So, what is the problem?  Pope Francis is merely explaining the newest development in Church teaching on matrimony.  Everyone who recognizes him as the pope should welcome his teaching and submit to it.

Is he speaking from experience? Was his parent's marriage invalid? What does that make him?

"Pope" Francis seems to think the sacrament of marriage
isn't really a sacrament that confers dissoluble union.
He also seems to think the sacrament isn't what makes
a marriage.

Pope Francis' catastrophic remarks of June 16, 2016 - Part I of Commentary.

1. Pope Francis says that "great majority of sacramental marriages are null", but some cohabitations are real marriages.
2. How Amoris Laetitia and Mitis Iudex paved the way for Francis' statement.
3. Throwback: when Cardinal Bergoglio approved his niece's breaking Church law on marriage
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/06/pope-francis-catastrophic-speech-of.html

by the way, the local N.O. church in my area recently gave
parishoners a handbook on annulments. I found it interesting
that expectations of income are grounds for annulment !
Here is a .pdf of the pamphlet:
https://www.osv.com/Shop/PDFs/P111_web.pdf

The logical conclusion of "Pope" Francis' statements is
"why bother going through with the sacrament" ?

In the PDF under "Grounds for annulment" # 4 reads: "The presence of a future “condition” for marriage, such as one spouse demanding that the other spouse will achieve a certain level of income."

What that means is that prior to the ceremony one (or both) of future husband and wife have placed a prior condition (in this case a certain level of money they wish to attain). If people limit their expression of matrimonial consent in any way - they block the exchange of valid consent. For valid consent the two parties must freely and openly entrust themselves to each other without limitation.

The emphasis in the sentence was a "condition" like a "conditional ordination" here we have a "conditional marriage". It's like saying "I'll marry you if you give me ten bucks." and then after the marriage you don't get the "ten bucks" - getting ten bucks has nothing to do with it, it was the intention to limit the openness of consent that invalidates the marriage.

In this case the statement was quite correct and is Catholic teaching.

So, what is the problem?  Pope Francis is merely explaining the newest development in Church teaching on matrimony.  Everyone who recognizes him as the pope should welcome his teaching and submit to it.

What are you, one of them papists? :rolleyes:

Quote from: Charlemagne

Quote from: TKGS

So, what is the problem?  Pope Francis is merely explaining the newest development in Church teaching on matrimony.  Everyone who recognizes him as the pope should welcome his teaching and submit to it.

What are you, one of them papists? :rolleyes:

 :wink: TKGS post was just irony; his way of signifying the opposite, with a bit of sarcasm.  

Oh, I know; my post was sarcasm. It was just my way of saying that TKGS just holds the traditional (and correct) view of the papacy.

Quote from: snowball

"Pope" Francis seems to think the sacrament of marriage
isn't really a sacrament that confers dissoluble union.
He also seems to think the sacrament isn't what makes
a marriage.

Pope Francis' catastrophic remarks of June 16, 2016 - Part I of Commentary.

1. Pope Francis says that "great majority of sacramental marriages are null", but some cohabitations are real marriages.
2. How Amoris Laetitia and Mitis Iudex paved the way for Francis' statement.
3. Throwback: when Cardinal Bergoglio approved his niece's breaking Church law on marriage
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/06/pope-francis-catastrophic-speech-of.html

by the way, the local N.O. church in my area recently gave
parishoners a handbook on annulments. I found it interesting
that expectations of income are grounds for annulment !
Here is a .pdf of the pamphlet:
https://www.osv.com/Shop/PDFs/P111_web.pdf

The logical conclusion of "Pope" Francis' statements is
"why bother going through with the sacrament" ?

In the PDF under "Grounds for annulment" # 4 reads: "The presence of a future “condition” for marriage, such as one spouse demanding that the other spouse will achieve a certain level of income."

What that means is that prior to the ceremony one (or both) of future husband and wife have placed a prior condition (in this case a certain level of money they wish to attain). If people limit their expression of matrimonial consent in any way - they block the exchange of valid consent. For valid consent the two parties must freely and openly entrust themselves to each other without limitation.

The emphasis in the sentence was a "condition" like a "conditional ordination" here we have a "conditional marriage". It's like saying "I'll marry you if you give me ten bucks." and then after the marriage you don't get the "ten bucks" - getting ten bucks has nothing to do with it, it was the intention to limit the openness of consent that invalidates the marriage.

In this case the statement was quite correct and is Catholic teaching.

No, it doesn't have to be a written pre-nuptial or otherwise docuмented
expectation. And it's certainly not talking about a payment for consent.

The language is nowhere near that specific. The condition may be no more
than an expectation that the husband will make a certain amount of money
as a provider.

Perhaps it should be:

"You may kiss the provisional bride."

By the way, before I returned to the Church, I was invited to, and attended, a wedding of a couple before a Justice of the Peace.  This was many, many years ago, so I don't remember exactly what the "vows" were, but I do remember one key phrase:

"Do you take ... for your lawfully wedded wife ... as long as you both shall love"?

And, of course, the same for the wife:

"Do you take ... for your lawfully wedded husband ... as long as you both shall love"?

I immediately noticed that and later discussed that with the woman who would soon be my wife.  We were both rather mystified that they took vows that were intended not to be permanent unless both parties always wanted them to be.  

The "marriage" lasted about five or six years.  Evidently, one or both of them no longer "loved".