says something, it's a different matter entirely, isn't it? Most people could not tell the difference between magisterial and a magpie. All they know is the guy that was chosen to head the Catholic Church said most marriages aren't valid.

The Bear's mate was 18 when we got married. Do you think an 18 year old fully appreciates the commitment involved in the sacrament of holy matrimony? Of course not. The Bear has already given notice that Pope Francis has declared our marriage void ab initio. (Red Death actually stabbed him, but that's beside the point. Her expertise in martial arts will probably chill others' interest in the Bear, sorry to say.)

In the treason of the clerks, Pope Francis is the chief traitor of our day. It is a simple, realistic observation, made without the least rancor. The Church is as riddled with traitors as are all the other institutions of the West. If nothing else, treason is the smart career move.

The Bear is getting choosier and choosier about who and what he takes seriously. He's a bad Catholic. Of course, despite his newfound pickiness, he still believes far more than most of the Catholic hierarchy, if that means anything. When the cleansing wind winnows the chaff, the Bear hopes to still be here, with his foot nailed to the floor in front of his favorite pew, no matter what nonsense a pope is teaching.


  1. I like the photo of the royal family. People don't realize that our fates have been tied to the fate of that one family.

  2. Exactly. The Pope is teaching...he might not be teaching "from the chair" but he is still teaching. What he is doing is poisoning the well. By saying nonsense so often, he is calling into question the entirety of what he says. Because the bishops are, as a whole, going along with what he says, they are calling into question the entire authority of the Magisterium....which already has very little credibility.

    Owl and Owl's mate have a very rocky marriage...always has been from the very start. It is a real sacramental marriage, I made sure of that, but don't tell Pope Francis that.

    The more Pope Francis speaks, the more I think his soteriology isn't Catholic. Here, it is pretty clear that his understanding of sacramentology is very deficient, if not straight up Protestant operate ex opere operantis sacramentology. Pope Francis will speak a lot about the Holy Spirit but, he does not give evidence as to understanding how the Holy Spirit operates in the Church.

    The worst type of religion is the religion that is doesn't look at reality but instead pretends that reality is another thing and then tries to get people to accept that pretend reality. Islam is quite false, but at least it is an attempt to make sense of reality. There are too many bishops that are trying to make Catholicism into their fever dream.

    1. So my son living with his fiancée is in fine shape but my marriage of 40 years may be null????

    2. M. Prodigal ~ That seems to be what Pope Francis is teaching. The teaching that the Pope is giving, though, is false at its presuppositions. It is a house built on sand.

      Catholic Sacraments work because the sacramental action is preformed. Protestant's belief that sacraments (of which marriage is not one and of which no grace of justification is present) work because either the receiving individual believes that they work or has a specific degree of knowledge that he ascents to (similar but slightly different things). If a Catholic is deficient in either belief or knowledge, then the sacraments still work but the fullness of grace that is received is not perfect.

      It is pretty clear here that Pope Francis' sacramentology here is not Catholic but Protestant.

  3. It's actually the opposite that should be affirmed. Just about everybody knows that marriage is for life. EVERYBODY. Even people raised in a secular culture who flippantly say if it doesn't work out they can always get divorced - even they know marriage is supposed to be for life. They may not have the virtue - yet - to sustain it, but they know what it is. Most everybody who is divorced, Catholic or otherwise, would find that, if they try to get right with God, at some point along the journey they will have to go back to their spouse and figure out how to make it work. Affirming this would be both true and useful.

  4. I read that bit about how people today just don't realize what "for life" really means, and I wanted to retort the way Livia retorted to Augustus in the screen adaptation of Robert Graves's "I, Claudius":

    Livia and Augustus are arguing about Claudius, who, because of his infirmities, is an embarrassment to the family and must be married off quietly to a woman whose family isn't particular as long as they have someone related to the Imperial family.

    Augustus: Are you sure this girl will marry him?
    Livia: What's it got to do with her? They were betrothed six years ago and that's that!
    Augustus: Well to be honest with you, I feel sorry for her ... what's she like?
    Livia I don't know, I haven't seen her since she was thirteen!
    Augustus: Well does she know what she's getting?
    Livia: Do any of us??

    The point is, we all have something about being married that hits us like a ton of bricks ... so what? How does that translate to making the marriage invalid? Most of life's transitions come with misconceptions and surprises. I agree that the understanding of the Church's teachings is poor, but who's fault is that?

    And then he goes on to say that cohabitation with fidelity has "graces." This morning it merely outraged me to think that what he was saying was that if a couple is really skilled at committing a particular sin, it ceases to be a sin. Now, however, I'm struck by something more sinister.

    Could he be hinting that part of a true preparation for marriage, a means for realization of what "for life" means, as well as all those other unknowns ... could he be recommending cohabitation? Remember that he also inserted his little self-congratulatory anecdote about how he "accompanied" this one cohabitating couple, and in the end they got married, and he was pleased to see them entering the church every Sunday with their child? How he threw in that bit about the "superstition" that some Argentines have, where when they get engaged, they conceive a child, and when that child starts school, the couple marries civilly while at the same time, the couple's parents marry in the Church? Because of superstition, you see. Superstition: a means of dealing with the unknown or uncertain; like the unknown state of happiness that follows a marriage. So they engage in the "superstition" of not wanting to marry in the Church until they're really sure. In the meantime, they cohabitate.

    What do you think? Is there anything to what I'm saying, or am I turning into a person who wears an aluminum foil deflector beanie?

    1. Sounds very plausible.

      One: Pope Francis comes off as Lutheran and in the "sin boldly" camp. This doesn't mean to go around sinning but rather that, due to imputed justification, an individual's personal sins are not important, but what is important is the path of sanctification -- one gets to heaven not by being righteous but by accepting that only Christ is righteous and he never will be.

      Two: A corollary is that Pope Francis doesn't sound like he believes in the "universal call to holiness" -- which is that all people are called to live righteous lives here and now. "Accompaniment" is derived from, if not a bastardization of, the Christian life being a pilgrimage towards Zion. One affirms where the other is and never helps them progress along the path towards Zion...the only accompanying that is done is where the individual happens to be choosing to go. "Universal Call to Accompaniment" perhaps.

      Three: Pope Francis believes that he can "twist the hand of God", which is to say that he can turn sin into not sin simply because he can dispense mercy by the act of his will. (Hubris). Strong mistaken understanding of the Power of the Keys. However, the larger mistake is believing that God doesn't care about righteousness but only cares about ... I don't know...togetherness?

  5. Ponder the fact that God has made you a gardener, to root out vice and plant virtue.

    St. Catherine of Siena

  6. As a musician I've played probably hundreds of weddings--Catholic, Protestant, semi-secular. I do not recall once NOT hearing the words---"till death do us part."

    Seattle Kim

    1. Seattle Kim~

      The "till death do us part" is not necessary in the NO. If it is not used, the "I will love you and honor you all the days of my life." is the replacement which means the same thing.

      The change here is not a denial of the indissolubility of marriage but rather it is indicating the pious belief that in Heaven the married spouse will still be together. So the "parting at death" is left aside.

      BESIDES there is plenty of other phrases in the Rite that indirectly or directly indicate the indissolubility of marriage.

      Not saying those words is not an indicator of a belief in divorce built into the Rite.

  7. In regards to the question, "who to take seriously"? I like the following quote from GK Chesterton:

    "Tradition means giving a vote to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead.” ...... “Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about."

    You talk often of "nailing your paw to the floor, and then dying there". The nail that holds me in the Catholic Church is Tradition; meaning all those Saints and saints (little s like me) who came before, and the living Tradition they passed on intact and whole to us.

    God Himself protects His Church. He prospers the work of His faithful as if built upon a rock. The work of the wicked washes away in the next tide.

    From Psalm 1

    3And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

    4The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.

    This too shall pass. And only the Rock remains.


Moderation is On.

Featured Post

Judging Angels Chapter 1 Read by Author

Quick commercial for free, no-strings-attached gift of a professionally produced audio book of Judging Angels, Chapter 1: Last Things, read...