OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 16, 2014, 05:27:29 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Myth of Schism  (Read 13823 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« on: June 04, 2011, 12:08:27 AM »

In a short, but brilliant article, entitled The Myth of Schism, Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart shared some interesting thoughts, with his characteristic sharpness and wit. I thought it might generate some interesting discussion.

Some excerpts, regarding both sides:

As regards my own communion, I must reluctantly report that there are some Eastern Christians who have become incapable of defining what it is to be Orthodox except in contradistinction to Roman Catholicism; and among these are a small but voluble number who have (I sometimes suspect) lost any rationale for their Orthodoxy other than their profound hatred, deranged terror, and encyclopaedic ignorance of Rome. For such as these, there can never be any limit set to the number of grievances that need to be cited against Rome, nor any act of contrition on the part of Rome sufficient for absolution. There was something inherently strange in the spectacle of John Paul asking pardon for the 1204 sack of Constantinople and its sequel; but there is something inherently unseemly in the refusal of certain Eastern polemicists to allow the episode to sink back to the level of utter irrelevancy to which it belongs. (In any event, I eagerly await the day when the Patriarch of Constantinople, in a gesture of unqualified Christian contrition, makes public penance for the brutal mass slaughter of the metic Latin Christians of Byzantium - men, women and children - at the rise of Andronicus I Comnenus in 1182, and the sale of thousands of them into slavery to the Turks. Frankly, when all is said and done, the sack of 1204 was a rather mild recompense for that particular abomination, I would think).

Thus, when a certain kind of militantly conservative Catholic priest is heard to claim that the celibate priesthood was the universal practice of the early Church, established by Christ in his apostles, and that therefore even married Catholic priests of the Eastern rites possess defective orders, the historically astute among us should recognize that such a delusion is possible only for a person having no understanding of the priesthood more sophisticated than his pristine boyish memories of Fr O’Reilly’s avuncular geniality, and the shining example of his contented bachelorhood, and the calm authority with which he presided over the life of the parish of St Anne of Green Gables. And when this same priest ventures theological or ecclesiological opinions, it is almost certain that what he takes to be apostolic Catholicism will turn out to be a particular kind of post-Tridentine Baroque Catholicism, kept buoyantly afloat upon ecclesiological and sacramental principles of an antiquity no hoarier than 1729.

Similarly, when a certain kind of Greek Orthodox anti-papal demagogue claims that the Eastern Church has always rejected the validity of the sacraments of the “Latin schismatics,” or that the real church schism dates back to the eight century when the Orthodox Church became estranged from the Roman over the latter’s “rejection” of the (14th-century) distinction between God’s essence and energies, the historically literate among us should recognize that what he takes to be apostolic Orthodoxy is in fact based upon ecclesiological and sacramental principles that reach back only to 1755, and upon principles of theological interpretation first enunciated in 1942, and upon an interpretation of ecclesiastical history that dates from whenever the prescriptions for his medications expired.


In truth, the most unpleasant aspect of the current state of the division between East and West is the sheer inventiveness with which those ardently committed to that divisoin have gone about fabricating ever profounder and more radical reasons for it. Our distant Christian forbears were content to despise one another over the most minimal of matters - leavened or unleavened Eucharistic bread, for instance, or veneration of unconsecrated elements - without ever bothering to suppose that these differences were symptomatic of anything deeper than themselves. Today, however, a grand mythology has evolved regarding the theological dispositions of the Eastern and Western Christendom, to the effect that the theologies of the Eastern and Western Catholic traditions have obeyed contrary logics and have in consequence arrived at conclusions inimical each to the other - that is to say, the very essence of what we believe is no longer compatible. I do not believe that, before the middle of the 20the century, claims were ever made regarding the nature of the division as radical as those one finds not only in the works of inane agitators like the altogether absurd and execrable John Romanides, but also in the works of theologians of genuine stature,  such as Dumitru Staniloae, Vladimir Lossky, or John Zizioulas in the East or Erich Przywara or Hans Urs von Balthasar in the West; and until those claims are defeated - as well they should be, as they are without exception entirely fanciful - we cannot reasonably hope for anything but impasse.

Some thoughts about the Orthodox:

Now, speaking only for my tradition, I think I can identify fairly easily where Orthodox theology has fallen prey to this mythology. Eastern Orthodox theology gained a great deal from the - principally Russian - neo-patristic and neo-Palamite revolution during the last century, and especially from the work of Vladimir Lossky. Indeed, in the wake of the Bolshevik revolution, the very fate of Orthodoxy had become doubtful to many, and so the energy with which Lossky applied himself to a new patristic synthesis that would make clear the inmost essence of Orthodoxy is certainly understandable; but the problems bequeathed to Orthodox scholarship by the “Russian revolution” in theology are many. And the price exacted for those gains was exorbitant. For one thing, it led to a certain narrowing of the spectrum of what many Eastern theologians are prepared to treat as either centrally or legitimately Orthodox, with the consequence that many legitimate aspects of the tradition that cannot be easily situated upon the canonical Losskian path from the patristic age to the Hesychastic synthesis of the 14th and subsequent centuries have suffered either neglect or denigration. But the most damaging consequence of Orthodoxy’s 20th-century pilgrimage ad fontes - ironically, I think - has been an increase in the intensity of Eastern theology’s anti-Western polemic, or at least in the confidence with which it is uttered. Nor is this only a problem for ecumenism: the anti-Western passion of Lossky and others has on occasion led to severe distortions of Eastern theology; and it has often made intelligent interpretations of Western Christian theology all but impossible for Orthodox thinkers. Neo-patristic Orthodox scholarship has usually gone hand in hand with some of the most excruciatingly inaccurate treatments of Western theologians one could imagine. The aforementioned John Romanides, for instance, has produced expositions of the thought of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas that are almost miraculously devoid of one single correct statement; and while this might be comical if such men spoke only for themselves, it becomes tragic when instead they influence the way great numbers of their fellows view other Christians.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2011, 12:12:36 AM by Sleeper » Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,881


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2011, 12:23:25 AM »

Bold claims. I guess debates need polars on both sides...

I still maintain that what a theologian or philosopher actually taught during their lifetime is often irrelevant when discussing their legacies (augustine, aquinas).
« Last Edit: June 04, 2011, 12:26:37 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2011, 12:39:28 AM »

Does Mr Hart enjoy street cred among the Orthodox?.  A google.com search indicates that his preferred milieu, his studies and his employment history, are essentially with the Roman Catholics.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2011, 12:48:38 AM »

I don't think he does, to be honest, but possibly because he challenges the false pop narrative that so much of contemporary North American Orthodoxy seems to be bent on building itself upon?  Grin
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2011, 12:53:48 AM »

I find his article painfully honest.

http://books.google.com/books?id=R78YXOLQR-UC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=%22the+myth+of+schism%22&source=bl&ots=wWX118zdvt&sig=n-7O_O2SUyk1n33w--cjuG6Bn5M&hl=en&ei=xBC9SvSpFZLkswPF1bRS&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=%22the&f=false
« Last Edit: June 04, 2011, 12:54:26 AM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2011, 12:57:15 AM »

Thanks for providing the link, Azurestone, (and I agree).
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 04, 2011, 01:26:10 AM »

This guy isn't brilliant and neither is his article.
He lives in his head.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2011, 01:49:49 AM »

This guy isn't brilliant and neither is his article.
He lives in his head.


"The wise man’s eyes are in his head, But the fool walks in darkness." Ecc. 2:14 Wink
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 04, 2011, 02:07:37 AM »

This guy isn't brilliant and neither is his article.
He lives in his head.


"The wise man’s eyes are in his head, But the fool walks in darkness." Ecc. 2:14 Wink
Whatever. Enjoy your latest Staretz. Smiley
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #9 on: June 04, 2011, 02:17:36 AM »

I don't think he does, to be honest, but possibly because he challenges the false pop narrative that so much of contemporary North American Orthodoxy seems to be bent on building itself upon?  Grin
Not like the Old World has any grievance against the Vatican.  Did Lossky ever set foot in North America?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #10 on: June 04, 2011, 04:27:57 AM »

In a short, but brilliant article, entitled The Myth of Schism, Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart shared some interesting thoughts, with his characteristic sharpness and wit. I thought it might generate some interesting discussion.

I see a lot of assertions and ad hominem. I don't see a single piece of evidence adduced to actually support those assertions so I'm not sure what you think is worth discussing. Whether you agree or disagree with him (and I personally do think there is plenty to criticize in his work), at least Fr. Romanides supplies copious references to actual facts and documents to back up his arguments. This, on the other hand, appears to be simply a more verbose version of "I'm right and you stink" that you can hear on any playground.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #11 on: June 04, 2011, 09:38:08 AM »

I don't think he does, to be honest, but possibly because he challenges the false pop narrative that so much of contemporary North American Orthodoxy seems to be bent on building itself upon?  Grin
Not like the Old World has any grievance against the Vatican.  Did Lossky ever set foot in North America?

I'm not sure, Isa, and I was mainly being facetious Smiley But wouldn't you agree that Lossky's influence was pretty substantial?

I see a lot of assertions and ad hominem. I don't see a single piece of evidence adduced to actually support those assertions so I'm not sure what you think is worth discussing. Whether you agree or disagree with him (and I personally do think there is plenty to criticize in his work), at least Fr. Romanides supplies copious references to actual facts and documents to back up his arguments. This, on the other hand, appears to be simply a more verbose version of "I'm right and you stink" that you can hear on any playground.

To be fair, it's a brief article, more in line with a reflection or meditation rather than a scholarly journal. Aside from ad hominems, which points did you dispute or think are factually unsupportable?
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,003


"My god is greater."


« Reply #12 on: June 04, 2011, 09:42:14 AM »

Sounds like an academic really straining for recognition.

As for Lossky being "pop"... please.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 04, 2011, 10:10:16 AM »


I suspect that it would be no surprise for me to concur with Azurestone since I constantly link to the papers of the consultation.

Myth is often dear to our hearts and separating it from history, hard facts and reality is a most difficult endeavor in that most of us have a profound and unstated inward fear that if we separate pious mythology from our faith, we may challenge the very underpinnings of our faith.

One thing this, and other forums have taught me, is that the diversity of practice and thought within our Orthodox Church is much wider than I imagined but very much more shallow than I ever could have envisioned. In other words, we have to move first beyond external manifestations within our own home before we can move on.

All in all, a good article.
Logged
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,347


metron ariston


« Reply #14 on: June 04, 2011, 11:02:35 AM »

Of course, if we would all just read more Florovsky, all would be well. Fortunately, several projects are in the works to make his voluminous writings more accessible and better understood.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #15 on: June 04, 2011, 11:12:49 AM »

Christ is ascended!
I don't think he does, to be honest, but possibly because he challenges the false pop narrative that so much of contemporary North American Orthodoxy seems to be bent on building itself upon?  Grin
Not like the Old World has any grievance against the Vatican.  Did Lossky ever set foot in North America?

I'm not sure, Isa, and I was mainly being facetious Smiley But wouldn't you agree that Lossky's influence was pretty substantial?
Sure, but then I love Lossky.  But he isn't a North American phenomenon.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2011, 11:13:20 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #16 on: June 04, 2011, 11:22:04 AM »

Strikes me me as a sophomoric exercise in displaying one's ability to use a thesaurus.  The essay is saturated with rather risible phrases such as "interminably pullulating vines of theological legend."   The impression is of someone trying far too hard to impress the grown ups and it does not come across as a serious scholarly study.

If you can bear to read any more of it...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54260555/David
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #17 on: June 04, 2011, 11:36:15 AM »

Christ is ascended!
Quote
The division between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches-officially almost a millenium old, but in many ways far older-has often been characterized as the ineluctable effect of one or another irreconcilable and irreducible difference:....even 'ontological'-to cite the somewhat hermetic language once employed by the Oecumenical Patriarch. (I hope that this last was a case of mistranslation,  I must note, as I should be inconsolable if I discovered that we do not even now have being in common)
Finding consolation in fantasy usually ends up badly.  We don't share being: the Vatican derives itself from a "petrine ministry" that it has created for itself to justify its existence as it is, and the Catholic Church receives her being from the Orthodox confession of St. Peter.

Besides the Orthodox episcopate of the Catholic Church, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has no "petrine ministry." So when it is asked "how can the petrine ministry serve the Church," the answer is "it can't, because it is not of the Church."  To say otherwise is to say that the bishops and their flocks in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church at some time ceased to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, i.e. to accept Ultamontanist claims.

The papacy of Rome, let alone that of the Vatican, is of ecclesiastical, not divine, origin.  Anything that claims otherwise is not the Faith delievered once and for all to the saints.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #18 on: June 04, 2011, 11:37:58 AM »

Christ is ascended!
Strikes me me as a sophomoric exercise in displaying one's ability to use a thesaurus.  The essay is saturated with rather risible phrases such as "interminably pullulating vines of theological legend."   The impression is of someone trying far too hard to impress the grown ups and it does not come across as a serious scholarly study.

If you can bear to read any more of it...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54260555/David
He also had better be a member of Her Britannic Majesty's Commonwealth if he is spelling Ecumenical "Oecumenical."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
MLPB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 68


« Reply #19 on: June 04, 2011, 11:46:58 AM »

This guy isn't brilliant and neither is his article.
He lives in his head.

I don't know; he may not be and he may be.  But, he studied at Cambridge and Virginia and taught at Duke which are pretty good indicators of scholarship.  The articles is worth considering such as I've seen it, and that's probably all it is meant to do given its length.

Of course, I have a niece who studied at the Harvard Divinity School - and when I mentioned it to a friend, he said, "Oh, so she's an atheist."   Grin Scholarship may mean different things.
Logged
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,378



« Reply #20 on: June 04, 2011, 12:23:12 PM »

I think that most schism is a myth.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 04, 2011, 02:25:41 PM »

Of course, if we would all just read more Florovsky, all would be well. Fortunately, several projects are in the works to make his voluminous writings more accessible and better understood.

Do you recommend any of his works in particular?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,644



WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 04, 2011, 03:29:21 PM »

Looks well worth a read to me.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,064



« Reply #23 on: June 04, 2011, 03:58:01 PM »

This guy isn't brilliant and neither is his article.
He lives in his head.


Agreed! 
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 04, 2011, 09:53:17 PM »

Sounds like an academic really straining for recognition.

As for Lossky being "pop"... please.

I've heard him called a modernist by some Orthodox believers.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #25 on: June 04, 2011, 10:04:52 PM »

Of course, if we would all just read more Florovsky, all would be well. Fortunately, several projects are in the works to make his voluminous writings more accessible and better understood.

Do you recommend any of his works in particular?

Several:

Here are some things to look at...I am still looking for the one I had in mind first:

http://www.eighthdayinstitute.com/Florovsky_Texts.html

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/fathers_florovsky_4.htm


Here's the one I was really looking for and my favorite.  Bible Church Tradition:

http://www.bulgarian-orthodox-church.org/rr/lode/florovsky1.pdf
« Last Edit: June 04, 2011, 10:34:55 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #26 on: June 05, 2011, 01:42:07 AM »

Does Mr Hart enjoy street cred among the Orthodox?.  A google.com search indicates that his preferred milieu, his studies and his employment history, are essentially with the Roman Catholics.

Strikes me me as a sophomoric exercise in displaying one's ability to use a thesaurus.  The essay is saturated with rather risible phrases such as "interminably pullulating vines of theological legend."   The impression is of someone trying far too hard to impress the grown ups and it does not come across as a serious scholarly study.

If you can bear to read any more of it...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54260555/David

Father,

If I may, I noticed that both your posts do not actually discuss the content of the article. Rather, the first is a criticism of the author's Orthodoxy by means of whom he appears to be associated with, to you via Google.

The second is simply an insult of his writing style.

Don't really know how to point it out any other way.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2011, 01:45:30 AM by WetCatechumen » Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #27 on: June 05, 2011, 02:50:48 AM »

Does Mr Hart enjoy street cred among the Orthodox?.  A google.com search indicates that his preferred milieu, his studies and his employment history, are essentially with the Roman Catholics.

Strikes me me as a sophomoric exercise in displaying one's ability to use a thesaurus.  The essay is saturated with rather risible phrases such as "interminably pullulating vines of theological legend."   The impression is of someone trying far too hard to impress the grown ups and it does not come across as a serious scholarly study.

If you can bear to read any more of it...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54260555/David

Father,

If I may, I noticed that both your posts do not actually discuss the content of the article. Rather, the first is a criticism of the author's Orthodoxy by means of whom he appears to be associated with, to you via Google.

The second is simply an insult of his writing style.

Don't really know how to point it out any other way.

1.  I dislike what I see as a very sententious style of writing

2.  I dislike what I see as his constant accusation that the Orthodox are acting only out of bad faith and are incapable of conducting a dialogue.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #28 on: June 05, 2011, 04:25:34 AM »

All in all, a good article.
I enjoyed reading the article. From the tone of the article, it is clear that there are Eastern Orthodox theologians who are working seriously to promote reconciliation between East and West. Obviously, there is also a whole lot of work to be done on the RC side, before a reconciliation could ever take place.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #29 on: June 05, 2011, 12:02:23 PM »

2.  I dislike what I see as his constant accusation that the Orthodox are acting only out of bad faith and are incapable of conducting a dialogue.
If the shoe fits.......
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #30 on: June 05, 2011, 12:50:01 PM »

2.  I dislike what I see as his constant accusation that the Orthodox are acting only out of bad faith and are incapable of conducting a dialogue.
If the shoe fits.......

But it doesn't fit and David Hart's argumentation is unbalanced.

 1.  There have been 12 Meetings of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.  This was established by the Holy See and the 14 autocephalous Orthodox Churches.

2.   There have been 21 Meetings of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 05, 2011, 12:57:42 PM »

2.  I dislike what I see as his constant accusation that the Orthodox are acting only out of bad faith and are incapable of conducting a dialogue.
If the shoe fits.......

But it doesn't fit and David Hart's argumentation is unbalanced.

 1.  There have been 12 Meetings of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.  This was established by the Holy See and the 14 autocephalous Orthodox Churches.

2.   There have been 21 Meetings of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation.

 Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley

Which of course many here, if not most, say are wastes of time and their conclusions are meaningless...in point of fact.

So you seem to be out of balance with your usual approach to these useless meetings.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #32 on: June 05, 2011, 02:14:48 PM »

So you seem to be out of balance with your usual approach to these useless meetings.
He's willing to flip-flop if doing so makes it easier to oppose us. Wink
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #33 on: June 05, 2011, 04:15:39 PM »

2.  I dislike what I see as his constant accusation that the Orthodox are acting only out of bad faith and are incapable of conducting a dialogue.
If the shoe fits.......

But it doesn't fit and David Hart's argumentation is unbalanced.

 1.  There have been 12 Meetings of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.  This was established by the Holy See and the 14 autocephalous Orthodox Churches.

2.   There have been 21 Meetings of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation.

Quite true and the North Americans are meeting this week for their spring sessions at SVS under the chairmanship of Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh, GOA. I know the Metropolitan and he would take great exception to the theory that the Orthodox members of this group are only acting in bad faith.
Logged
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #34 on: June 05, 2011, 05:53:00 PM »

Does Mr Hart enjoy street cred among the Orthodox?.  A google.com search indicates that his preferred milieu, his studies and his employment history, are essentially with the Roman Catholics.

Strikes me me as a sophomoric exercise in displaying one's ability to use a thesaurus.  The essay is saturated with rather risible phrases such as "interminably pullulating vines of theological legend."   The impression is of someone trying far too hard to impress the grown ups and it does not come across as a serious scholarly study.

If you can bear to read any more of it...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54260555/David

Father,

If I may, I noticed that both your posts do not actually discuss the content of the article. Rather, the first is a criticism of the author's Orthodoxy by means of whom he appears to be associated with, to you via Google.

The second is simply an insult of his writing style.

Don't really know how to point it out any other way.

1.  I dislike what I see as a very sententious style of writing

2.  I dislike what I see as his constant accusation that the Orthodox are acting only out of bad faith and are incapable of conducting a dialogue.

Well, then do you think that you could discuss what he has written and not merely launch personal attacks against him?
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,087


« Reply #35 on: June 05, 2011, 06:01:30 PM »

I agree with Hart to the extent that a lot of EO, including those in the TOC, seem to find it inordinately important to make various historical grievances the cornerstone of Orthodox identity. Hence the trend to throw out any theological concepts that could conceivably be interpreted as Western (e.g. original sin, atonement), even if many EO theologians have professed the same ideas. Hence also the excessive emphasis on Orthodox suffering at the hands of the West, which sometimes begs the question of whether it is really Orthodox to see suffering for the faith in such a negative light. If many Orthodox died for the faith in 1204, isn't that technically a good thing, rather than a bad thing?

But in the end Hart completely passes over the real reason for traditionalist opposition to rapprochement with the Vatican. It's not about historical grievances or victimhood politics, much as that kind of thing regrettably plays a role in Orthodox rhetoric. It's about doctrine tout simple. The RC church has not renounced its heresies, so how can they expect us to agree to union?
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #36 on: June 05, 2011, 06:52:50 PM »

I think you're correct, by and large, Jonathan, but I think Hart's point is that much of what we *think* are real differences, are often merely both "sides" talking past one another. What I gathered is that he thinks the main issues of focus should be the Papacy and the filioque, other things of which could rightly be relegated to the sphere of theologumena.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #37 on: June 05, 2011, 07:01:27 PM »

Christ is ascended!
2.  I dislike what I see as his constant accusation that the Orthodox are acting only out of bad faith and are incapable of conducting a dialogue.
If the shoe fits.......
....why don't you wear it?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,087


« Reply #38 on: June 05, 2011, 07:39:51 PM »

I think you're correct, by and large, Jonathan, but I think Hart's point is that much of what we *think* are real differences, are often merely both "sides" talking past one another. What I gathered is that he thinks the main issues of focus should be the Papacy and the filioque, other things of which could rightly be relegated to the sphere of theologumena.

All right. I would agree those two are among, if not the the most important reasons. But others could include use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist and omission of the epiclesis of the Holy Spirit in the consecration. Does he think those are theologoumena also? This gets into the thorny topic of just what counts as "doctrine".

I also happen to think his smug tone about "ignorant" zealots on either side annoying and detracting from the overall force of his argument. I happen to respect genuinely felt faith, however misguided, vastly more than the false self-assurance of clever and well-read academics who have never actually had to stand up or risk their lives for their beliefs. If a RC priest really did manage to preserve his chastity throughout his adolescence and young adulthood and maintain it throughout his priesthood, and thereby derive some personal confirmation of the RC church's false doctrine of universal clerical celibacy, I respect him for it more than some quite probably incontinent secularist scoffing at the RC practice, secretly knowing that he would never personally have been able to live up to that exacting standard, even if technically the secularist is correct on this point. The criticism has more force coming from an EO priest who preserved his purity until marriage, and afterwards, or better still an EO monk.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #39 on: June 05, 2011, 07:51:03 PM »

All right. I would agree those two are among, if not the the most important reasons. But others could include use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist and omission of the epiclesis of the Holy Spirit in the consecration. Does he think those are theologoumena also? This gets into the thorny topic of just what counts as "doctrine".

Yes.

I also happen to think his smug tone about "ignorant" zealots on either side annoying and detracting from the overall force of his argument. I happen to respect genuinely felt faith, however misguided, vastly more than the false self-assurance of clever and well-read academics who have never actually had to stand up or risk their lives for their beliefs. If a RC priest really did manage to preserve his chastity throughout his adolescence and young adulthood and maintain it throughout his priesthood, and thereby derive some personal confirmation of the RC church's false doctrine of universal clerical celibacy, I respect him for it more than some quite probably incontinent secularist scoffing at the RC practice, secretly knowing that he would never personally have been able to live up to that exacting standard, even if technically the secularist is correct on this point. The criticism has more force coming from an EO priest who preserved his purity until marriage, and afterwards, or better still an EO monk.

Huh?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #40 on: June 05, 2011, 08:25:07 PM »

Does Mr Hart enjoy street cred among the Orthodox?.  A google.com search indicates that his preferred milieu, his studies and his employment history, are essentially with the Roman Catholics.

I agree!
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #41 on: June 05, 2011, 08:32:53 PM »

I don't think he does, to be honest, but possibly because he challenges the false pop narrative that so much of contemporary North American Orthodoxy seems to be bent on building itself upon?  Grin

It's not false! I've been reading the early church fathers and christian witnesses of the first 4 to 5 centuries for 14 years now and most of that time was back when I was still protestant. I agree with Fr. John Rominades and all the other Orthodox names that Bently Hart hates and is fighting against.

Rominades and the others are faithful witnesses to Eastern Christian Patristics while Bently Hart is not. If Bently Hart wants to be Roman Catholic then why doesn't he just jump ship?


Bently Hart just made it to my "ignore list" or "someone to attack list". Now, I like Roman Catholics, but I'm not gonna favor Rome against the Eastern Christian tradition. The Eastern Christian tradition needs to be protected at all costs!
« Last Edit: June 05, 2011, 08:39:52 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #42 on: June 05, 2011, 08:43:18 PM »

This guy isn't brilliant and neither is his article.
He lives in his head.

I agree! Hey, there needs to be a thank you button on this forum
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #43 on: June 05, 2011, 08:50:17 PM »

I don't think he does, to be honest, but possibly because he challenges the false pop narrative that so much of contemporary North American Orthodoxy seems to be bent on building itself upon?  Grin
Not like the Old World has any grievance against the Vatican.  Did Lossky ever set foot in North America?

I'm not sure, Isa, and I was mainly being facetious Smiley But wouldn't you agree that Lossky's influence was pretty substantial?

I see a lot of assertions and ad hominem. I don't see a single piece of evidence adduced to actually support those assertions so I'm not sure what you think is worth discussing. Whether you agree or disagree with him (and I personally do think there is plenty to criticize in his work), at least Fr. Romanides supplies copious references to actual facts and documents to back up his arguments. This, on the other hand, appears to be simply a more verbose version of "I'm right and you stink" that you can hear on any playground.

To be fair, it's a brief article, more in line with a reflection or meditation rather than a scholarly journal. Aside from ad hominems, which points did you dispute or think are factually unsupportable?

Do you read the Early Church Fathers and Christian Witnesses? Especially the Eastern ones? Read them for yourself then read Fr. Romanides and Lossky and maybe then you will understand why we favor them over those who want us to be Augustinian, Thomistic and any other ism in the western tradition.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2011, 08:52:26 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #44 on: June 05, 2011, 10:01:53 PM »

Christ is ascended!
2.  I dislike what I see as his constant accusation that the Orthodox are acting only out of bad faith and are incapable of conducting a dialogue.
If the shoe fits.......
....why don't you wear it?
Not my size. Wink
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #45 on: June 05, 2011, 10:14:45 PM »

I don't think he does, to be honest, but possibly because he challenges the false pop narrative that so much of contemporary North American Orthodoxy seems to be bent on building itself upon?  Grin

It's not false! I've been reading the early church fathers and christian witnesses of the first 4 to 5 centuries for 14 years now and most of that time was back when I was still protestant. I agree with Fr. John Rominades and all the other Orthodox names that Bently Hart hates and is fighting against.

Is Mr. Hart addressing the 4th to 5th centuries? Are are you convinced, somehow, the "Schism" goes back that far in time?

Quote
Rominades and the others are faithful witnesses to Eastern Christian Patristics while Bently Hart is not. If Bently Hart wants to be Roman Catholic then why doesn't he just jump ship?


Bently Hart just made it to my "ignore list" or "someone to attack list". Now, I like Roman Catholics, but I'm not gonna favor Rome against the Eastern Christian tradition. The Eastern Christian tradition needs to be protected at all costs!

I can't decide which one is more saddening; that you ignore people you don't agree with, or that you keep a list of people you plan to attack.

The way some people speak of "The Eastern Christian Tradition" feels too much like it's its own religion...

I'll throw my lot in with Hart on this one, he's a breath of fresh air and I think hits a little to close to home for those who've made themselves comfortable with the grand myth of "us" vs. "them" and "East" vs. "West" and all the caricatures that involves.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #46 on: June 05, 2011, 10:50:28 PM »

I don't think he does, to be honest, but possibly because he challenges the false pop narrative that so much of contemporary North American Orthodoxy seems to be bent on building itself upon?  Grin

It's not false! I've been reading the early church fathers and christian witnesses of the first 4 to 5 centuries for 14 years now and most of that time was back when I was still protestant. I agree with Fr. John Rominades and all the other Orthodox names that Bently Hart hates and is fighting against.

Is Mr. Hart addressing the 4th to 5th centuries? Are are you convinced, somehow, the "Schism" goes back that far in time?

Quote
Rominades and the others are faithful witnesses to Eastern Christian Patristics while Bently Hart is not. If Bently Hart wants to be Roman Catholic then why doesn't he just jump ship?


Bently Hart just made it to my "ignore list" or "someone to attack list". Now, I like Roman Catholics, but I'm not gonna favor Rome against the Eastern Christian tradition. The Eastern Christian tradition needs to be protected at all costs!

I can't decide which one is more saddening; that you ignore people you don't agree with, or that you keep a list of people you plan to attack.

The way some people speak of "The Eastern Christian Tradition" feels too much like it's its own religion...

I'll throw my lot in with Hart on this one, he's a breath of fresh air and I think hits a little to close to home for those who've made themselves comfortable with the grand myth of "us" vs. "them" and "East" vs. "West" and all the caricatures that involves.

I don't think that the late Father Romanides is 'hated' by Hart and I suspect that he would not be comfortable with the caricatures of the great 'us' versus 'them' that some like to perpetuate and characterize in their crusades against 'ecumenism' It should startle no one that academics studying the same subjects and writing about the same historical events could reach somewhat different conclusions on important issues. Challenging the small 'o' orthodoxies within big 'O' Orthodoxy is often misunderstood and subject to emotional reactions.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2011, 10:52:32 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #47 on: June 06, 2011, 12:21:33 AM »

2.  I dislike what I see as his constant accusation that the Orthodox are acting only out of bad faith and are incapable of conducting a dialogue.
If the shoe fits.......

But it doesn't fit and David Hart's argumentation is unbalanced.

 1.  There have been 12 Meetings of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.  This was established by the Holy See and the 14 autocephalous Orthodox Churches.

2.   There have been 21 Meetings of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation.

 Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley

Which of course many here, if not most, say are wastes of time and their conclusions are meaningless...in point of fact.

So you seem to be out of balance with your usual approach to these useless meetings.

I wonder if you are aware of the topics which have been discussed by the Joint International Commission?

The latest topic, that of a universal primacy, is doing wonders in bringing the Orthodox to focus on our acceptance on our non-acceptance of any man or any Church holding such a role in the Church.

It's all good.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #48 on: June 06, 2011, 12:32:27 AM »

Does Mr Hart enjoy street cred among the Orthodox?.  A google.com search indicates that his preferred milieu, his studies and his employment history, are essentially with the Roman Catholics.

Strikes me me as a sophomoric exercise in displaying one's ability to use a thesaurus.  The essay is saturated with rather risible phrases such as "interminably pullulating vines of theological legend."   The impression is of someone trying far too hard to impress the grown ups and it does not come across as a serious scholarly study.

If you can bear to read any more of it...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54260555/David

Father,

If I may, I noticed that both your posts do not actually discuss the content of the article. Rather, the first is a criticism of the author's Orthodoxy by means of whom he appears to be associated with, to you via Google.

The second is simply an insult of his writing style.

Don't really know how to point it out any other way.

1.  I dislike what I see as a very sententious style of writing

2.  I dislike what I see as his constant accusation that the Orthodox are acting only out of bad faith and are incapable of conducting a dialogue.

Well, then do you think that you could discuss what he has written and not merely launch personal attacks against him?

I would be cautious about this man and his opinions.  I asked on the clergy list and nobody knew of him except two priests who said:  Isn't he Roman Catholic?  So I think that the article billing him as an "Orthodox theologian" may be a bit of wishful thinking.  I see his credentials as important because unless he writes as a member of the Orthodox Church (which he twice  calls "a communion"[sic!] )  his opinions are of little relevance as a reference for the Orthodox.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #49 on: June 06, 2011, 12:38:58 AM »

I think you're correct, by and large, Jonathan, but I think Hart's point is that much of what we *think* are real differences, are often merely both "sides" talking past one another. What I gathered is that he thinks the main issues of focus should be the Papacy and the filioque, other things of which could rightly be relegated to the sphere of theologumena.


Once we decide on the issues of the papacy (no such beast in Christendom btw) and filioque,  the real issues will be divorce followed by a second sacramental marriage and the use of non-abortive contraception.  These won't even be possible to leave as theologoumena - East accepts them while West rejects them - because Western Christians in a united Church will not accept that their Eastern family may use them while to them in the West they remain grave sins and totally forbidden.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #50 on: June 06, 2011, 01:50:04 AM »

David Bently Hart:

"Anyone familiar with the Eastern Christian world knows that the Orthodox view of the Catholic Church is often a curious mélange of fact, fantasy, cultural prejudice, sublime theological misunderstanding, resentment, reasonable disagreement, and unreasonable dread: it sees a misty phantasmagoria of crusades, predestination, “modalism,” a God of wrath, flagellants, Grand Inquisitors, and those blasted Borgias."

And balancing that:

"I must remark that the greater miscalculation of what divides us is almost inevitably found on the Catholic side, not always entirely free of a certain unreflective condescension. Often Western Christians, justifiably offended by the hostility with which their advances are met by certain Orthodox, assume that the greatest obstacle to reunion is Eastern immaturity and divisiveness."

http://davidbhart.blogspot.com/2006/03/david-b-hart-future-of-papacy-and_25.html
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #51 on: June 06, 2011, 08:22:47 AM »

I think you're correct, by and large, Jonathan, but I think Hart's point is that much of what we *think* are real differences, are often merely both "sides" talking past one another. What I gathered is that he thinks the main issues of focus should be the Papacy and the filioque, other things of which could rightly be relegated to the sphere of theologumena.


Once we decide on the issues of the papacy (no such beast in Christendom btw) and filioque,  the real issues will be divorce followed by a second sacramental marriage and the use of non-abortive contraception.  These won't even be possible to leave as theologoumena - East accepts them while West rejects them - because Western Christians in a united Church will not accept that their Eastern family may use them while to them in the West they remain grave sins and totally forbidden.

It may be easier for the theologians and leaders of the west to reach accommodation on the first two issues, certainly the second, with the Orthodox while the third and fourth may be the deal-breakers. The irony is that the Roman laity, and many of their lesser clergy, being wedded to the romanticized, simplified understandings of the first two as they frequently represent them on these pages, will cheer on the Orthodox as to the resolution of the third and the fourth as those get the old 'wink, wink, nod, nod' from many of them.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2011, 08:23:57 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #52 on: June 06, 2011, 09:36:47 AM »

I think you're correct, by and large, Jonathan, but I think Hart's point is that much of what we *think* are real differences, are often merely both "sides" talking past one another. What I gathered is that he thinks the main issues of focus should be the Papacy and the filioque, other things of which could rightly be relegated to the sphere of theologumena.


Once we decide on the issues of the papacy (no such beast in Christendom btw) and filioque,  the real issues will be divorce followed by a second sacramental marriage and the use of non-abortive contraception.  These won't even be possible to leave as theologoumena - East accepts them while West rejects them - because Western Christians in a united Church will not accept that their Eastern family may use them while to them in the West they remain grave sins and totally forbidden.

It may be easier for the theologians and leaders of the west to reach accommodation on the first two issues, certainly the second, with the Orthodox while the third and fourth may be the deal-breakers. The irony is that the Roman laity, and many of their lesser clergy, being wedded to the romanticized, simplified understandings of the first two as they frequently represent them on these pages, will cheer on the Orthodox as to the resolution of the third and the fourth as those get the old 'wink, wink, nod, nod' from many of them.

I think you'd be in for a surprise with the latter.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #53 on: June 06, 2011, 10:32:05 AM »

I think you're correct, by and large, Jonathan, but I think Hart's point is that much of what we *think* are real differences, are often merely both "sides" talking past one another. What I gathered is that he thinks the main issues of focus should be the Papacy and the filioque, other things of which could rightly be relegated to the sphere of theologumena.


Once we decide on the issues of the papacy (no such beast in Christendom btw) and filioque,  the real issues will be divorce followed by a second sacramental marriage and the use of non-abortive contraception.  These won't even be possible to leave as theologoumena - East accepts them while West rejects them - because Western Christians in a united Church will not accept that their Eastern family may use them while to them in the West they remain grave sins and totally forbidden.

It may be easier for the theologians and leaders of the west to reach accommodation on the first two issues, certainly the second, with the Orthodox while the third and fourth may be the deal-breakers. The irony is that the Roman laity, and many of their lesser clergy, being wedded to the romanticized, simplified understandings of the first two as they frequently represent them on these pages, will cheer on the Orthodox as to the resolution of the third and the fourth as those get the old 'wink, wink, nod, nod' from many of them.

I think you'd be in for a surprise with the latter.

I don't know, Mary.  I would think that after union is proclaimed in Rome and Constantinople and Western Catholics realise that they may have a legitimate second sacramental marriage in an Eastern church as well as access to Confession and Holy Communion again they will be breaking down the doors of Orthodox churches to sign up and set a date for their wedding.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #54 on: June 06, 2011, 10:41:12 AM »

I think you're correct, by and large, Jonathan, but I think Hart's point is that much of what we *think* are real differences, are often merely both "sides" talking past one another. What I gathered is that he thinks the main issues of focus should be the Papacy and the filioque, other things of which could rightly be relegated to the sphere of theologumena.


Once we decide on the issues of the papacy (no such beast in Christendom btw) and filioque,  the real issues will be divorce followed by a second sacramental marriage and the use of non-abortive contraception.  These won't even be possible to leave as theologoumena - East accepts them while West rejects them - because Western Christians in a united Church will not accept that their Eastern family may use them while to them in the West they remain grave sins and totally forbidden.

It may be easier for the theologians and leaders of the west to reach accommodation on the first two issues, certainly the second, with the Orthodox while the third and fourth may be the deal-breakers. The irony is that the Roman laity, and many of their lesser clergy, being wedded to the romanticized, simplified understandings of the first two as they frequently represent them on these pages, will cheer on the Orthodox as to the resolution of the third and the fourth as those get the old 'wink, wink, nod, nod' from many of them.

I think you'd be in for a surprise with the latter.

I don't know, Mary.  I would think that after union is proclaimed in Rome and Constantinople and Western Catholics realise that they may have a legitimate second sacramental marriage in an Eastern church as well as access to Confession and Holy Communion again they will be breaking down the doors of Orthodox churches to sign up and set a date for their wedding.


Some will of course but there will be many who will continue to want to work through the annulment process and use the guidance of the Catholic Church to move into the next phases of their lives. 

I would expect the first ones at your door to be those who have been turned away from the annulment process.
Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #55 on: June 06, 2011, 01:37:38 PM »

^I don't know, many Catholic professionals I knew over the years who are remarried (mostly judges, lawyers, cops ) did obtain annulments but they had a 'wink wink nod nod' attitude about the process. Many felt that our Orthodox approach to the issue was more honest and created less strain within the family, particular with the children of an annulled marriage. I knew one person whose close relative was a Roman Catholic priest, he married a Melkite woman in her church with his uncle participating. They obtained an annulment after the marriage fell apart and each remarried in the Catholic church. His second marriage was in his new wife's Roman Catholic church. He was troubled about the representations that had to be made to obtain the annulment and it really soured his overall attitude about the administrative structure of the Catholic Church. He wasn't questioning his faith, but rather the logical conclusions that his church's 'marriage' to legalisms caused.  Perhaps his discomfort was caused by his excellent Jesuit education and the irony that their very  approach to thinking made him realize the disconnect. His experience was hardly unique.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #56 on: June 06, 2011, 03:56:11 PM »

^I don't know, many Catholic professionals I knew over the years who are remarried (mostly judges, lawyers, cops ) did obtain annulments but they had a 'wink wink nod nod' attitude about the process. Many felt that our Orthodox approach to the issue was more honest and created less strain within the family, particular with the children of an annulled marriage. I knew one person whose close relative was a Roman Catholic priest, he married a Melkite woman in her church with his uncle participating. They obtained an annulment after the marriage fell apart and each remarried in the Catholic church. His second marriage was in his new wife's Roman Catholic church. He was troubled about the representations that had to be made to obtain the annulment and it really soured his overall attitude about the administrative structure of the Catholic Church. He wasn't questioning his faith, but rather the logical conclusions that his church's 'marriage' to legalisms caused.  Perhaps his discomfort was caused by his excellent Jesuit education and the irony that their very  approach to thinking made him realize the disconnect. His experience was hardly unique.
I have to agree tht there is something amiss with the Catholic marriage annulment process. A couple is married in the RCC and remains married for 15 years, raises a family of 3 or four children, and then the wife becomes tired of the marriage and tired of her fat husband and gets herself a new slimmer boyfriend with more money.  She then visits the local parish priest and they discuss ways that she can wiggle out of her marriage, looking for all kinds of loopholes that she can use to annul the marriage. Of course, if she had not succeeded in landing her new rich slim and trim boyfriend, all of this discovery of defects in her marriage would never have taken place.  So with a list of these newly found defects in hand she presents her case to the local Catholic tribunal and is granted her annulment, which says that there never was a Sacramental marriage in the first place. But if almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment, then who out there in the Catholic world is actually married Sacramentally?
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #57 on: June 06, 2011, 04:37:36 PM »

^I don't know, many Catholic professionals I knew over the years who are remarried (mostly judges, lawyers, cops ) did obtain annulments but they had a 'wink wink nod nod' attitude about the process. Many felt that our Orthodox approach to the issue was more honest and created less strain within the family, particular with the children of an annulled marriage. I knew one person whose close relative was a Roman Catholic priest, he married a Melkite woman in her church with his uncle participating. They obtained an annulment after the marriage fell apart and each remarried in the Catholic church. His second marriage was in his new wife's Roman Catholic church. He was troubled about the representations that had to be made to obtain the annulment and it really soured his overall attitude about the administrative structure of the Catholic Church. He wasn't questioning his faith, but rather the logical conclusions that his church's 'marriage' to legalisms caused.  Perhaps his discomfort was caused by his excellent Jesuit education and the irony that their very  approach to thinking made him realize the disconnect. His experience was hardly unique.
I have to agree tht there is something amiss with the Catholic marriage annulment process. A couple is married in the RCC and remains married for 15 years, raises a family of 3 or four children, and then the wife becomes tired of the marriage and tired of her fat husband and gets herself a new slimmer boyfriend with more money.  She then visits the local parish priest and they discuss ways that she can wiggle out of her marriage, looking for all kinds of loopholes that she can use to annul the marriage. Of course, if she had not succeeded in landing her new rich slim and trim boyfriend, all of this discovery of defects in her marriage would never have taken place.  So with a list of these newly found defects in hand she presents her case to the local Catholic tribunal and is granted her annulment, which says that there never was a Sacramental marriage in the first place. But if almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment, then who out there in the Catholic world is actually married Sacramentally?

Thank you. Even with divorce being permitted under certain circumstances, it is no panacea, nor is it an easy thing. I am sure that most of us can think of couples married in our own Orthodox parishes whose marriage falls apart - for one reason or another - and one party gains an ecclesiastical divorce and remarries. There are always voices in the parish who profess 'shock' etc... rather than minding their own business. In the end, the Orthodox view is probably imbued with both theology and economia. The Roman's won't admit it, but the 'annulment' process they devised in the late 20th century is nothing more than 'economia' intended to cover up the reality that they could not sustain their old practices and retain their faithful. Excess legalism leads to harsh results.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2011, 04:37:59 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #58 on: June 06, 2011, 05:33:50 PM »

Christ is ascended!
^I don't know, many Catholic professionals I knew over the years who are remarried (mostly judges, lawyers, cops ) did obtain annulments but they had a 'wink wink nod nod' attitude about the process. Many felt that our Orthodox approach to the issue was more honest and created less strain within the family, particular with the children of an annulled marriage. I knew one person whose close relative was a Roman Catholic priest, he married a Melkite woman in her church with his uncle participating. They obtained an annulment after the marriage fell apart and each remarried in the Catholic church. His second marriage was in his new wife's Roman Catholic church. He was troubled about the representations that had to be made to obtain the annulment and it really soured his overall attitude about the administrative structure of the Catholic Church. He wasn't questioning his faith, but rather the logical conclusions that his church's 'marriage' to legalisms caused.  Perhaps his discomfort was caused by his excellent Jesuit education and the irony that their very  approach to thinking made him realize the disconnect. His experience was hardly unique.
I have to agree tht there is something amiss with the Catholic marriage annulment process. A couple is married in the RCC and remains married for 15 years, raises a family of 3 or four children, and then the wife becomes tired of the marriage and tired of her fat husband and gets herself a new slimmer boyfriend with more money.  She then visits the local parish priest and they discuss ways that she can wiggle out of her marriage, looking for all kinds of loopholes that she can use to annul the marriage. Of course, if she had not succeeded in landing her new rich slim and trim boyfriend, all of this discovery of defects in her marriage would never have taken place.  So with a list of these newly found defects in hand she presents her case to the local Catholic tribunal and is granted her annulment, which says that there never was a Sacramental marriage in the first place. But if almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment, then who out there in the Catholic world is actually married Sacramentally?

Thank you. Even with divorce being permitted under certain circumstances, it is no panacea, nor is it an easy thing. I am sure that most of us can think of couples married in our own Orthodox parishes whose marriage falls apart - for one reason or another - and one party gains an ecclesiastical divorce and remarries. There are always voices in the parish who profess 'shock' etc... rather than minding their own business.
I'm all for MYOB, but the loss of shock is why divorce has become the easy panacea. Or so it is marketed and sold, with a no return policy.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #59 on: June 06, 2011, 05:37:24 PM »

Christ is ascended!
^I don't know, many Catholic professionals I knew over the years who are remarried (mostly judges, lawyers, cops ) did obtain annulments but they had a 'wink wink nod nod' attitude about the process. Many felt that our Orthodox approach to the issue was more honest and created less strain within the family, particular with the children of an annulled marriage. I knew one person whose close relative was a Roman Catholic priest, he married a Melkite woman in her church with his uncle participating. They obtained an annulment after the marriage fell apart and each remarried in the Catholic church. His second marriage was in his new wife's Roman Catholic church. He was troubled about the representations that had to be made to obtain the annulment and it really soured his overall attitude about the administrative structure of the Catholic Church. He wasn't questioning his faith, but rather the logical conclusions that his church's 'marriage' to legalisms caused.  Perhaps his discomfort was caused by his excellent Jesuit education and the irony that their very  approach to thinking made him realize the disconnect. His experience was hardly unique.
I have to agree tht there is something amiss with the Catholic marriage annulment process. A couple is married in the RCC and remains married for 15 years, raises a family of 3 or four children, and then the wife becomes tired of the marriage and tired of her fat husband and gets herself a new slimmer boyfriend with more money.  She then visits the local parish priest and they discuss ways that she can wiggle out of her marriage, looking for all kinds of loopholes that she can use to annul the marriage. Of course, if she had not succeeded in landing her new rich slim and trim boyfriend, all of this discovery of defects in her marriage would never have taken place.  So with a list of these newly found defects in hand she presents her case to the local Catholic tribunal and is granted her annulment, which says that there never was a Sacramental marriage in the first place. But if almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment, then who out there in the Catholic world is actually married Sacramentally?

Thank you. Even with divorce being permitted under certain circumstances, it is no panacea, nor is it an easy thing. I am sure that most of us can think of couples married in our own Orthodox parishes whose marriage falls apart - for one reason or another - and one party gains an ecclesiastical divorce and remarries. There are always voices in the parish who profess 'shock' etc... rather than minding their own business.
I'm all for MYOB, but the loss of shock is why divorce has become the easy panacea. Or so it is marketed and sold, with a no return policy.


You are right, the sad fact is that both the Orthodox and the Romans have too high an incidence of divorce, much more so than a generation or so ago when I was growing up. I suppose that regardless of what we call the process, more pastoral attention ought to go into marriage preparation and working to solve family problems. Easier said than done however.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #60 on: June 06, 2011, 05:44:51 PM »

I think you're correct, by and large, Jonathan, but I think Hart's point is that much of what we *think* are real differences, are often merely both "sides" talking past one another. What I gathered is that he thinks the main issues of focus should be the Papacy and the filioque, other things of which could rightly be relegated to the sphere of theologumena.


Once we decide on the issues of the papacy (no such beast in Christendom btw) and filioque,  the real issues will be divorce followed by a second sacramental marriage and the use of non-abortive contraception.  These won't even be possible to leave as theologoumena - East accepts them while West rejects them - because Western Christians in a united Church will not accept that their Eastern family may use them while to them in the West they remain grave sins and totally forbidden.

It may be easier for the theologians and leaders of the west to reach accommodation on the first two issues, certainly the second, with the Orthodox while the third and fourth may be the deal-breakers. The irony is that the Roman laity, and many of their lesser clergy, being wedded to the romanticized, simplified understandings of the first two as they frequently represent them on these pages, will cheer on the Orthodox as to the resolution of the third and the fourth as those get the old 'wink, wink, nod, nod' from many of them.

I think you'd be in for a surprise with the latter.

I don't know, Mary.  I would think that after union is proclaimed in Rome and Constantinople and Western Catholics realise that they may have a legitimate second sacramental marriage in an Eastern church as well as access to Confession and Holy Communion again they will be breaking down the doors of Orthodox churches to sign up and set a date for their wedding.


Some will of course but there will be many who will continue to want to work through the annulment process and use the guidance of the Catholic Church to move into the next phases of their lives. 

I would expect the first ones at your door to be those who have been turned away from the annulment process.

I believe that in the States Catholic annulments are running at 60,000 a year and that 97% of annulment applications are successful.

That would leave a mere 3% who might turn up on Orthodox church doorsteps when union with Rome is accomplished.  No guarantee that the Orthodox dioceses will gave this 3% divorces though.

Of course once Roman Catholics, after union, have the option of an Orthodox divorce, they may eschew the annulment process and prefer a church divorce and second marriage.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #61 on: June 06, 2011, 05:47:23 PM »

Christ is ascended!
^I don't know, many Catholic professionals I knew over the years who are remarried (mostly judges, lawyers, cops ) did obtain annulments but they had a 'wink wink nod nod' attitude about the process. Many felt that our Orthodox approach to the issue was more honest and created less strain within the family, particular with the children of an annulled marriage. I knew one person whose close relative was a Roman Catholic priest, he married a Melkite woman in her church with his uncle participating. They obtained an annulment after the marriage fell apart and each remarried in the Catholic church. His second marriage was in his new wife's Roman Catholic church. He was troubled about the representations that had to be made to obtain the annulment and it really soured his overall attitude about the administrative structure of the Catholic Church. He wasn't questioning his faith, but rather the logical conclusions that his church's 'marriage' to legalisms caused.  Perhaps his discomfort was caused by his excellent Jesuit education and the irony that their very  approach to thinking made him realize the disconnect. His experience was hardly unique.
I have to agree tht there is something amiss with the Catholic marriage annulment process. A couple is married in the RCC and remains married for 15 years, raises a family of 3 or four children, and then the wife becomes tired of the marriage and tired of her fat husband and gets herself a new slimmer boyfriend with more money.  She then visits the local parish priest and they discuss ways that she can wiggle out of her marriage, looking for all kinds of loopholes that she can use to annul the marriage. Of course, if she had not succeeded in landing her new rich slim and trim boyfriend, all of this discovery of defects in her marriage would never have taken place.  So with a list of these newly found defects in hand she presents her case to the local Catholic tribunal and is granted her annulment, which says that there never was a Sacramental marriage in the first place. But if almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment, then who out there in the Catholic world is actually married Sacramentally?

Thank you. Even with divorce being permitted under certain circumstances, it is no panacea, nor is it an easy thing. I am sure that most of us can think of couples married in our own Orthodox parishes whose marriage falls apart - for one reason or another - and one party gains an ecclesiastical divorce and remarries. There are always voices in the parish who profess 'shock' etc... rather than minding their own business.
I'm all for MYOB, but the loss of shock is why divorce has become the easy panacea. Or so it is marketed and sold, with a no return policy.


You are right, the sad fact is that both the Orthodox and the Romans have too high an incidence of divorce, much more so than a generation or so ago when I was growing up. I suppose that regardless of what we call the process, more pastoral attention ought to go into marriage preparation and working to solve family problems. Easier said than done however.
Indeed! on all counts.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #62 on: June 06, 2011, 05:49:19 PM »

"Using these figures alone, the divorce rate [Greek Orthodox, States] would be 14% of the total Orthodox marriages, falling far below the US national average of approximately 43%."

This concerns Greek Orthodox in the States but I can imagine that obtaining data is not an easy task.

http://www.helleniccomserve.com/divorceperspective.html
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #63 on: June 07, 2011, 10:47:58 AM »

Franky, the answer from any well versed Catholic regarding their position regarding 'annulments' is always structured with artificial logic and legalisms. Just think, Henry VIII would likely have obtained his annulment under the modern system and history might have taken a far different turn. (Of course, the influence of the Kings of Spain and France might have pushed Henry's case into the 3% pile!  Smiley )
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #64 on: June 07, 2011, 11:29:19 AM »

Christ is ascended!
Franky, the answer from any well versed Catholic regarding their position regarding 'annulments' is always structured with artificial logic and legalisms. Just think, Henry VIII would likely have obtained his annulment under the modern system and history might have taken a far different turn. (Of course, the influence of the Kings of Spain and France might have pushed Henry's case into the 3% pileSmiley )
Actually, it was the Emperor of the German Nation-Catherine's nephew,who kept the Pope bottled up in Rome-made sure of that.  Henry's own aunt got one, "that disgraceful judgement" as Henry called it, before he "needed" one.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #65 on: June 07, 2011, 11:32:21 AM »

Christ is ascended!
Franky, the answer from any well versed Catholic regarding their position regarding 'annulments' is always structured with artificial logic and legalisms. Just think, Henry VIII would likely have obtained his annulment under the modern system and history might have taken a far different turn. (Of course, the influence of the Kings of Spain and France might have pushed Henry's case into the 3% pileSmiley )
Actually, it was the Emperor of the German Nation-Catherine's nephew,who kept the Pope bottled up in Rome-made sure of that.  Henry's own aunt got one, "that disgraceful judgement" as Henry called it, before he "needed" one.

Quite correct, but my point remains!
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #66 on: June 07, 2011, 12:32:51 PM »

^I don't know, many Catholic professionals I knew over the years who are remarried (mostly judges, lawyers, cops ) did obtain annulments but they had a 'wink wink nod nod' attitude about the process. Many felt that our Orthodox approach to the issue was more honest and created less strain within the family, particular with the children of an annulled marriage. I knew one person whose close relative was a Roman Catholic priest, he married a Melkite woman in her church with his uncle participating. They obtained an annulment after the marriage fell apart and each remarried in the Catholic church. His second marriage was in his new wife's Roman Catholic church. He was troubled about the representations that had to be made to obtain the annulment and it really soured his overall attitude about the administrative structure of the Catholic Church. He wasn't questioning his faith, but rather the logical conclusions that his church's 'marriage' to legalisms caused.  Perhaps his discomfort was caused by his excellent Jesuit education and the irony that their very  approach to thinking made him realize the disconnect. His experience was hardly unique.
I have to agree tht there is something amiss with the Catholic marriage annulment process. A couple is married in the RCC and remains married for 15 years, raises a family of 3 or four children, and then the wife becomes tired of the marriage and tired of her fat husband and gets herself a new slimmer boyfriend with more money.  She then visits the local parish priest and they discuss ways that she can wiggle out of her marriage, looking for all kinds of loopholes that she can use to annul the marriage. Of course, if she had not succeeded in landing her new rich slim and trim boyfriend, all of this discovery of defects in her marriage would never have taken place.  So with a list of these newly found defects in hand she presents her case to the local Catholic tribunal and is granted her annulment, which says that there never was a Sacramental marriage in the first place. But if almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment, then who out there in the Catholic world is actually married Sacramentally?

Clearly there are not as many true marriages as one might think. 

Anyone have any figures on the fidelity rates of husbands and wives in Catholic marriages.  In almost all of the Catholic divorces I know it was the man who strayed. 

Since the flood divorce in the latter part of the 20th century the Catholic Church has done more to work on preparing young people for marriage.  When there is great resistance to the preparation, I have seen priest after priest simply refuse to marry the two.  That does not mean that they never marry or marry in the Church but it does mean that it is not as easy as it once was the gloss the early warning signals...and believe me those warning signs are all over the place in a truly unfortunate pairing.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #67 on: June 07, 2011, 12:34:30 PM »

^I don't know, many Catholic professionals I knew over the years who are remarried (mostly judges, lawyers, cops ) did obtain annulments but they had a 'wink wink nod nod' attitude about the process. Many felt that our Orthodox approach to the issue was more honest and created less strain within the family, particular with the children of an annulled marriage. I knew one person whose close relative was a Roman Catholic priest, he married a Melkite woman in her church with his uncle participating. They obtained an annulment after the marriage fell apart and each remarried in the Catholic church. His second marriage was in his new wife's Roman Catholic church. He was troubled about the representations that had to be made to obtain the annulment and it really soured his overall attitude about the administrative structure of the Catholic Church. He wasn't questioning his faith, but rather the logical conclusions that his church's 'marriage' to legalisms caused.  Perhaps his discomfort was caused by his excellent Jesuit education and the irony that their very  approach to thinking made him realize the disconnect. His experience was hardly unique.
I have to agree tht there is something amiss with the Catholic marriage annulment process. A couple is married in the RCC and remains married for 15 years, raises a family of 3 or four children, and then the wife becomes tired of the marriage and tired of her fat husband and gets herself a new slimmer boyfriend with more money.  She then visits the local parish priest and they discuss ways that she can wiggle out of her marriage, looking for all kinds of loopholes that she can use to annul the marriage. Of course, if she had not succeeded in landing her new rich slim and trim boyfriend, all of this discovery of defects in her marriage would never have taken place.  So with a list of these newly found defects in hand she presents her case to the local Catholic tribunal and is granted her annulment, which says that there never was a Sacramental marriage in the first place. But if almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment, then who out there in the Catholic world is actually married Sacramentally?

Thank you. Even with divorce being permitted under certain circumstances, it is no panacea, nor is it an easy thing. I am sure that most of us can think of couples married in our own Orthodox parishes whose marriage falls apart - for one reason or another - and one party gains an ecclesiastical divorce and remarries. There are always voices in the parish who profess 'shock' etc... rather than minding their own business. In the end, the Orthodox view is probably imbued with both theology and economia. The Roman's won't admit it, but the 'annulment' process they devised in the late 20th century is nothing more than 'economia' intended to cover up the reality that they could not sustain their old practices and retain their faithful. Excess legalism leads to harsh results.

Annulment has been the practice of the Roman rite for many many centuries...
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #68 on: June 07, 2011, 01:37:42 PM »

Does Mr Hart enjoy street cred among the Orthodox?.  A google.com search indicates that his preferred milieu, his studies and his employment history, are essentially with the Roman Catholics.

Strikes me me as a sophomoric exercise in displaying one's ability to use a thesaurus.  The essay is saturated with rather risible phrases such as "interminably pullulating vines of theological legend."   The impression is of someone trying far too hard to impress the grown ups and it does not come across as a serious scholarly study.

If you can bear to read any more of it...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54260555/David

Father,

If I may, I noticed that both your posts do not actually discuss the content of the article. Rather, the first is a criticism of the author's Orthodoxy by means of whom he appears to be associated with, to you via Google.

The second is simply an insult of his writing style.

Don't really know how to point it out any other way.

1.  I dislike what I see as a very sententious style of writing

2.  I dislike what I see as his constant accusation that the Orthodox are acting only out of bad faith and are incapable of conducting a dialogue.
Did he make this absolute statement? I didn't see it.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #69 on: June 07, 2011, 01:47:46 PM »

Franky, the answer from any well versed Catholic regarding their position regarding 'annulments' is always structured with artificial logic and legalisms. Just think, Henry VIII would likely have obtained his annulment under the modern system and history might have taken a far different turn. (Of course, the influence of the Kings of Spain and France might have pushed Henry's case into the 3% pile!  Smiley )
I keep forgetting... EOs don't believe in structure or logic.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #70 on: June 07, 2011, 02:03:58 PM »

Franky, the answer from any well versed Catholic regarding their position regarding 'annulments' is always structured with artificial logic and legalisms. Just think, Henry VIII would likely have obtained his annulment under the modern system and history might have taken a far different turn. (Of course, the influence of the Kings of Spain and France might have pushed Henry's case into the 3% pile!  Smiley )
I keep forgetting... EOs don't believe in structure or logic.


I trust you forgot the wink?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #71 on: June 07, 2011, 04:04:30 PM »

^I don't know, many Catholic professionals I knew over the years who are remarried (mostly judges, lawyers, cops ) did obtain annulments but they had a 'wink wink nod nod' attitude about the process. Many felt that our Orthodox approach to the issue was more honest and created less strain within the family, particular with the children of an annulled marriage. I knew one person whose close relative was a Roman Catholic priest, he married a Melkite woman in her church with his uncle participating. They obtained an annulment after the marriage fell apart and each remarried in the Catholic church. His second marriage was in his new wife's Roman Catholic church. He was troubled about the representations that had to be made to obtain the annulment and it really soured his overall attitude about the administrative structure of the Catholic Church. He wasn't questioning his faith, but rather the logical conclusions that his church's 'marriage' to legalisms caused.  Perhaps his discomfort was caused by his excellent Jesuit education and the irony that their very  approach to thinking made him realize the disconnect. His experience was hardly unique.
I have to agree tht there is something amiss with the Catholic marriage annulment process. A couple is married in the RCC and remains married for 15 years, raises a family of 3 or four children, and then the wife becomes tired of the marriage and tired of her fat husband and gets herself a new slimmer boyfriend with more money.  She then visits the local parish priest and they discuss ways that she can wiggle out of her marriage, looking for all kinds of loopholes that she can use to annul the marriage. Of course, if she had not succeeded in landing her new rich slim and trim boyfriend, all of this discovery of defects in her marriage would never have taken place.  So with a list of these newly found defects in hand she presents her case to the local Catholic tribunal and is granted her annulment, which says that there never was a Sacramental marriage in the first place. But if almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment, then who out there in the Catholic world is actually married Sacramentally?

Thank you. Even with divorce being permitted under certain circumstances, it is no panacea, nor is it an easy thing. I am sure that most of us can think of couples married in our own Orthodox parishes whose marriage falls apart - for one reason or another - and one party gains an ecclesiastical divorce and remarries. There are always voices in the parish who profess 'shock' etc... rather than minding their own business. In the end, the Orthodox view is probably imbued with both theology and economia. The Roman's won't admit it, but the 'annulment' process they devised in the late 20th century is nothing more than 'economia' intended to cover up the reality that they could not sustain their old practices and retain their faithful. Excess legalism leads to harsh results.

Annulment has been the practice of the Roman rite for many many centuries...
In the past, annulments were only granted for extremely serious reasons, such as when the other partner had hidden the fact that he was already  married. Today almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment by citing some defect in consent at the time of the taking of the marriage vows. Since in some areas,  about  95% of all Catholics in the USA who apply for an annulment, do get one, then who out there in the Catholic Church is actually married Sacramentally?  Why bother to get married, if in the end, some Catholic marriage tribunal tells you that you were never married in the first place? All that time and money that you spent to go through what you thought was a marriage ceremony in the Catholic Church, was actually totally null and void. All those years, that you spent raising a family and being loyal to someone who you thought was your wife, was really never your wife in the first place. And of course, this never whould have come up, except for your medical overweight condition and the fact that your wife has found herself a slimmer boyfriend. If you had not developed this condition, which was due in part anyway to your wife's cooking,  your wife would have stayed with you and the marriage would have been valid. 
As far as annulment always being the practice in the Roman Church, it really is not true that there has been no change in the conditions required to get an annulment. In the USA, in 1929, 1930, there were something like 10 or so marriage annulments in the whole USA. In recent times, it has gone as high as 60,000 marriage annulments per year. That's an enormous increase due to the watering down of conditions required to get a marriage annulment.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #72 on: June 07, 2011, 04:08:47 PM »

Christ is ascended!
Franky, the answer from any well versed Catholic regarding their position regarding 'annulments' is always structured with artificial logic and legalisms. Just think, Henry VIII would likely have obtained his annulment under the modern system and history might have taken a far different turn. (Of course, the influence of the Kings of Spain and France might have pushed Henry's case into the 3% pile!  Smiley )
I keep forgetting... EOs don't believe in structure or logic.
not when it is twisting vice into virute.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #73 on: June 07, 2011, 04:15:59 PM »

Christ is ascended!
^I don't know, many Catholic professionals I knew over the years who are remarried (mostly judges, lawyers, cops ) did obtain annulments but they had a 'wink wink nod nod' attitude about the process. Many felt that our Orthodox approach to the issue was more honest and created less strain within the family, particular with the children of an annulled marriage. I knew one person whose close relative was a Roman Catholic priest, he married a Melkite woman in her church with his uncle participating. They obtained an annulment after the marriage fell apart and each remarried in the Catholic church. His second marriage was in his new wife's Roman Catholic church. He was troubled about the representations that had to be made to obtain the annulment and it really soured his overall attitude about the administrative structure of the Catholic Church. He wasn't questioning his faith, but rather the logical conclusions that his church's 'marriage' to legalisms caused.  Perhaps his discomfort was caused by his excellent Jesuit education and the irony that their very  approach to thinking made him realize the disconnect. His experience was hardly unique.
I have to agree tht there is something amiss with the Catholic marriage annulment process. A couple is married in the RCC and remains married for 15 years, raises a family of 3 or four children, and then the wife becomes tired of the marriage and tired of her fat husband and gets herself a new slimmer boyfriend with more money.  She then visits the local parish priest and they discuss ways that she can wiggle out of her marriage, looking for all kinds of loopholes that she can use to annul the marriage. Of course, if she had not succeeded in landing her new rich slim and trim boyfriend, all of this discovery of defects in her marriage would never have taken place.  So with a list of these newly found defects in hand she presents her case to the local Catholic tribunal and is granted her annulment, which says that there never was a Sacramental marriage in the first place. But if almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment, then who out there in the Catholic world is actually married Sacramentally?

Clearly there are not as many true marriages as one might think.  

Anyone have any figures on the fidelity rates of husbands and wives in Catholic marriages.  In almost all of the Catholic divorces I know it was the man who strayed.

Since the flood divorce in the latter part of the 20th century the Catholic Church has done more to work on preparing young people for marriage.  When there is great resistance to the preparation, I have seen priest after priest simply refuse to marry the two.  That does not mean that they never marry or marry in the Church but it does mean that it is not as easy as it once was the gloss the early warning signals...and believe me those warning signs are all over the place in a truly unfortunate pairing.
At least your last paragraph is true.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 04:21:21 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #74 on: June 07, 2011, 04:28:11 PM »

Christ is ascended!
^I don't know, many Catholic professionals I knew over the years who are remarried (mostly judges, lawyers, cops ) did obtain annulments but they had a 'wink wink nod nod' attitude about the process. Many felt that our Orthodox approach to the issue was more honest and created less strain within the family, particular with the children of an annulled marriage. I knew one person whose close relative was a Roman Catholic priest, he married a Melkite woman in her church with his uncle participating. They obtained an annulment after the marriage fell apart and each remarried in the Catholic church. His second marriage was in his new wife's Roman Catholic church. He was troubled about the representations that had to be made to obtain the annulment and it really soured his overall attitude about the administrative structure of the Catholic Church. He wasn't questioning his faith, but rather the logical conclusions that his church's 'marriage' to legalisms caused.  Perhaps his discomfort was caused by his excellent Jesuit education and the irony that their very  approach to thinking made him realize the disconnect. His experience was hardly unique.
I have to agree tht there is something amiss with the Catholic marriage annulment process. A couple is married in the RCC and remains married for 15 years, raises a family of 3 or four children, and then the wife becomes tired of the marriage and tired of her fat husband and gets herself a new slimmer boyfriend with more money.  She then visits the local parish priest and they discuss ways that she can wiggle out of her marriage, looking for all kinds of loopholes that she can use to annul the marriage. Of course, if she had not succeeded in landing her new rich slim and trim boyfriend, all of this discovery of defects in her marriage would never have taken place.  So with a list of these newly found defects in hand she presents her case to the local Catholic tribunal and is granted her annulment, which says that there never was a Sacramental marriage in the first place. But if almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment, then who out there in the Catholic world is actually married Sacramentally?

Thank you. Even with divorce being permitted under certain circumstances, it is no panacea, nor is it an easy thing. I am sure that most of us can think of couples married in our own Orthodox parishes whose marriage falls apart - for one reason or another - and one party gains an ecclesiastical divorce and remarries. There are always voices in the parish who profess 'shock' etc... rather than minding their own business. In the end, the Orthodox view is probably imbued with both theology and economia. The Roman's won't admit it, but the 'annulment' process they devised in the late 20th century is nothing more than 'economia' intended to cover up the reality that they could not sustain their old practices and retain their faithful. Excess legalism leads to harsh results.

Annulment has been the practice of the Roman rite for many many centuries...
As it has been mired in heresy for at least nearly a millenium, that's possible.  But Christ founded His Church more than "many many centuries" ago.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,424



WWW
« Reply #75 on: June 07, 2011, 05:35:59 PM »

Christ is ascended!
Franky, the answer from any well versed Catholic regarding their position regarding 'annulments' is always structured with artificial logic and legalisms. Just think, Henry VIII would likely have obtained his annulment under the modern system and history might have taken a far different turn. (Of course, the influence of the Kings of Spain and France might have pushed Henry's case into the 3% pileSmiley )
Actually, it was the Emperor of the German Nation-Catherine's nephew,who kept the Pope bottled up in Rome-made sure of that.  Henry's own aunt got one, "that disgraceful judgement" as Henry called it, before he "needed" one.

Quite correct, but my point remains!

The truly funny thing, to me, is that King Henry VIII actually had a pretty clear case for annulment under the the guidelines of the Roman Church of his own time.  Had his brother's widow been anyone other than Catherine of Aragon the annulment would have been approved.

Of course, if we are operating under the assumption of a modern system for annulment we'd have to assume modern world politics as well- thus there would be no Holy Roman Emperor to bar the process, there is no king of France, and the King of Spain would scandalize the world by imposing himself into not only a religious matter but the relationship of another sovereign ruler of a constitutional monarchy.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #76 on: June 07, 2011, 07:07:06 PM »

In the past, annulments were only granted for extremely serious reasons, such as when the other partner had hidden the fact that he was already  married. Today almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment by citing some defect in consent at the time of the taking of the marriage vows. Since in some areas,  about  95% of all Catholics in the USA who apply for an annulment, do get one, then who out there in the Catholic Church is actually married Sacramentally?  Why bother to get married, if in the end, some Catholic marriage tribunal tells you that you were never married in the first place? All that time and money that you spent to go through what you thought was a marriage ceremony in the Catholic Church, was actually totally null and void. All those years, that you spent raising a family and being loyal to someone who you thought was your wife, was really never your wife in the first place. And of course, this never whould have come up, except for your medical overweight condition and the fact that your wife has found herself a slimmer boyfriend. If you had not developed this condition, which was due in part anyway to your wife's cooking,  your wife would have stayed with you and the marriage would have been valid. 
As far as annulment always being the practice in the Roman Church, it really is not true that there has been no change in the conditions required to get an annulment. In the USA, in 1929, 1930, there were something like 10 or so marriage annulments in the whole USA. In recent times, it has gone as high as 60,000 marriage annulments per year. That's an enormous increase due to the watering down of conditions required to get a marriage annulment.
I've heard that the proof that ones marriage is actually Sacramental is if they stay together. You may think the high annulment number is scandalous, but the sad reality is that divorces are not going to go away. Personally, I would rather see the Church acknowledge marriages null and void rather than take a strict, hardline approach and there be thousands who are no longer able to receive Christ in the Holy Eucharist. To me, the latter would be a much sadder situation.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,118



« Reply #77 on: June 07, 2011, 07:59:51 PM »

2.  I dislike what I see as his constant accusation that the Orthodox are acting only out of bad faith and are incapable of conducting a dialogue.

It's pretty amazing to me how often the acting-in-bad-faith accusation is made in ecumenical relations in general.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #78 on: June 07, 2011, 08:39:48 PM »

Christ is ascended!
In the past, annulments were only granted for extremely serious reasons, such as when the other partner had hidden the fact that he was already  married. Today almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment by citing some defect in consent at the time of the taking of the marriage vows. Since in some areas,  about  95% of all Catholics in the USA who apply for an annulment, do get one, then who out there in the Catholic Church is actually married Sacramentally?  Why bother to get married, if in the end, some Catholic marriage tribunal tells you that you were never married in the first place? All that time and money that you spent to go through what you thought was a marriage ceremony in the Catholic Church, was actually totally null and void. All those years, that you spent raising a family and being loyal to someone who you thought was your wife, was really never your wife in the first place. And of course, this never whould have come up, except for your medical overweight condition and the fact that your wife has found herself a slimmer boyfriend. If you had not developed this condition, which was due in part anyway to your wife's cooking,  your wife would have stayed with you and the marriage would have been valid. 
As far as annulment always being the practice in the Roman Church, it really is not true that there has been no change in the conditions required to get an annulment. In the USA, in 1929, 1930, there were something like 10 or so marriage annulments in the whole USA. In recent times, it has gone as high as 60,000 marriage annulments per year. That's an enormous increase due to the watering down of conditions required to get a marriage annulment.
I've heard that the proof that ones marriage is actually Sacramental is if they stay together. You may think the high annulment number is scandalous, but the sad reality is that divorces are not going to go away. Personally, I would rather see the Church acknowledge marriages null and void rather than take a strict, hardline approach and there be thousands who are no longer able to receive Christ in the Holy Eucharist. To me, the latter would be a much sadder situation.
If that were the goal, you all could acknowledge the divorce, without the corrosive effect of Corban.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #79 on: June 07, 2011, 09:21:40 PM »

Christ is ascended!
Franky, the answer from any well versed Catholic regarding their position regarding 'annulments' is always structured with artificial logic and legalisms. Just think, Henry VIII would likely have obtained his annulment under the modern system and history might have taken a far different turn. (Of course, the influence of the Kings of Spain and France might have pushed Henry's case into the 3% pileSmiley )
Actually, it was the Emperor of the German Nation-Catherine's nephew,who kept the Pope bottled up in Rome-made sure of that.  Henry's own aunt got one, "that disgraceful judgement" as Henry called it, before he "needed" one.

Quite correct, but my point remains!

The truly funny thing, to me, is that King Henry VIII actually had a pretty clear case for annulment under the the guidelines of the Roman Church of his own time.  Had his brother's widow been anyone other than Catherine of Aragon the annulment would have been approved.

Of course, if we are operating under the assumption of a modern system for annulment we'd have to assume modern world politics as well- thus there would be no Holy Roman Emperor to bar the process, there is no king of France, and the King of Spain would scandalize the world by imposing himself into not only a religious matter but the relationship of another sovereign ruler of a constitutional monarchy.

That's why so-called 'alternative history' bores me. The real thing is much more fascinating!
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #80 on: June 07, 2011, 09:27:51 PM »

In the past, annulments were only granted for extremely serious reasons, such as when the other partner had hidden the fact that he was already  married. Today almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment by citing some defect in consent at the time of the taking of the marriage vows. Since in some areas,  about  95% of all Catholics in the USA who apply for an annulment, do get one, then who out there in the Catholic Church is actually married Sacramentally?  Why bother to get married, if in the end, some Catholic marriage tribunal tells you that you were never married in the first place? All that time and money that you spent to go through what you thought was a marriage ceremony in the Catholic Church, was actually totally null and void. All those years, that you spent raising a family and being loyal to someone who you thought was your wife, was really never your wife in the first place. And of course, this never whould have come up, except for your medical overweight condition and the fact that your wife has found herself a slimmer boyfriend. If you had not developed this condition, which was due in part anyway to your wife's cooking,  your wife would have stayed with you and the marriage would have been valid.  
As far as annulment always being the practice in the Roman Church, it really is not true that there has been no change in the conditions required to get an annulment. In the USA, in 1929, 1930, there were something like 10 or so marriage annulments in the whole USA. In recent times, it has gone as high as 60,000 marriage annulments per year. That's an enormous increase due to the watering down of conditions required to get a marriage annulment.
I've heard that the proof that ones marriage is actually Sacramental is if they stay together. You may think the high annulment number is scandalous, but the sad reality is that divorces are not going to go away. Personally, I would rather see the Church acknowledge marriages null and void rather than take a strict, hardline approach and there be thousands who are no longer able to receive Christ in the Holy Eucharist. To me, the latter would be a much sadder situation.

I agree in the sense that the Catholic Church is, shudder, shudder, using a form of 'economia' in the modern use of the annulment process. Since they boxed themselves into a quasi-dogmatic corner centuries ago on the issue when neither eastern ecclesiastical divorces or western annulments were the norm, changing life-styles in the modern world required a 'reboot' so to speak.

As to the proof required by a marriage tribunal, does anyone have a Roman Canon Law understanding of the annulment process and the specific justifications used to determine that a marriage was 'null and void' ab initio? The adbridged version would suffice.

The bolded section cited by Wyatt, to say the least, strikes me as a perversion of the legal maxim  'res ipsa loquitur'. It is about as bold a statement as 'I know you are dead because you are dead.' Yes, that is a truth but...so what? There has to be more, I would think.

Am I correct that under Canon Law the legal legitimacy of any children born of the voided marriage is not called into question? I make that assumption because that is the civil law result when a court of law annuls a marriage in most states. Of course the statutory grounds for a civil annulment are very narrow and would not likely be applicable in Canon Law proceedings or else the numbers of such Canon Law annulments would be much smaller than is reported in the US.  Thank you!
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 09:32:21 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #81 on: June 07, 2011, 09:36:03 PM »

All that time and money that you spent to go through what you thought was a marriage ceremony in the Catholic Church, was actually totally null and void. All those years, that you spent raising a family and being loyal to someone who you thought was your wife, was really never your wife in the first place

This seems rather personal.   Many people are willing to admit that they were not committed in the first place.  I have no idea what your circumstances were but you can't judge the entire process as wanting.  I am always amused that time and money are often cited as the "glue" of marriage.  I don't think I would ever be able to marry time or money.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #82 on: June 07, 2011, 09:44:22 PM »

Christ is ascended!
In the past, annulments were only granted for extremely serious reasons, such as when the other partner had hidden the fact that he was already  married. Today almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment by citing some defect in consent at the time of the taking of the marriage vows. Since in some areas,  about  95% of all Catholics in the USA who apply for an annulment, do get one, then who out there in the Catholic Church is actually married Sacramentally?  Why bother to get married, if in the end, some Catholic marriage tribunal tells you that you were never married in the first place? All that time and money that you spent to go through what you thought was a marriage ceremony in the Catholic Church, was actually totally null and void. All those years, that you spent raising a family and being loyal to someone who you thought was your wife, was really never your wife in the first place. And of course, this never whould have come up, except for your medical overweight condition and the fact that your wife has found herself a slimmer boyfriend. If you had not developed this condition, which was due in part anyway to your wife's cooking,  your wife would have stayed with you and the marriage would have been valid.  
As far as annulment always being the practice in the Roman Church, it really is not true that there has been no change in the conditions required to get an annulment. In the USA, in 1929, 1930, there were something like 10 or so marriage annulments in the whole USA. In recent times, it has gone as high as 60,000 marriage annulments per year. That's an enormous increase due to the watering down of conditions required to get a marriage annulment.
I've heard that the proof that ones marriage is actually Sacramental is if they stay together. You may think the high annulment number is scandalous, but the sad reality is that divorces are not going to go away. Personally, I would rather see the Church acknowledge marriages null and void rather than take a strict, hardline approach and there be thousands who are no longer able to receive Christ in the Holy Eucharist. To me, the latter would be a much sadder situation.

I agree in the sense that the Catholic Church is, shudder, shudder, using a form of 'economia' in the modern use of the annulment process. Since they boxed themselves into a quasi-dogmatic corner centuries ago on the issue when neither eastern ecclesiastical divorces or western annulments were the norm, changing life-styles in the modern world required a 'reboot' so to speak.

As to the proof required by a marriage tribunal, does anyone have a Roman Canon Law understanding of the annulment process and the specific justifications used to determine that a marriage was 'null and void' ab initio? The adbridged version would suffice.

The bolded section cited by Wyatt, to say the least, strikes me as a perversion of the legal maxim  'res ipsa loquitur'. It is about as bold a statement as 'I know you are dead because you are dead.' Yes, that is a truth but...so what? There has to be more, I would think.

Am I correct that under Canon Law the legal legitimacy of any children born of the voided marriage is not called into question? I make that assumption because that is the civil law result when a court of law annuls a marriage in most states. Of course the statutory grounds for a civil annulment are very narrow and would not likely be applicable in Canon Law proceedings or else the numbers of such Canon Law annulments would be much smaller than is reported in the US.  Thank you!
Btw, there is an interesting precedent in IL where a man was given an civil annulment, because he was a communicant of the Vatican, and the woman he married had been married before and divorced, and she had hid that fact.  The basis of the annulment was fraud, given his church's requirements.  I'm curious  if his church required him to get an annulment from them afterwards.

Under IL, the children have standing to challenge or defend the validity of their parents marriage, given their legitimacy is at stake I suppose (the statutes name them, but I don't recall if the case law explains why).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #83 on: June 07, 2011, 09:58:39 PM »

Christ is ascended!
All that time and money that you spent to go through what you thought was a marriage ceremony in the Catholic Church, was actually totally null and void. All those years, that you spent raising a family and being loyal to someone who you thought was your wife, was really never your wife in the first place

This seems rather personal.   Many people are willing to admit that they were not committed in the first place.

Or they tell themselves that in self-absolution from their present infidelity.
I have no idea what your circumstances were but you can't judge the entire process as wanting.
Oh, yes he can.  Btw, why did you assUme that he had "circumstances"?
I am always amused that time and money are often cited as the "glue" of marriage.  I don't think I would ever be able to marry time or money.
How about spending time and money on a wedding, which is what Stanley was talking about, or investing time and money (in addition to blood, sweat and tears) in a marriage, which I think he was implying (do correct me Stanley if I assUme too much).
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 09:59:15 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,233



« Reply #84 on: June 07, 2011, 10:33:26 PM »

In the past, annulments were only granted for extremely serious reasons, such as when the other partner had hidden the fact that he was already  married. Today almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment by citing some defect in consent at the time of the taking of the marriage vows. Since in some areas,  about  95% of all Catholics in the USA who apply for an annulment, do get one, then who out there in the Catholic Church is actually married Sacramentally?  Why bother to get married, if in the end, some Catholic marriage tribunal tells you that you were never married in the first place? All that time and money that you spent to go through what you thought was a marriage ceremony in the Catholic Church, was actually totally null and void. All those years, that you spent raising a family and being loyal to someone who you thought was your wife, was really never your wife in the first place. And of course, this never whould have come up, except for your medical overweight condition and the fact that your wife has found herself a slimmer boyfriend. If you had not developed this condition, which was due in part anyway to your wife's cooking,  your wife would have stayed with you and the marriage would have been valid. 
As far as annulment always being the practice in the Roman Church, it really is not true that there has been no change in the conditions required to get an annulment. In the USA, in 1929, 1930, there were something like 10 or so marriage annulments in the whole USA. In recent times, it has gone as high as 60,000 marriage annulments per year. That's an enormous increase due to the watering down of conditions required to get a marriage annulment.
I've heard that the proof that ones marriage is actually Sacramental is if they stay together. You may think the high annulment number is scandalous, but the sad reality is that divorces are not going to go away. Personally, I would rather see the Church acknowledge marriages null and void rather than take a strict, hardline approach and there be thousands who are no longer able to receive Christ in the Holy Eucharist. To me, the latter would be a much sadder situation.
But doesn't the RCC teach that there is no such thing as divorce and that a marriage is either valid or invalid? I have to second what Mary said earlier a few posts up about preparation being pushed more. I have some friends that have gotten married lately and their preparation was pretty intense (in a good way). I'm hoping that will slow the trend of annulments down to a small trickle.

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #85 on: June 07, 2011, 10:45:33 PM »

But doesn't the RCC teach that there is no such thing as divorce and that a marriage is either valid or invalid? I have to second what Mary said earlier a few posts up about preparation being pushed more. I have some friends that have gotten married lately and their preparation was pretty intense (in a good way). I'm hoping that will slow the trend of annulments down to a small trickle.

In Christ,
Andrew

Preparation is key as we move more and more away from stability of community and extended family.  Also the best data says that living together sexually prior to marriage is a significant factor in the failure rate of modern marriages.   It is a mess.  I think the annulment process is a good one.  I think a Church approved divorce is all right as well, though I do think I prefer the annulment for a number of reasons.

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #86 on: June 07, 2011, 11:37:21 PM »

Christ is `ascended!
In the past, annulments were only granted for extremely serious reasons, such as when the other partner had hidden the fact that he was already  married. Today almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment by citing some defect in consent at the time of the taking of the marriage vows. Since in some areas,  about  95% of all Catholics in the USA who apply for an annulment, do get one, then who out there in the Catholic Church is actually married Sacramentally?  Why bother to get married, if in the end, some Catholic marriage tribunal tells you that you were never married in the first place? All that time and money that you spent to go through what you thought was a marriage ceremony in the Catholic Church, was actually totally null and void. All those years, that you spent raising a family and being loyal to someone who you thought was your wife, was really never your wife in the first place. And of course, this never whould have come up, except for your medical overweight condition and the fact that your wife has found herself a slimmer boyfriend. If you had not developed this condition, which was due in part anyway to your wife's cooking,  your wife would have stayed with you and the marriage would have been valid. 
As far as annulment always being the practice in the Roman Church, it really is not true that there has been no change in the conditions required to get an annulment. In the USA, in 1929, 1930, there were something like 10 or so marriage annulments in the whole USA. In recent times, it has gone as high as 60,000 marriage annulments per year. That's an enormous increase due to the watering down of conditions required to get a marriage annulment.
I've heard that the proof that ones marriage is actually Sacramental is if they stay together. You may think the high annulment number is scandalous, but the sad reality is that divorces are not going to go away. Personally, I would rather see the Church acknowledge marriages null and void rather than take a strict, hardline approach and there be thousands who are no longer able to receive Christ in the Holy Eucharist. To me, the latter would be a much sadder situation.
But doesn't the RCC teach that there is no such thing as divorce and that a marriage is either valid or invalid? I have to second what Mary said earlier a few posts up about preparation being pushed more. I have some friends that have gotten married lately and their preparation was pretty intense (in a good way). I'm hoping that will slow the trend of annulments down to a small trickle.

In Christ,
Andrew
Even deeper therapy is needed, beyond preparation for wedding couples.  We have to go from an entitled culture to a culture which knows and values sacrifice.

In USA Today there was an article last week that showed the map of the census, that 95% of the census tract areas in the country have lost percentage of household with children. Oddly enough, retirement paradises, Florida, Arizona and California, are ones that show growth (in CA, its in the desert areas, not the coast). Aready, a couple years ago, the non-married passed into the majority in the US.

A good start would be longer waiting periods for marriage, and the abolition of no fault divorce.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #87 on: June 07, 2011, 11:46:04 PM »

Christ is ascended!
But doesn't the RCC teach that there is no such thing as divorce and that a marriage is either valid or invalid? I have to second what Mary said earlier a few posts up about preparation being pushed more. I have some friends that have gotten married lately and their preparation was pretty intense (in a good way). I'm hoping that will slow the trend of annulments down to a small trickle.

In Christ,
Andrew

Preparation is key as we move more and more away from stability of community and extended family.  Also the best data says that living together sexually prior to marriage is a significant factor in the failure rate of modern marriages.   It is a mess.  I think the annulment process is a good one.  I think a Church approved divorce is all right as well, though I do think I prefer the annulment for a number of reasons.

M.
What purpose does an annullment, as opposed to a divorce (which you have to get in the US before you can start the annullment process, as I assUme you know), serve?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #88 on: June 07, 2011, 11:49:49 PM »

Even deeper therapy is needed, beyond preparation for wedding couples.  We have to go from an entitled culture to a culture which knows and values sacrifice.

Amen. I'll never forget the part of my catechumenate where we talked about marriage. My priest was blunt. "Romanticism is an illusion, and marriage is not about happiness. Marriage is martyrdom, working your fingers to the bone and throwing everything away for the sake of another person. You love someone as much as you let them cost you."

Completely blew my mind. But it makes total sense. Until people view marriage that way, nothing will change.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 11:50:55 PM by bogdan » Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #89 on: June 08, 2011, 12:14:36 AM »

In the past, annulments were only granted for extremely serious reasons, such as when the other partner had hidden the fact that he was already  married. Today almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment by citing some defect in consent at the time of the taking of the marriage vows. Since in some areas,  about  95% of all Catholics in the USA who apply for an annulment, do get one, then who out there in the Catholic Church is actually married Sacramentally?  Why bother to get married, if in the end, some Catholic marriage tribunal tells you that you were never married in the first place? All that time and money that you spent to go through what you thought was a marriage ceremony in the Catholic Church, was actually totally null and void. All those years, that you spent raising a family and being loyal to someone who you thought was your wife, was really never your wife in the first place. And of course, this never whould have come up, except for your medical overweight condition and the fact that your wife has found herself a slimmer boyfriend. If you had not developed this condition, which was due in part anyway to your wife's cooking,  your wife would have stayed with you and the marriage would have been valid. 
As far as annulment always being the practice in the Roman Church, it really is not true that there has been no change in the conditions required to get an annulment. In the USA, in 1929, 1930, there were something like 10 or so marriage annulments in the whole USA. In recent times, it has gone as high as 60,000 marriage annulments per year. That's an enormous increase due to the watering down of conditions required to get a marriage annulment.
I've heard that the proof that ones marriage is actually Sacramental is if they stay together. You may think the high annulment number is scandalous, but the sad reality is that divorces are not going to go away. Personally, I would rather see the Church acknowledge marriages null and void rather than take a strict, hardline approach and there be thousands who are no longer able to receive Christ in the Holy Eucharist. To me, the latter would be a much sadder situation.
But doesn't the RCC teach that there is no such thing as divorce and that a marriage is either valid or invalid? I have to second what Mary said earlier a few posts up about preparation being pushed more. I have some friends that have gotten married lately and their preparation was pretty intense (in a good way). I'm hoping that will slow the trend of annulments down to a small trickle.

In Christ,
Andrew
Right. I guess I should have been more clear and said that "the sad reality is that civil divorces are not going to go away." The Catholic Church could be really extreme and not declare that the marriages of most of those couples who received civil divorces were null and void from the beginning and then, as a result, countless people would not be able to participate in the Holy Eucharist which our catechism says is the "source and summit of Christian life," or it could do the compassionate thing and be less strict and thus allow more people to continue to participate in the Sacraments of the Church.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #90 on: June 08, 2011, 02:01:22 AM »

Am I correct that under Canon Law the legal legitimacy of any children born of the voided marriage is not called into question?
Yes, that's right. According to this Orwellian logic, there was no marriage but the children are legitimate!
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #91 on: June 08, 2011, 02:09:12 AM »

How about spending time and money on a wedding, which is what Stanley was talking about, or investing time and money (in addition to blood, sweat and tears) in a marriage, which I think he was implying (do correct me Stanley if I assUme too much).
I don't think you are assUme-ing too much.
 laugh laugh laugh
As everyone knows, fewer and fewer Catholic couples are exchanging marriage vows and more and more are choosing to live together without getting married. Could part of the reason be because they fear that in the end, a Catholic marriage tribunal will declare their marriage totally null and void? Why then put all this effort and time and money into a Catholic marriage ceremony in the first place, when in the end there is a 90% chance, if contested, that you weren't really married in the first place?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #92 on: June 08, 2011, 02:14:56 AM »

What purpose does an annullment, as opposed to a divorce (which you have to get in the US before you can start the annullment process, as I assUme you know), serve?
I don't know, except that a question has been raised as to whether or not the annulment process as it has developed after Vatican II, is a charade to provide cover for giving a Church approved divorce while at the same time denying that it is a divorce.
This was not the case before Vatican II, when annulments were given out rarely and only for very serious and obvious impediments that would prevent a valid marriage from taking place.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
~
« Reply #93 on: June 08, 2011, 09:02:35 AM »

Christ is ascended!
In the past, annulments were only granted for extremely serious reasons, such as when the other partner had hidden the fact that he was already  married. Today almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment by citing some defect in consent at the time of the taking of the marriage vows. Since in some areas,  about  95% of all Catholics in the USA who apply for an annulment, do get one, then who out there in the Catholic Church is actually married Sacramentally?  Why bother to get married, if in the end, some Catholic marriage tribunal tells you that you were never married in the first place? All that time and money that you spent to go through what you thought was a marriage ceremony in the Catholic Church, was actually totally null and void. All those years, that you spent raising a family and being loyal to someone who you thought was your wife, was really never your wife in the first place. And of course, this never whould have come up, except for your medical overweight condition and the fact that your wife has found herself a slimmer boyfriend. If you had not developed this condition, which was due in part anyway to your wife's cooking,  your wife would have stayed with you and the marriage would have been valid.  
As far as annulment always being the practice in the Roman Church, it really is not true that there has been no change in the conditions required to get an annulment. In the USA, in 1929, 1930, there were something like 10 or so marriage annulments in the whole USA. In recent times, it has gone as high as 60,000 marriage annulments per year. That's an enormous increase due to the watering down of conditions required to get a marriage annulment.
I've heard that the proof that ones marriage is actually Sacramental is if they stay together. You may think the high annulment number is scandalous, but the sad reality is that divorces are not going to go away. Personally, I would rather see the Church acknowledge marriages null and void rather than take a strict, hardline approach and there be thousands who are no longer able to receive Christ in the Holy Eucharist. To me, the latter would be a much sadder situation.

I agree in the sense that the Catholic Church is, shudder, shudder, using a form of 'economia' in the modern use of the annulment process. Since they boxed themselves into a quasi-dogmatic corner centuries ago on the issue when neither eastern ecclesiastical divorces or western annulments were the norm, changing life-styles in the modern world required a 'reboot' so to speak.

As to the proof required by a marriage tribunal, does anyone have a Roman Canon Law understanding of the annulment process and the specific justifications used to determine that a marriage was 'null and void' ab initio? The adbridged version would suffice.

The bolded section cited by Wyatt, to say the least, strikes me as a perversion of the legal maxim  'res ipsa loquitur'. It is about as bold a statement as 'I know you are dead because you are dead.' Yes, that is a truth but...so what? There has to be more, I would think.

Am I correct that under Canon Law the legal legitimacy of any children born of the voided marriage is not called into question? I make that assumption because that is the civil law result when a court of law annuls a marriage in most states. Of course the statutory grounds for a civil annulment are very narrow and would not likely be applicable in Canon Law proceedings or else the numbers of such Canon Law annulments would be much smaller than is reported in the US.  Thank you!
Btw, there is an interesting precedent in IL where a man was given an civil annulment, because he was a communicant of the Vatican, and the woman he married had been married before and divorced, and she had hid that fact.  The basis of the annulment was fraud, given his church's requirements.  I'm curious  if his church required him to get an annulment from them afterwards.

Under IL, the children have standing to challenge or defend the validity of their parents marriage, given their legitimacy is at stake I suppose (the statutes name them, but I don't recall if the case law explains why).

My two cents is that the idea as to whether or not a man and a woman are 'committed' at the time of the wedding is a sophistic legalism coined to justify what is really a 'wink wink' divorce. Call it what you want, justify it with the best of scholastic argument, but as Shakespeare said, 'A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.' Or as Groucho Marx observed, 'If it looks and quacks like a duck, ITS A DUCK.'

Stanley's point is valid. My son married four years ago after a five year relationship with his future wife, the families spent much money on a beautiful wedding, many emotions were involved on the part of all parties. Perhaps celibate clergy can't fathom that, huh?

Did the couple not affirm to us, to our priests and to God that they were (and happily remain) 'committed' to each other when they dared to stand in the nave of the Church and have their marriage sanctified before man and in the presence of God? Give me a break. This is nothing more than a bare, naked legalism and perpetrates a fraud of faith upon those pious Catholics who entered into a marriage IN GOOD FAITH and WITHOUT IMPEDIMENT! Does not the Catholic Church still publish bans in anticipation of a sacramental marriage?

I could go on and on, but I think that my point is clear.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2011, 09:03:32 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,118



« Reply #94 on: June 08, 2011, 09:20:41 AM »

Christ is ascended!
Preparation is key as we move more and more away from stability of community and extended family.  Also the best data says that living together sexually prior to marriage is a significant factor in the failure rate of modern marriages.   It is a mess.  I think the annulment process is a good one.  I think a Church approved divorce is all right as well, though I do think I prefer the annulment for a number of reasons.

M.
What purpose does an annullment, as opposed to a divorce (which you have to get in the US before you can start the annullment process, as I assUme you know), serve?

The obvious difference would be remarriage. Are you looking for more of an answer than that?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #95 on: June 08, 2011, 09:25:20 AM »

I think the real problem is that Christians have ceased to see marriage as a function of Christ, and see it as a function of consent between two individuals. We may pay lip service to Christ, but for all intents and purposes He is an afterthought, rather than the central cause.

If it's just two people entering into a contract, it could indeed be nullified if it came out that one of them somehow never intended to be committed to said contract. But if marriage is a function of Christ, it must be treated like the sacrament it is. How could the couple possibly be divided, except for a select few grievous reasons?
« Last Edit: June 08, 2011, 09:26:58 AM by bogdan » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #96 on: June 08, 2011, 09:43:16 AM »

I think the real problem is that Christians have ceased to see marriage as a function of Christ, and see it as a function of consent between two individuals. We may pay lip service to Christ, but for all intents and purposes He is an afterthought, rather than the central cause.

If it's just two people entering into a contract, it could indeed be nullified if it came out that one of them somehow never intended to be committed to said contract. But if marriage is a function of Christ, it must be treated like the sacrament it is. How could the couple possibly be divided, except for a select few grievous reasons?

The grounds for divorce in the Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Churches are listed in the opening message at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,18990.msg279933/topicseen.html#msg279933
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #97 on: June 08, 2011, 10:15:02 AM »

Christ is ascended!
Preparation is key as we move more and more away from stability of community and extended family.  Also the best data says that living together sexually prior to marriage is a significant factor in the failure rate of modern marriages.   It is a mess.  I think the annulment process is a good one.  I think a Church approved divorce is all right as well, though I do think I prefer the annulment for a number of reasons.

M.
What purpose does an annullment, as opposed to a divorce (which you have to get in the US before you can start the annullment process, as I assUme you know), serve?

The obvious difference would be remarriage. Are you looking for more of an answer than that?
I'm sorry, I should have been clearer: a purpose that doesn't consist of Corban to serve hypocrisy in rendering the tribute of vice to virtue, which is even more destructive to the institution of marriage than divorce. And since you can get remarried after a divorce, your answer lacks substance.  So more than a euphemism I'm looking for.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2011, 10:18:56 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #98 on: June 08, 2011, 10:16:10 AM »

Even deeper therapy is needed, beyond preparation for wedding couples.  We have to go from an entitled culture to a culture which knows and values sacrifice.

Amen. I'll never forget the part of my catechumenate where we talked about marriage. My priest was blunt. "Romanticism is an illusion, and marriage is not about happiness. Marriage is martyrdom, working your fingers to the bone and throwing everything away for the sake of another person. You love someone as much as you let them cost you."

Completely blew my mind. But it makes total sense. Until people view marriage that way, nothing will change.

Bravo!!  Right indeed and those who do not want to hear it, or cannot fathom how that might work, or reject it outright, or reject it tacitly are not capable of forging a sacramental marriage regardless of how much money they spend, how much time they spend and how many children they get.   That is, aside from the formal impediments to marriage, the basis for all nullity of the sacrament.

Mary
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #99 on: June 08, 2011, 10:20:10 AM »

Christ is ascended!
Am I correct that under Canon Law the legal legitimacy of any children born of the voided marriage is not called into question?
Yes, that's right. According to this Orwellian logic, there was no marriage but the children are legitimate!

Why don't they make the couple virgins while they are at it.  That way they can be virgin births as well. Roll Eyes
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #100 on: June 08, 2011, 10:32:05 AM »

Even deeper therapy is needed, beyond preparation for wedding couples.  We have to go from an entitled culture to a culture which knows and values sacrifice.

Amen. I'll never forget the part of my catechumenate where we talked about marriage. My priest was blunt. "Romanticism is an illusion, and marriage is not about happiness. Marriage is martyrdom, working your fingers to the bone and throwing everything away for the sake of another person. You love someone as much as you let them cost you."

Completely blew my mind. But it makes total sense. Until people view marriage that way, nothing will change.

Bravo!!  Right indeed and those who do not want to hear it, or cannot fathom how that might work, or reject it outright, or reject it tacitly are not capable of forging a sacramental marriage regardless of how much money they spend, how much time they spend and how many children they get.   That is, aside from the formal impediments to marriage, the basis for all nullity of the sacrament.
An odd position for the Vatican to take, as it holds the couple as the ministers of the sacrament. Ex opere operato.  And if they are not properly disposed, and that nullifies the sacrament, does the unworthy (and how many of us are worthy) communicant change the Eucharist into bread and wine when he receives it?  Does the unworthiness of the catechumen, who has not yet been enlightened, empty the baptismal waters of the Spirit when he goes in?  Does the unworthy candidate (and who is worthy?) make void the hands laid on him?

The truism is determinative: if you wait until you are ready to get married, you never will (goes for having kids too).  Given that, basically no one can have the sufficient faculties to get married.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #101 on: June 08, 2011, 10:36:49 AM »

Even deeper therapy is needed, beyond preparation for wedding couples.  We have to go from an entitled culture to a culture which knows and values sacrifice.

Amen. I'll never forget the part of my catechumenate where we talked about marriage. My priest was blunt. "Romanticism is an illusion, and marriage is not about happiness. Marriage is martyrdom, working your fingers to the bone and throwing everything away for the sake of another person. You love someone as much as you let them cost you."

Completely blew my mind. But it makes total sense. Until people view marriage that way, nothing will change.

Bravo!!  Right indeed and those who do not want to hear it, or cannot fathom how that might work, or reject it outright, or reject it tacitly are not capable of forging a sacramental marriage regardless of how much money they spend, how much time they spend and how many children they get.   That is, aside from the formal impediments to marriage, the basis for all nullity of the sacrament.

Mary

I think what is being lost in this discussion is the fact that what is being annulled is a sacramental marriage.  The legitimacy of the children is secured because of the fact that a marriage is both a civil and ecclesial event, and its dissolution is also a civil and an ecclesial event.  

The Church certainly recognizes civil marriages....and blesses them sacramentally when it is requested of them to do so.  A divorce must occur before the decree of nullity, because the civil marriage must be dissolved in order to nullify the sacramental marriage, which is part of the sacramental rite but neither civil act nor ecclesial act is fully bound unless the marriage is intact as it was initially contracted. So it is possible to have a civil divorce but still be sacramentally married in the eyes of God, and thereby in the eyes of the Church.  To say that there never was a sacramental marriage without the dissolution of the civil act is an absurdity.

If divorce does not strip the legitimacy of the children then neither does the recognition that the sacramental marriage is null.

Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #102 on: June 08, 2011, 10:43:40 AM »

Even deeper therapy is needed, beyond preparation for wedding couples.  We have to go from an entitled culture to a culture which knows and values sacrifice.

Amen. I'll never forget the part of my catechumenate where we talked about marriage. My priest was blunt. "Romanticism is an illusion, and marriage is not about happiness. Marriage is martyrdom, working your fingers to the bone and throwing everything away for the sake of another person. You love someone as much as you let them cost you."

Completely blew my mind. But it makes total sense. Until people view marriage that way, nothing will change.

Bravo!!  Right indeed and those who do not want to hear it, or cannot fathom how that might work, or reject it outright, or reject it tacitly are not capable of forging a sacramental marriage regardless of how much money they spend, how much time they spend and how many children they get.   That is, aside from the formal impediments to marriage, the basis for all nullity of the sacrament.

Mary

I think what is being lost in this discussion is the fact that what is being annulled is a sacramental marriage.  The legitimacy of the children is secured because of the fact that a marriage is both a civil and ecclesial event, and its dissolution is also a civil and an ecclesial event.  

The Church certainly recognizes civil marriages....and blesses them sacramentally when it is requested of them to do so.  A divorce must occur before the decree of nullity, because the civil marriage must be dissolved in order to nullify the sacramental marriage, which is part of the sacramental rite but neither civil act nor ecclesial act is fully bound unless the marriage is intact as it was initially contracted. So it is possible to have a civil divorce but still be sacramentally married in the eyes of God, and thereby in the eyes of the Church.  To say that there never was a sacramental marriage without the dissolution of the civil act is an absurdity.

If divorce does not strip the legitimacy of the children then neither does the recognition that the sacramental marriage is null.



Also what is not well understood, obviously, is the fact that the couple binds one another with their vows before God, but it is the Church that gives the blessing for them to do so and it is the Church's blessing which seals the sacramental marriage.  It is of a very different character from Eucharist or any of the sacraments' if initiation.

One of the interesting things in my Catholic Church's understanding of espousal:  I am able, with the blessing of my spiritual father, to take a solemn vow before God privately to offer my life to him in a consecrated espousal.  It is not the same thing as taking public vows where I would recognized by the whole Church as a religious...HOWEVER that private vow and the blessing of my spiritual father is of such weight that I would have to appeal to Rome to be released from that vow, should I ever want to marry, or simply be released from the vow.   But both elements have to be there.  I have to make the vow and the vow must be blessed by a minister of the Catholic Church.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #103 on: June 08, 2011, 10:48:45 AM »


I think what is being lost in this discussion is the fact that what is being annulled is a sacramental marriage.
 

Blimey,  I don't know what elementary school taught you your Catholic doctrine  ~~   I'm shocked!!!  A sacramental marriage CANNOT be annulled.   It is only because NO sacramental marriage took place that a declaration of nullity is possible.

Catholics, take a little care when Elijahmaria puts her fingers in the pie.  Wink
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #104 on: June 08, 2011, 10:50:46 AM »

Even deeper therapy is needed, beyond preparation for wedding couples.  We have to go from an entitled culture to a culture which knows and values sacrifice.

Amen. I'll never forget the part of my catechumenate where we talked about marriage. My priest was blunt. "Romanticism is an illusion, and marriage is not about happiness. Marriage is martyrdom, working your fingers to the bone and throwing everything away for the sake of another person. You love someone as much as you let them cost you."

Completely blew my mind. But it makes total sense. Until people view marriage that way, nothing will change.

Bravo!!  Right indeed and those who do not want to hear it, or cannot fathom how that might work, or reject it outright, or reject it tacitly are not capable of forging a sacramental marriage regardless of how much money they spend, how much time they spend and how many children they get.   That is, aside from the formal impediments to marriage, the basis for all nullity of the sacrament.

Mary

I think what is being lost in this discussion is the fact that what is being annulled is a sacramental marriage.  The legitimacy of the children is secured because of the fact that a marriage is both a civil and ecclesial event, and its dissolution is also a civil and an ecclesial event.  

The Church certainly recognizes civil marriages....and blesses them sacramentally when it is requested of them to do so.  A divorce must occur before the decree of nullity, because the civil marriage must be dissolved in order to nullify the sacramental marriage, which is part of the sacramental rite but neither civil act nor ecclesial act is fully bound unless the marriage is intact as it was initially contracted. So it is possible to have a civil divorce but still be sacramentally married in the eyes of God, and thereby in the eyes of the Church.  To say that there never was a sacramental marriage without the dissolution of the civil act is an absurdity.

If divorce does not strip the legitimacy of the children then neither does the recognition that the sacramental marriage is null.



Also what is not well understood, obviously, is the fact that the couple binds one another with their vows before God, but it is the Church that gives the blessing for them to do so and it is the Church's blessing which seals the sacramental marriage.  It is of a very different character from Eucharist or any of the sacraments' if initiation.

One of the interesting things in my Catholic Church's understanding of espousal:  I am able, with the blessing of my spiritual father, to take a solemn vow before God privately to offer my life to him in a consecrated espousal.  It is not the same thing as taking public vows where I would recognized by the whole Church as a religious...HOWEVER that private vow and the blessing of my spiritual father is of such weight that I would have to appeal to Rome to be released from that vow, should I ever want to marry, or simply be released from the vow.   But both elements have to be there.  I have to make the vow and the vow must be blessed by a minister of the Catholic Church.

Could you cite the canon law on this?
Logged
synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #105 on: June 08, 2011, 11:10:48 AM »

These threads are often onesided. Not every Catholic who has divorced and remarried wants the Church to change the discipline. Popular newspaper writer and sci-fi author Rafał Ziemkiewicz, said that he prefers to believe in a high standard of faith, and not in a lax Orthodox or Protestant moral relativism. Excessive amounts of incense doesn't sanctify.

Rafał Ziemkiewicz winner of the 1997 European Science Fiction Society Best Author Award
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #106 on: June 08, 2011, 11:13:14 AM »

Even deeper therapy is needed, beyond preparation for wedding couples.  We have to go from an entitled culture to a culture which knows and values sacrifice.

Amen. I'll never forget the part of my catechumenate where we talked about marriage. My priest was blunt. "Romanticism is an illusion, and marriage is not about happiness. Marriage is martyrdom, working your fingers to the bone and throwing everything away for the sake of another person. You love someone as much as you let them cost you."

Completely blew my mind. But it makes total sense. Until people view marriage that way, nothing will change.

Bravo!!  Right indeed and those who do not want to hear it, or cannot fathom how that might work, or reject it outright, or reject it tacitly are not capable of forging a sacramental marriage regardless of how much money they spend, how much time they spend and how many children they get.   That is, aside from the formal impediments to marriage, the basis for all nullity of the sacrament.
An odd position for the Vatican to take, as it holds the couple as the ministers of the sacrament. Ex opere operato.  And if they are not properly disposed, and that nullifies the sacrament, does the unworthy (and how many of us are worthy) communicant change the Eucharist into bread and wine when he receives it?  Does the unworthiness of the catechumen, who has not yet been enlightened, empty the baptismal waters of the Spirit when he goes in?  Does the unworthy candidate (and who is worthy?) make void the hands laid on him?

The truism is determinative: if you wait until you are ready to get married, you never will (goes for having kids too).  Given that, basically no one can have the sufficient faculties to get married.



That is exactly what I was trying to get to. Thank you for carrying out the argument to its logical conclusion. (And I recoil at the stupid charge that Orthodox are against logic. A childish reduction of our critique of scholasticism if ever there were one.)
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #107 on: June 08, 2011, 11:22:02 AM »

There has been a lot of posturing on the part of my Roman Catholic friends who are attempting to defend the process of annulment as it is understood by 21st century Roman Catholics.

However, I have yet to see anyone post a simple set of guidelines which govern the process. Since the Roman church seems to have developed Canon Law on many issues that may seem to constitute minutiae to the Orthodox mind, surely there must be some set of rules for the layman to refer to.

Is the problem here the difference in the theology of the west and the east behind the sacrament of marriage which apparently makes each's other's concerns and objections obscure to one holding the 'other' view?

Also, from the Orthodox, if anyone knows, are there not grounds for annulment within Orthodox theology as well that are separate and distinct from those permitted for divorce. If so, please post them so that we could contrast them with the Roman grounds for annulment.

Perhaps the mods might like to split this topic off from the original topic as we have really gone off into a whole 'nother dimension! (for once an interesting and relevant one at that!)
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,118



« Reply #108 on: June 08, 2011, 11:22:53 AM »


I think what is being lost in this discussion is the fact that what is being annulled is a sacramental marriage.
 

Blimey,  I don't know what elementary school taught you your Catholic doctrine  ~~   I'm shocked!!!  A sacramental marriage CANNOT be annulled.   It is only because NO sacramental marriage took place that a declaration of nullity is possible.

I believe what Elijahmaria is saying is that when there's an annullment, it means that there's no sacramental marriage, but it doesn't mean that there's no civil marriage.

Catholics, take a little care when Elijahmaria puts her fingers in the pie.  Wink

Don't worry, I'm always careful about people putting their fingers in the pie.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #109 on: June 08, 2011, 11:26:20 AM »


I think what is being lost in this discussion is the fact that what is being annulled is a sacramental marriage.
 

Blimey,  I don't know what elementary school taught you your Catholic doctrine  ~~   I'm shocked!!!  A sacramental marriage CANNOT be annulled.   It is only because NO sacramental marriage took place that a declaration of nullity is possible.

Catholics, take a little care when Elijahmaria puts her fingers in the pie.  Wink

Ya, you betcha!!!  I was rushing.  What is being declared is the nullity of a sacramental marriage.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #110 on: June 08, 2011, 11:29:01 AM »


I think what is being lost in this discussion is the fact that what is being annulled is a sacramental marriage.
 

Blimey,  I don't know what elementary school taught you your Catholic doctrine  ~~   I'm shocked!!!  A sacramental marriage CANNOT be annulled.   It is only because NO sacramental marriage took place that a declaration of nullity is possible.

I believe what Elijahmaria is saying is that when there's an annullment, it means that there's no sacramental marriage, but it doesn't mean that there's no civil marriage.

Catholics, take a little care when Elijahmaria puts her fingers in the pie.  Wink

Don't worry, I'm always careful about people putting their fingers in the pie.

When my son was a boy, I used to have to bake three pies to get one to last two days.  Now THERE was a man with his fingers in the pie.  When he was very little I lost control of him and he starved for several years before I recovered him...no joke...Took years for him to willingly share food and he is as thin as a rail and eats like a bird...for those who know how birds eat.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,118



« Reply #111 on: June 08, 2011, 11:30:17 AM »

There has been a lot of posturing on the part of my Roman Catholic friends who are attempting to defend the process of annulment as it is understood by 21st century Roman Catholics.

However, I have yet to see anyone post a simple set of guidelines which govern the process.

There's probably no simple answer as to why none of us have done so, but I'd say one big factor is that many of us are frustrated with it ourselves.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #112 on: June 08, 2011, 11:30:51 AM »

a lax Orthodox or Protestant moral relativism.

There is an enormous problem with this statement.

From the 5th century the laws governing marriage and diviorce and sacramental second were codified in the Catholic Church of the East.  This Eastern section of the Church even included the Byzantine provinces of southern Italy, which took the authority of the Patriarch of Constanstinople right up to the gates of Rome.

Now, if the Pope were truly head of the Church, the only conclusion is that from the 5th century onwards he gave his apostolic blessing to divorce and sacramental second marriage.  He gave his blessing for this in the greater part of the Church which he headed because the Eastern section of the Catholic Church was more populous than the Western.  This continued up to 1054 when the Catholic Church of the East split with Catholic Rome.

The Pope permitted hundreds upon hundreds of Eastern and Southern Italian bishops in his Church to approve of divorce and remarriage!!  

So, is it true?  The Pope allowed divorce and remarriage in his Church, and moreover in the larger part of his church, for 600 years?  
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #113 on: June 08, 2011, 11:30:59 AM »


I think what is being lost in this discussion is the fact that what is being annulled is a sacramental marriage.
 

Blimey,  I don't know what elementary school taught you your Catholic doctrine  ~~   I'm shocked!!!  A sacramental marriage CANNOT be annulled.   It is only because NO sacramental marriage took place that a declaration of nullity is possible.

I believe what Elijahmaria is saying is that when there's an annullment, it means that there's no sacramental marriage, but it doesn't mean that there's no civil marriage.

Catholics, take a little care when Elijahmaria puts her fingers in the pie.  Wink

Don't worry, I'm always careful about people putting their fingers in the pie.

In other words, the tribunal needs to find an impediment to a sacramental marriage which existed at the time of the ceremony, thereby rendering the ceremony 'lacking in sacramental grace' which would have the legal effect of restoring the 'status quo ante' or making the ceremony 'void ab initio.'

That much I understand and if, for example, two Orthodox were married in good faith and later, without their knowledge of the fact at the time of the ceremony, it was discovered that they were related by blood to a degree which would have prevented the administration of the sacrament, that marriage would be annuled by the Orthodox and the 'status quo ante' would be restored. Even more egegious, if the groom had that knowledge but deceived the priest and the bride's family - that would be fraud - another separate ground for annulment.

Those are easy examples and ones that would apply to the west and the east. Let's give up some more common ones used today by the Roman tribunals.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2011, 11:39:00 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #114 on: June 08, 2011, 11:31:11 AM »

That is a great photo.  I wish I could read Polish!!  If his work is as lively and wry as his face, it must be good!!

These threads are often onesided. Not every Catholic who has divorced and remarried wants the Church to change the discipline. Popular newspaper writer and sci-fi author Rafał Ziemkiewicz, said that he prefers to believe in a high standard of faith, and not in a lax Orthodox or Protestant moral relativism. Excessive amounts of incense doesn't sanctify.

Rafał Ziemkiewicz winner of the 1997 European Science Fiction Society Best Author Award
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #115 on: June 08, 2011, 11:33:49 AM »


I think what is being lost in this discussion is the fact that what is being annulled is a sacramental marriage.
 

Blimey,  I don't know what elementary school taught you your Catholic doctrine  ~~   I'm shocked!!!  A sacramental marriage CANNOT be annulled.   It is only because NO sacramental marriage took place that a declaration of nullity is possible.

I believe what Elijahmaria is saying is that when there's an annullment, it means that there's no sacramental marriage, but it doesn't mean that there's no civil marriage.

Catholics, take a little care when Elijahmaria puts her fingers in the pie.  Wink

Don't worry, I'm always careful about people putting their fingers in the pie.

In other words, the tribunal needs to find an impediment to a sacramental marriage which existed at the time of the ceremony, thereby rendering the ceremony 'lacking in sacramental grace' which would have the legal effect of restoring the 'status quo ante' or making the ceremony 'void ab initio.'

That much I understand and if, for example, two Orthodox were married in good faith and later, without their knowledge of the fact at the time of the ceremony, it was discovered that they were related by blood to a degree which would have permitted the administration of the sacrament, that marriage would be annuled by the Orthodox and the 'status quo ante' would be restored. Even more egegious, if the groom had that knowledge but deceived the priest and the bride's family - that would be fraud - another separate ground for annulment.

Those are easy examples and ones that would apply to the west and the east. Let's give up some more common ones used today by the Roman tribunals.

I think it is pared back pretty far with respect to the common culture which separates families rather than binding them together to the land or factory or mine.  I think, again, that we need to do better at preparing young men and women for the task before them...and do whatever we can to keep them from cohabiting in advance.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #116 on: June 08, 2011, 11:34:51 AM »


Also, from the Orthodox, if anyone knows, are there not grounds for annulment within Orthodox theology as well that are separate and distinct from those permitted for divorce.

I can think of one.  There may be more.   The Church declares a marriage null and void if one of the parties has tricked the other about their sex and it is in fact a same-sex marriage.  There is no need for a divorce.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #117 on: June 08, 2011, 11:38:28 AM »


I think what is being lost in this discussion is the fact that what is being annulled is a sacramental marriage.
 

Blimey,  I don't know what elementary school taught you your Catholic doctrine  ~~   I'm shocked!!!  A sacramental marriage CANNOT be annulled.   It is only because NO sacramental marriage took place that a declaration of nullity is possible.

Catholics, take a little care when Elijahmaria puts her fingers in the pie.  Wink

Ya, you betcha!!!  I was rushing.  What is being declared is the nullity of a sacramental marriage.

Wrong!  wrong! wrong!     What is being declared is that no marriage ever existed at all.

You cannot declare a sacramental marriage null.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #118 on: June 08, 2011, 11:39:53 AM »

That is a great photo.  I wish I could read Polish!!  If his work is as lively and wry as his face, it must be good!!

Wink
When my father gave me that look, I knew I was cooked!
« Last Edit: June 08, 2011, 11:41:09 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #119 on: June 08, 2011, 11:43:14 AM »


I think what is being lost in this discussion is the fact that what is being annulled is a sacramental marriage.
 

Blimey,  I don't know what elementary school taught you your Catholic doctrine  ~~   I'm shocked!!!  A sacramental marriage CANNOT be annulled.   It is only because NO sacramental marriage took place that a declaration of nullity is possible.

Catholics, take a little care when Elijahmaria puts her fingers in the pie.  Wink

Ya, you betcha!!!  I was rushing.  What is being declared is the nullity of a sacramental marriage.

Wrong!  wrong! wrong!     What is being declared is that no marriage ever existed at all.

You cannot declare a sacramental marriage null.

I think that the civil law carried this over in civil annulments in the Anglo-American system that the legal effect of an annulment is to determine that the ceremony was void ab initio and that the status quo ante was restored. ( Latin for : Void at the beginning and the prior legal status of the parties is restored.)
« Last Edit: June 08, 2011, 11:43:48 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #120 on: June 08, 2011, 11:46:12 AM »


That much I understand and if, for example, two Orthodox were married in good faith and later, without their knowledge of the fact at the time of the ceremony, it was discovered that they were related by blood to a degree which would have prevented the administration of the sacrament, that marriage would be annuled by the Orthodox and the 'status quo ante' would be restored.

Not sure about that but I can only speak certainly of the Serbian Church.  Such a marriage would probably stand as a marriage. Such horrible examples as father to daughter marriage would be annulled but most of the marriages within the forbidden degrees of both blood and spiritual relationship would be allowed to continue.   What would certainly happen though  is that the officiating priest would be defrocked.  The canons require this no matter whether the priest were simply innocent or negligent in his enquires prior to the marriage.  Poor priest!
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #121 on: June 08, 2011, 11:50:56 AM »


Those are easy examples and ones that would apply to the west and the east. Let's give up some more common ones used today by the Roman tribunals.

My husband spends too much time at the gym. This proves he did not have the necessary understanding to commit to a true marriage at the time of our marriage.

My wife is excessively devoted to her mother.  This shows she lacked the maturity to make the necessary commitment to the husband at the time of marriage.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #122 on: June 08, 2011, 12:04:04 PM »


I think what is being lost in this discussion is the fact that what is being annulled is a sacramental marriage.
 

Blimey,  I don't know what elementary school taught you your Catholic doctrine  ~~   I'm shocked!!!  A sacramental marriage CANNOT be annulled.   It is only because NO sacramental marriage took place that a declaration of nullity is possible.

Catholics, take a little care when Elijahmaria puts her fingers in the pie.  Wink

Ya, you betcha!!!  I was rushing.  What is being declared is the nullity of a sacramental marriage.

Wrong!  wrong! wrong!     What is being declared is that no marriage ever existed at all.

You cannot declare a sacramental marriage null.

Blah...you are right...

No time for a third try, I have to go get mother at hospital.  We are moving to residential rehab today.  Keep her in your prayers and I'll try to remember to say this thing properly the FIRST time.

Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #123 on: June 08, 2011, 12:05:44 PM »


Those are easy examples and ones that would apply to the west and the east. Let's give up some more common ones used today by the Roman tribunals.

My husband spends too much time at the gym. This proves he did not have the necessary understanding to commit to a true marriage at the time of our marriage.

My wife is excessively devoted to her mother.  This shows she lacked the maturity to make the necessary commitment to the husband at the time of marriage.

No.  It should NEVER be that frivolous.  I have never seen one or worked on one case that was that absurd.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #124 on: June 08, 2011, 12:26:39 PM »


Those are easy examples and ones that would apply to the west and the east. Let's give up some more common ones used today by the Roman tribunals.

My husband spends too much time at the gym. This proves he did not have the necessary understanding to commit to a true marriage at the time of our marriage.

My wife is excessively devoted to her mother.  This shows she lacked the maturity to make the necessary commitment to the husband at the time of marriage.

No.  It should NEVER be that frivolous.  I have never seen one or worked on one case that was that absurd.

Reasons for annulment listed in Judging Invalidity ©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn

Working out a couple of hours a day in the gym.
Being described as arrogant and selfish with an "I don't need anyone else" attitude.
Saving one's salary in a personal account.
Seeming to be obsessed with one's body (personal appearance).
Ignoring one's parents on one occasion when they came for a visit.
Seeing the world as his apple. (Psychiatric expert's term)
Never being satisfied with a gift given by one's spouse.
Feeling chronically disenfranchised in one's (spousal) relationship.
Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage.
Suffering abandonment issues over a father who died. Protecting herself by putting a hard shell around herself.
Suffering from low self-esteem, self-absorption, and a need for attention.
Lacking emphathy and fearing intimacy.
Comparing oneself to others and always finding them happier. About a month before the wedding he drove his mother to a family reunion, leaving her all alone to make preparations for the wedding.
The psychiatric expert described the respondent as porcupinish. He didn't want people near him; surprises he liked even less. It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman.
The petitioner's mother always resented her. The mother was unreasonably strict and hypercritical.

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #125 on: June 08, 2011, 01:37:25 PM »

Christ is ascended!
These threads are often onesided. Not every Catholic who has divorced and remarried wants the Church to change the discipline. Popular newspaper writer and sci-fi author Rafał Ziemkiewicz, said that he prefers to believe in a high standard of faith, and not in a lax Orthodox or Protestant moral relativism. Excessive amounts of incense doesn't sanctify.
Nor does a profusion of Corban, and the refusal to call a spade, a spade.

How does he feel about a lax Vatican moral relativism?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #126 on: June 08, 2011, 01:54:42 PM »

Christ is ascended!

I think what is being lost in this discussion is the fact that what is being annulled is a sacramental marriage.
 

Blimey,  I don't know what elementary school taught you your Catholic doctrine  ~~   I'm shocked!!!  A sacramental marriage CANNOT be annulled.   It is only because NO sacramental marriage took place that a declaration of nullity is possible.

I believe what Elijahmaria is saying is that when there's an annullment, it means that there's no sacramental marriage, but it doesn't mean that there's no civil marriage.
That's going to be a problem in places where there is no civil marriage, only religious.  And throughout most of its history, the Vatican has insisted, and got, absolute control over marriages.  Hence when Henry gave himself his annullment, Mary was barred from succession as being illegitimate.  And why, when Mary seized power, she nullified all the acts of the Church of England, starting with her parents annullment.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #127 on: June 08, 2011, 09:37:41 PM »

Reasons for annulment listed in Judging Invalidity ©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn

Working out a couple of hours a day in the gym.
Being described as arrogant and selfish with an "I don't need anyone else" attitude.
Saving one's salary in a personal account.
Seeming to be obsessed with one's body (personal appearance).
Ignoring one's parents on one occasion when they came for a visit.
Seeing the world as his apple. (Psychiatric expert's term)
Never being satisfied with a gift given by one's spouse.
Feeling chronically disenfranchised in one's (spousal) relationship.
Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage.
Suffering abandonment issues over a father who died. Protecting herself by putting a hard shell around herself.
Suffering from low self-esteem, self-absorption, and a need for attention.
Lacking emphathy and fearing intimacy.
Comparing oneself to others and always finding them happier. About a month before the wedding he drove his mother to a family reunion, leaving her all alone to make preparations for the wedding.
The psychiatric expert described the respondent as porcupinish. He didn't want people near him; surprises he liked even less. It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman.
The petitioner's mother always resented her. The mother was unreasonably strict and hypercritical.


Since these are things that turn up in every marriage at one time or another, it supports the claim that just about any marriage can be annulled by a R. Catholic tribunal in the USA. 
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #128 on: June 08, 2011, 09:42:16 PM »

That is a great photo.  I wish I could read Polish!!  If his work is as lively and wry as his face, it must be good!!

He is a great fantasy writer and an awful publicist.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #129 on: June 08, 2011, 11:25:59 PM »

I hate to be "that guy" but methinks this thread hath veered quite far from the OP. Does it need its own thread?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,118



« Reply #130 on: June 08, 2011, 11:32:31 PM »

I hate to be "that guy" but methinks this thread hath veered quite far from the OP. Does it need its own thread?

Either that or this thread should be renamed.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #131 on: June 09, 2011, 11:43:53 AM »

Reasons for annulment listed in Judging Invalidity ©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn

Working out a couple of hours a day in the gym.
Being described as arrogant and selfish with an "I don't need anyone else" attitude.
Saving one's salary in a personal account.
Seeming to be obsessed with one's body (personal appearance).
Ignoring one's parents on one occasion when they came for a visit.
Seeing the world as his apple. (Psychiatric expert's term)
Never being satisfied with a gift given by one's spouse.
Feeling chronically disenfranchised in one's (spousal) relationship.
Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage.
Suffering abandonment issues over a father who died. Protecting herself by putting a hard shell around herself.
Suffering from low self-esteem, self-absorption, and a need for attention.
Lacking emphathy and fearing intimacy.
Comparing oneself to others and always finding them happier. About a month before the wedding he drove his mother to a family reunion, leaving her all alone to make preparations for the wedding.
The psychiatric expert described the respondent as porcupinish. He didn't want people near him; surprises he liked even less. It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman.
The petitioner's mother always resented her. The mother was unreasonably strict and hypercritical.


Since these are things that turn up in every marriage at one time or another, it supports the claim that just about any marriage can be annulled by a R. Catholic tribunal in the USA. 

Wow, those sound like a list of grounds for civil divorce based upon mental cruelty or the infamous 'irreconcilable differences' back in the 'good old' fault-based divorced days in the US state laws.

Unless one believes in sorcery or predestination, how on earth are any of these a basis for determining the invalidity of a marriage from the beginning or ab initio. That isn't even creative legalism at work.

If these are the grounds that a Catholic Marital Tribunal really uses, no Catholic can ever, ever criticize the Orthodox with a straight face for the grounds we have established to obtain an ecclesiastical divorce without being a total hypocrite. As you know, I rarely get worked up over differences between us but this one is preposterous unless there is more here than meets the eye. Since no Catholic has posted to the contrary or in addition, it seems as if this may be the truth. Ugh.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #132 on: June 09, 2011, 12:38:57 PM »

Reasons for annulment listed in Judging Invalidity ©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn

Working out a couple of hours a day in the gym.
Being described as arrogant and selfish with an "I don't need anyone else" attitude.
Saving one's salary in a personal account.
Seeming to be obsessed with one's body (personal appearance).
Ignoring one's parents on one occasion when they came for a visit.
Seeing the world as his apple. (Psychiatric expert's term)
Never being satisfied with a gift given by one's spouse.
Feeling chronically disenfranchised in one's (spousal) relationship.
Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage.
Suffering abandonment issues over a father who died. Protecting herself by putting a hard shell around herself.
Suffering from low self-esteem, self-absorption, and a need for attention.
Lacking emphathy and fearing intimacy.
Comparing oneself to others and always finding them happier. About a month before the wedding he drove his mother to a family reunion, leaving her all alone to make preparations for the wedding.
The psychiatric expert described the respondent as porcupinish. He didn't want people near him; surprises he liked even less. It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman.
The petitioner's mother always resented her. The mother was unreasonably strict and hypercritical.


Since these are things that turn up in every marriage at one time or another, it supports the claim that just about any marriage can be annulled by a R. Catholic tribunal in the USA. 

Wow, those sound like a list of grounds for civil divorce based upon mental cruelty or the infamous 'irreconcilable differences' back in the 'good old' fault-based divorced days in the US state laws.

Unless one believes in sorcery or predestination, how on earth are any of these a basis for determining the invalidity of a marriage from the beginning or ab initio. That isn't even creative legalism at work.

If these are the grounds that a Catholic Marital Tribunal really uses, no Catholic can ever, ever criticize the Orthodox with a straight face for the grounds we have established to obtain an ecclesiastical divorce without being a total hypocrite. As you know, I rarely get worked up over differences between us but this one is preposterous unless there is more here than meets the eye. Since no Catholic has posted to the contrary or in addition, it seems as if this may be the truth. Ugh.

If you read through the list you will see that it is a list pertaining to one man.  Toward the end of the list is what I would call the "clincher":  " It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman."  Here's another one: "Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage." and "Feeling chronically disenfranchised in one's (spousal) relationship. "  That first one is subtle but to me, knowing how these things are phrased, it speaks volumes, and the latter sentence makes it quite clear.  Both of these are strong impediments to sacramental marriage.  The first points to adultery and the second points to the refusal to engage in conjugal relations, and the rest indicates that neither one of them, if you read the last line,  were in any way prepared for marriage...from the start.

« Last Edit: June 09, 2011, 12:41:14 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #133 on: June 09, 2011, 12:50:56 PM »


No time for a third try, I have to go get mother at hospital.  We are moving to residential rehab today.  Keep her in your prayers and I'll try to remember to say this thing properly the FIRST time.



Prayers for your mother, and for you.  And would you please pray for my youngest brother Frank (Raphael in Orthodoxy) who has just been told he has terminal lung cancer.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #134 on: June 09, 2011, 01:22:10 PM »

Reasons for annulment listed in Judging Invalidity ©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn

Working out a couple of hours a day in the gym.
Being described as arrogant and selfish with an "I don't need anyone else" attitude.
Saving one's salary in a personal account.
Seeming to be obsessed with one's body (personal appearance).
Ignoring one's parents on one occasion when they came for a visit.
Seeing the world as his apple. (Psychiatric expert's term)
Never being satisfied with a gift given by one's spouse.
Feeling chronically disenfranchised in one's (spousal) relationship.
Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage.
Suffering abandonment issues over a father who died. Protecting herself by putting a hard shell around herself.
Suffering from low self-esteem, self-absorption, and a need for attention.
Lacking emphathy and fearing intimacy.
Comparing oneself to others and always finding them happier. About a month before the wedding he drove his mother to a family reunion, leaving her all alone to make preparations for the wedding.
The psychiatric expert described the respondent as porcupinish. He didn't want people near him; surprises he liked even less. It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman.
The petitioner's mother always resented her. The mother was unreasonably strict and hypercritical.


Since these are things that turn up in every marriage at one time or another, it supports the claim that just about any marriage can be annulled by a R. Catholic tribunal in the USA. 

Wow, those sound like a list of grounds for civil divorce based upon mental cruelty or the infamous 'irreconcilable differences' back in the 'good old' fault-based divorced days in the US state laws.

Unless one believes in sorcery or predestination, how on earth are any of these a basis for determining the invalidity of a marriage from the beginning or ab initio. That isn't even creative legalism at work.

If these are the grounds that a Catholic Marital Tribunal really uses, no Catholic can ever, ever criticize the Orthodox with a straight face for the grounds we have established to obtain an ecclesiastical divorce without being a total hypocrite. As you know, I rarely get worked up over differences between us but this one is preposterous unless there is more here than meets the eye. Since no Catholic has posted to the contrary or in addition, it seems as if this may be the truth. Ugh.

If you read through the list you will see that it is a list pertaining to one man.  Toward the end of the list is what I would call the "clincher":  " It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman."  Here's another one: "Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage." and "Feeling chronically disenfranchised in one's (spousal) relationship. "  That first one is subtle but to me, knowing how these things are phrased, it speaks volumes, and the latter sentence makes it quite clear.  Both of these are strong impediments to sacramental marriage.  The first points to adultery and the second points to the refusal to engage in conjugal relations, and the rest indicates that neither one of them, if you read the last line,  were in any way prepared for marriage...from the start.



I guess that we can agree to disagree for if you accept such nuances, a good lawyer, skilled in canon low or just civil law could argue a strong case before a tribunal that ANY marriage performed in the Church can be nullified ex post facto. That sticks in my craw.

I find it better to acknowledge the weaknesses and frailties that can afflict us in our human condition and allow for divorce as is the Orthodox position. Aren't we utilizing the very same human failings in our approaches and are they really mutually exclusive?

At least the Orthodox one is honest. Following this reasoning out to the hypothetical, I wonder if you could create a theology in the West that did away with the need to confess sin on the basis that the action that 'was' the sin may have been, or was a product of some extraneous third party factor or force, like the mother in law? It sounds like the explaining away of bad acts that drove me crazy working as a prosecutor in family court over the years. No one would have to take responsibility for bad consequences. There are relativistic Catholic theologians positing just such rubbish in the west.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #135 on: June 09, 2011, 01:31:40 PM »

Reasons for annulment listed in Judging Invalidity ©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn

Working out a couple of hours a day in the gym.
Being described as arrogant and selfish with an "I don't need anyone else" attitude.
Saving one's salary in a personal account.
Seeming to be obsessed with one's body (personal appearance).
Ignoring one's parents on one occasion when they came for a visit.
Seeing the world as his apple. (Psychiatric expert's term)
Never being satisfied with a gift given by one's spouse.
Feeling chronically disenfranchised in one's (spousal) relationship.
Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage.
Suffering abandonment issues over a father who died. Protecting herself by putting a hard shell around herself.
Suffering from low self-esteem, self-absorption, and a need for attention.
Lacking emphathy and fearing intimacy.
Comparing oneself to others and always finding them happier. About a month before the wedding he drove his mother to a family reunion, leaving her all alone to make preparations for the wedding.
The psychiatric expert described the respondent as porcupinish. He didn't want people near him; surprises he liked even less. It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman.
The petitioner's mother always resented her. The mother was unreasonably strict and hypercritical.


Since these are things that turn up in every marriage at one time or another, it supports the claim that just about any marriage can be annulled by a R. Catholic tribunal in the USA. 

Wow, those sound like a list of grounds for civil divorce based upon mental cruelty or the infamous 'irreconcilable differences' back in the 'good old' fault-based divorced days in the US state laws.

Unless one believes in sorcery or predestination, how on earth are any of these a basis for determining the invalidity of a marriage from the beginning or ab initio. That isn't even creative legalism at work.

If these are the grounds that a Catholic Marital Tribunal really uses, no Catholic can ever, ever criticize the Orthodox with a straight face for the grounds we have established to obtain an ecclesiastical divorce without being a total hypocrite. As you know, I rarely get worked up over differences between us but this one is preposterous unless there is more here than meets the eye. Since no Catholic has posted to the contrary or in addition, it seems as if this may be the truth. Ugh.

If you read through the list you will see that it is a list pertaining to one man.  Toward the end of the list is what I would call the "clincher":  " It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman."  Here's another one: "Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage." and "Feeling chronically disenfranchised in one's (spousal) relationship. "  That first one is subtle but to me, knowing how these things are phrased, it speaks volumes, and the latter sentence makes it quite clear.  Both of these are strong impediments to sacramental marriage.  The first points to adultery and the second points to the refusal to engage in conjugal relations, and the rest indicates that neither one of them, if you read the last line,  were in any way prepared for marriage...from the start.



I guess that we can agree to disagree for if you accept such nuances, a good lawyer, skilled in canon low or just civil law could argue a strong case before a tribunal that ANY marriage performed in the Church can be nullified ex post facto. That sticks in my craw.

I find it better to acknowledge the weaknesses and frailties that can afflict us in our human condition and allow for divorce as is the Orthodox position. Aren't we utilizing the very same human failings in our approaches and are they really mutually exclusive?

At least the Orthodox one is honest. Following this reasoning out to the hypothetical, I wonder if you could create a theology in the West that did away with the need to confess sin on the basis that the action that 'was' the sin may have been, or was a product of some extraneous third party factor or force, like the mother in law? It sounds like the explaining away of bad acts that drove me crazy working as a prosecutor in family court over the years. No one would have to take responsibility for bad consequences. There are relativistic Catholic theologians positing just such rubbish in the west.

The people who send out suicide bombers tell the whole world what they have done.  I am not sure that honesty should be the "test" of a good thing here either. 

IF they are indeed the same set of complaints and one gets a divorce blessed by the Church and the other gets an annulment...then for me, it seems more faithful to toe the hard line laid out in the gospels and epistles. 

I should amend this to say that I do not begrudge Orthodoxy her tradition.  I simply see no reason for the Catholic Church to follow suit.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2011, 01:32:45 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #136 on: June 09, 2011, 01:34:21 PM »

Reasons for annulment listed in Judging Invalidity ©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn

Working out a couple of hours a day in the gym.
Being described as arrogant and selfish with an "I don't need anyone else" attitude.
Saving one's salary in a personal account.
Seeming to be obsessed with one's body (personal appearance).
Ignoring one's parents on one occasion when they came for a visit.
Seeing the world as his apple. (Psychiatric expert's term)
Never being satisfied with a gift given by one's spouse.
Feeling chronically disenfranchised in one's (spousal) relationship.
Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage.
Suffering abandonment issues over a father who died. Protecting herself by putting a hard shell around herself.
Suffering from low self-esteem, self-absorption, and a need for attention.
Lacking emphathy and fearing intimacy.
Comparing oneself to others and always finding them happier. About a month before the wedding he drove his mother to a family reunion, leaving her all alone to make preparations for the wedding.
The psychiatric expert described the respondent as porcupinish. He didn't want people near him; surprises he liked even less. It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman.
The petitioner's mother always resented her. The mother was unreasonably strict and hypercritical.


Since these are things that turn up in every marriage at one time or another, it supports the claim that just about any marriage can be annulled by a R. Catholic tribunal in the USA. 

Wow, those sound like a list of grounds for civil divorce based upon mental cruelty or the infamous 'irreconcilable differences' back in the 'good old' fault-based divorced days in the US state laws.

Unless one believes in sorcery or predestination, how on earth are any of these a basis for determining the invalidity of a marriage from the beginning or ab initio. That isn't even creative legalism at work.

If these are the grounds that a Catholic Marital Tribunal really uses, no Catholic can ever, ever criticize the Orthodox with a straight face for the grounds we have established to obtain an ecclesiastical divorce without being a total hypocrite. As you know, I rarely get worked up over differences between us but this one is preposterous unless there is more here than meets the eye. Since no Catholic has posted to the contrary or in addition, it seems as if this may be the truth. Ugh.

If you read through the list you will see that it is a list pertaining to one man.  Toward the end of the list is what I would call the "clincher":  " It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman."  Here's another one: "Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage." and "Feeling chronically disenfranchised in one's (spousal) relationship. "  That first one is subtle but to me, knowing how these things are phrased, it speaks volumes, and the latter sentence makes it quite clear.  Both of these are strong impediments to sacramental marriage.  The first points to adultery and the second points to the refusal to engage in conjugal relations, and the rest indicates that neither one of them, if you read the last line,  were in any way prepared for marriage...from the start.



I guess that we can agree to disagree for if you accept such nuances, a good lawyer, skilled in canon low or just civil law could argue a strong case before a tribunal that ANY marriage performed in the Church can be nullified ex post facto. That sticks in my craw.

I find it better to acknowledge the weaknesses and frailties that can afflict us in our human condition and allow for divorce as is the Orthodox position. Aren't we utilizing the very same human failings in our approaches and are they really mutually exclusive?

At least the Orthodox one is honest. Following this reasoning out to the hypothetical, I wonder if you could create a theology in the West that did away with the need to confess sin on the basis that the action that 'was' the sin may have been, or was a product of some extraneous third party factor or force, like the mother in law? It sounds like the explaining away of bad acts that drove me crazy working as a prosecutor in family court over the years. No one would have to take responsibility for bad consequences. There are relativistic Catholic theologians positing just such rubbish in the west.

The people who send out suicide bombers tell the whole world what they have done.  I am not sure that honesty should be the "test" of a good thing here either. 

IF they are indeed the same set of complaints and one gets a divorce blessed by the Church and the other gets an annulment...then for me, it seems more faithful to toe the hard line laid out in the gospels and epistles. 

Those who bear witness to our Christian faith and those who are martyred for it also are exemplars of honesty.

Yet another good example of how the west and the east may reach the same end place while disagreeing intensely and with passion about the meaning of words and the 'logic' of the approach.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #137 on: June 09, 2011, 01:50:17 PM »


Those who bear witness to our Christian faith and those who are martyred for it also are exemplars of honesty.

Yet another good example of how the west and the east may reach the same end place while disagreeing intensely and with passion about the meaning of words and the 'logic' of the approach.

Your first sentence is a perfect argument for remaining in a marriage and making it work, or accepting its failure and remaining in the marriage but separated from the other spouse.  And frankly I know many traditionally minded men and women who have done just that.  They accepted their choices in life and took whatever difficulties in stride, with love for our Lord and Savior and in trust that his will would be sufficient to their needs.

So...that kind of behavior makes both divorce and annulment look rather shabby by comparison.

As to you last point, I fervently hope that may be true.

PS: I just read your PM but may not respond till later today or over weekend.  I am popping in here between loads of wash and floor scrubbing.  Very hot here and I have no AC to move things along smoothly.  Mother is still in hospital and we are still praying for marked improvements.  Tomorrow rehab and in three to four weeks...more surgery.  So...my summer  Smiley  Thanks be to God that we are doing as well as we are.

M.
Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #138 on: June 09, 2011, 01:58:05 PM »


Those who bear witness to our Christian faith and those who are martyred for it also are exemplars of honesty.

Yet another good example of how the west and the east may reach the same end place while disagreeing intensely and with passion about the meaning of words and the 'logic' of the approach.

Your first sentence is a perfect argument for remaining in a marriage and making it work, or accepting its failure and remaining in the marriage but separated from the other spouse.  And frankly I know many traditionally minded men and women who have done just that.  They accepted their choices in life and took whatever difficulties in stride, with love for our Lord and Savior and in trust that his will would be sufficient to their needs.

So...that kind of behavior makes both divorce and annulment look rather shabby by comparison.

As to you last point, I fervently hope that may be true.

PS: I just read your PM but may not respond till later today or over weekend.  I am popping in here between loads of wash and floor scrubbing.  Very hot here and I have no AC to move things along smoothly.  Mother is still in hospital and we are still praying for marked improvements.  Tomorrow rehab and in three to four weeks...more surgery.  So...my summer  Smiley  Thanks be to God that we are doing as well as we are.

M.

Agreed on the bold excepting when violence erupts and/or the children are at risk from the behavior of the parents. Of course, that isn't likely to be the case in the type of situation you are talking about, is it.

You and your mom are in all of our prayers, I am sure. S'bohom!
« Last Edit: June 09, 2011, 01:59:40 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #139 on: June 09, 2011, 02:07:14 PM »


Those who bear witness to our Christian faith and those who are martyred for it also are exemplars of honesty.

Yet another good example of how the west and the east may reach the same end place while disagreeing intensely and with passion about the meaning of words and the 'logic' of the approach.

Your first sentence is a perfect argument for remaining in a marriage and making it work, or accepting its failure and remaining in the marriage but separated from the other spouse.  And frankly I know many traditionally minded men and women who have done just that.  They accepted their choices in life and took whatever difficulties in stride, with love for our Lord and Savior and in trust that his will would be sufficient to their needs.

So...that kind of behavior makes both divorce and annulment look rather shabby by comparison.

As to you last point, I fervently hope that may be true.

PS: I just read your PM but may not respond till later today or over weekend.  I am popping in here between loads of wash and floor scrubbing.  Very hot here and I have no AC to move things along smoothly.  Mother is still in hospital and we are still praying for marked improvements.  Tomorrow rehab and in three to four weeks...more surgery.  So...my summer  Smiley  Thanks be to God that we are doing as well as we are.

M.

Agreed on the bold excepting when violence erupts and/or the children are at risk from the behavior of the parents. Of course, that isn't likely to be the case in the type of situation you are talking about, is it.

You and your mom are in all of our prayers, I am sure. S'bohom!

Thank you for your prayers! 

**Just as a side note, I have already responded to Father Ambrose privately, in case anyone might think I was ignoring him.

With respect to your other comment, there are several men and women who separated from violent situations and have remained married and separated and have intention of every seeking divorce or remarriage.  Circumstances allow for that, however.  Clearly there are cases where a more permanent and cleanly cut solution is necessary.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #140 on: June 09, 2011, 06:06:03 PM »

Christ is ascended!
Reasons for annulment listed in Judging Invalidity ©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn

Working out a couple of hours a day in the gym.
Being described as arrogant and selfish with an "I don't need anyone else" attitude.
Saving one's salary in a personal account.
Seeming to be obsessed with one's body (personal appearance).
Ignoring one's parents on one occasion when they came for a visit.
Seeing the world as his apple. (Psychiatric expert's term)
Never being satisfied with a gift given by one's spouse.
Feeling chronically disenfranchised in one's (spousal) relationship.
Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage.
Suffering abandonment issues over a father who died. Protecting herself by putting a hard shell around herself.
Suffering from low self-esteem, self-absorption, and a need for attention.
Lacking emphathy and fearing intimacy.
Comparing oneself to others and always finding them happier. About a month before the wedding he drove his mother to a family reunion, leaving her all alone to make preparations for the wedding.
The psychiatric expert described the respondent as porcupinish. He didn't want people near him; surprises he liked even less. It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman.
The petitioner's mother always resented her. The mother was unreasonably strict and hypercritical.


Since these are things that turn up in every marriage at one time or another, it supports the claim that just about any marriage can be annulled by a R. Catholic tribunal in the USA. 

Wow, those sound like a list of grounds for civil divorce based upon mental cruelty or the infamous 'irreconcilable differences' back in the 'good old' fault-based divorced days in the US state laws.

Unless one believes in sorcery or predestination, how on earth are any of these a basis for determining the invalidity of a marriage from the beginning or ab initio. That isn't even creative legalism at work.

If these are the grounds that a Catholic Marital Tribunal really uses, no Catholic can ever, ever criticize the Orthodox with a straight face for the grounds we have established to obtain an ecclesiastical divorce without being a total hypocrite. As you know, I rarely get worked up over differences between us but this one is preposterous unless there is more here than meets the eye. Since no Catholic has posted to the contrary or in addition, it seems as if this may be the truth. Ugh.

If you read through the list you will see that it is a list pertaining to one man.  Toward the end of the list is what I would call the "clincher":  " It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman."  Here's another one: "Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage." and "Feeling chronically disenfranchised in one's (spousal) relationship. "  That first one is subtle but to me, knowing how these things are phrased, it speaks volumes, and the latter sentence makes it quite clear.  Both of these are strong impediments to sacramental marriage.  The first points to adultery and the second points to the refusal to engage in conjugal relations, and the rest indicates that neither one of them, if you read the last line,  were in any way prepared for marriage...from the start.



I guess that we can agree to disagree for if you accept such nuances, a good lawyer, skilled in canon low or just civil law could argue a strong case before a tribunal that ANY marriage performed in the Church can be nullified ex post facto. That sticks in my craw.

I find it better to acknowledge the weaknesses and frailties that can afflict us in our human condition and allow for divorce as is the Orthodox position. Aren't we utilizing the very same human failings in our approaches and are they really mutually exclusive?

At least the Orthodox one is honest. Following this reasoning out to the hypothetical, I wonder if you could create a theology in the West that did away with the need to confess sin on the basis that the action that 'was' the sin may have been, or was a product of some extraneous third party factor or force, like the mother in law? It sounds like the explaining away of bad acts that drove me crazy working as a prosecutor in family court over the years. No one would have to take responsibility for bad consequences. There are relativistic Catholic theologians positing just such rubbish in the west.

The people who send out suicide bombers tell the whole world what they have done.  I am not sure that honesty should be the "test" of a good thing here either. 
Sure it is: at least those going into suicide bombing know what they are getting themselves into.

IF they are indeed the same set of complaints and one gets a divorce blessed by the Church and the other gets an annulment...then for me, it seems more faithful to toe the hard line laid out in the gospels and epistles.
Changing hypocrisy into corban isn't toeing the hard line.  We have that on great authority.  Mark 7:11-13.

The "Borgias" has a lot interesting scenes on this topic.  Lucretia's marriage was just annulled, because her husband refused the aid promised in the bride price, but offiically because of impotance.  A few episodes back Pope Alexander scolds his present mistress for suggesting that his son (from another mistress) Cesare, the cardinal, marry for an alliance:"He is a cardinal.  He can never marry." Odd, as IIRC the first episode opens with Cesare in a brothel, later carrying on an affair and killing the husband, and in real life he had an affair with his brother Geoffrey's wife.  Such a scandal that he should marry!

Unfortunately, recent news tells us that clerical concubines for the Vatican's "all celibate" priesthood did not go out of fashion with the Borgias.


Charles VIII of France showed up in this episode, which invokes this tidbit:
Quote
In 1476, Louis was required to marry the pious Joan of France (1464–1505), the daughter of his second cousin, Louis XI, the middle-aged "Spider King" of France. After Louis XII's predecessor Charles VIII died childless, Louis' marriage was annulled in order to allow him to marry Charles’ widow, the former Queen-Consort, Anne of Brittany (1477–1514), who was the daughter and heiress of Francis II of Brittany, in a strategy meant to integrate the duchy of Brittany into the French monarchy.

The annulment, described as "one of the seamiest lawsuits of the age", was not simple, however. Louis did not, as might be expected, argue the marriage to be void due to consanguinity (the general allowance for the dissolution of a marriage at that time). Though he could produce witnesses to claim that the two were closely related due to various linking marriages, there was no documentary proof, merely the opinions of courtiers. Likewise, Louis could not argue that he had been below the legal age of consent (fourteen) to marry: no one was certain when he had been born, with Louis claiming to have been twelve at the time, and others ranging in their estimates between eleven and thirteen. As there was no real proof, however, he was forced to make other arguments.

Accordingly, Louis (much to the horror of his Queen) claimed that she was physically malformed, providing a rich variety of detail precisely how, and that he had therefore been unable to consummate the marriage. Joan, unsurprisingly, fought this uncertain charge fiercely, producing witnesses to Louis' boast of having "mounted my wife three or four times during the night." Louis also claimed that his sexual performance had been inhibited by witchcraft; Joan responded by asking how he was able to know what it was like to try to make love to her.

Had the Papacy been a neutral party, Joan would likely have won, for Louis' case was exceedingly weak. Unfortunately for the Queen, Pope Alexander VI (the former Roderic Borja) was committed for political reasons to grant the divorce, and accordingly he ruled against Joan, granting the annulment. Outraged, she reluctantly stepped aside, saying that she would pray for her former husband, and Louis married the equally reluctant former Queen, Anne.

After the death of Anne, Louis then married Mary Tudor (1496–1533), the sister of Henry VIII, the King of England in Abbeville, France, on 9 October 1514, in an attempt to conceive an heir to his throne and perhaps to further establish a future claim for his descendants upon the English throne as well. He was ultimately unsuccessful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XII_of_France#Marriages

It is not too fine a line between lip service and mockery.

I should amend this to say that I do not begrudge Orthodoxy her tradition.  I simply see no reason for the Catholic Church to follow suit.
Orthodoxy is the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

And I'm still at a loss: what purpose to you see in calling a divorce an annullment, in particular given the destruction to the institution (not to meantion the Faith and credibility of the Church) by doing so?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #141 on: June 09, 2011, 08:01:52 PM »


I should amend this to say that I do not begrudge Orthodoxy her tradition.  I simply see no reason for the Catholic Church to follow suit.

It must certainly be pointed out that divorce followed by a second sacramental marriage was the practice of the Catholic Church for the first millennium.   The Pope allowed it in all the East and in southern Italy.  That is historical fact.

So you are wrong about "not begrudging the Orthodox Church her tradition."   When the Orthodox Church came into existence in the 11th century by renouncing obedience to the Pope it simply inherited centuries-old Catholic tradition on marriage and divorce.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #142 on: June 09, 2011, 08:19:34 PM »


I should amend this to say that I do not begrudge Orthodoxy her tradition.  I simply see no reason for the Catholic Church to follow suit.

It must certainly be pointed out that divorce followed by a second sacramental marriage was the practice of the Catholic Church for the first millennium.   The Pope allowed it in all the East and in southern Italy.  That is historical fact.

So you are wrong about "not begrudging the Orthodox Church her tradition."   When the Orthodox Church came into existence in the 11th century by renouncing obedience to the Pope it simply inherited centuries-old Catholic tradition on marriage and divorce.
I would be interested in hearing how/when/why annulments developed as opposed to ecclesiastical divorce.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #143 on: June 09, 2011, 08:56:28 PM »


I should amend this to say that I do not begrudge Orthodoxy her tradition.  I simply see no reason for the Catholic Church to follow suit.

It must certainly be pointed out that divorce followed by a second sacramental marriage was the practice of the Catholic Church for the first millennium.   The Pope allowed it in all the East and in southern Italy.  That is historical fact.

So you are wrong about "not begrudging the Orthodox Church her tradition."   When the Orthodox Church came into existence in the 11th century by renouncing obedience to the Pope it simply inherited centuries-old Catholic tradition on marriage and divorce.

In the east and in southern Italy...the pope permitted?

To hear you tell it most of the time, nobody in the east...or southern Italy...knew the pope existed except when they told him to butt out...

You split an excessively fine hair here.  No progress on this one.

It is an eastern tradition.  Period.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2011, 08:56:54 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #144 on: June 09, 2011, 09:05:22 PM »

Christ is ascended!

I should amend this to say that I do not begrudge Orthodoxy her tradition.  I simply see no reason for the Catholic Church to follow suit.

It must certainly be pointed out that divorce followed by a second sacramental marriage was the practice of the Catholic Church for the first millennium.   The Pope allowed it in all the East and in southern Italy.  That is historical fact.

So you are wrong about "not begrudging the Orthodox Church her tradition."   When the Orthodox Church came into existence in the 11th century by renouncing obedience to the Pope it simply inherited centuries-old Catholic tradition on marriage and divorce.
I would be interested in hearing how/when/why annulments developed as opposed to ecclesiastical divorce.
Catholic Divorce: The Deception of Annulments By Pierre Hégy, Joseph Martos
http://books.google.com/books?id=QDsMG2U3IZwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=catholic+annulment+history&hl=en&ei=wGfxTeujO5KWtwfKp_yxAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=catholic%20annulment%20history&f=false
has some essays on the history.  It would be interesting is a history written by those who support the notion could be made, as those who question it have uncovered mounds of data that show it was not always the process it is today.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #145 on: June 09, 2011, 09:21:39 PM »

Christ is ascended!

I should amend this to say that I do not begrudge Orthodoxy her tradition.  I simply see no reason for the Catholic Church to follow suit.

It must certainly be pointed out that divorce followed by a second sacramental marriage was the practice of the Catholic Church for the first millennium.   The Pope allowed it in all the East and in southern Italy.  That is historical fact.

So you are wrong about "not begrudging the Orthodox Church her tradition."   When the Orthodox Church came into existence in the 11th century by renouncing obedience to the Pope it simply inherited centuries-old Catholic tradition on marriage and divorce.

In the east and in southern Italy...the pope permitted?

To hear you tell it most of the time, nobody in the east...or southern Italy...knew the pope existed except when they told him to butt out...

You split an excessively fine hair here.  No progress on this one.

It is an eastern tradition.  Period.
So are the preaching of Christ, the NT, and the Ecumenical Councils. 

The earliest reference I can think to annullments is the late Middle Ages.  I do believe the Christians got married before that, and unfortunately got divorced at times at too. In fact, the historical references attest to that.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #146 on: June 09, 2011, 09:58:22 PM »


I should amend this to say that I do not begrudge Orthodoxy her tradition.  I simply see no reason for the Catholic Church to follow suit.

It must certainly be pointed out that divorce followed by a second sacramental marriage was the practice of the Catholic Church for the first millennium.   The Pope allowed it in all the East and in southern Italy.  That is historical fact.

So you are wrong about "not begrudging the Orthodox Church her tradition."   When the Orthodox Church came into existence in the 11th century by renouncing obedience to the Pope it simply inherited centuries-old Catholic tradition on marriage and divorce.

In the east and in southern Italy...the pope permitted?

To hear you tell it most of the time, nobody in the east...or southern Italy...knew the pope existed except when they told him to butt out...

You split an excessively fine hair here.  No progress on this one.

It is an eastern tradition.  Period.

Remove that "Period."  laugh  We have the extant correspondence between Saint Columban doing his missionary work on the Continent and the Pope (Boniface?)  He asks the Pope if a chieftain may divorce his childless wife and marry another woman.  The Pope gave his permission provided that the first wife was provided for properly. 
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #147 on: June 09, 2011, 10:22:03 PM »

I am still waiting for a logical argument laying out a distinction between the modern annulment process and the reality of divorce upon grounds as laid out by our Greek brothers at http://www.denver.goarch.org/offices/registry/forms/Divorce.pdf
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #148 on: June 09, 2011, 11:47:57 PM »

Christ is ascended!

I should amend this to say that I do not begrudge Orthodoxy her tradition.  I simply see no reason for the Catholic Church to follow suit.

It must certainly be pointed out that divorce followed by a second sacramental marriage was the practice of the Catholic Church for the first millennium.   The Pope allowed it in all the East and in southern Italy.  That is historical fact.

So you are wrong about "not begrudging the Orthodox Church her tradition."   When the Orthodox Church came into existence in the 11th century by renouncing obedience to the Pope it simply inherited centuries-old Catholic tradition on marriage and divorce.
I would be interested in hearing how/when/why annulments developed as opposed to ecclesiastical divorce.
The Old EC has this:
Quote
The declaration of nullity must be carefully distinguished from divorce proper. It can be called divorce only in a very improper sense, because it presupposes that there is and has been no marriage. However, as there is question of an alleged marriage and of a union which is considered by the public as a true marriage, we can understand why a previous ecclesiastical judgement should be required, declaring the presence of a diriment impediment and the consequent invalidity of a supposed marriage, before the persons in question might be free to separate or to enter upon a new marriage. It is only when the invalidity of a marriage becomes publicly known and further cohabitation gives scandal, or when other important reasons render a prompt separation of domicile necessary or advisable, that such a separation should take place at once, to be made definitive by a later judicial sentence. When the invalidity of a marriage is publicly known, official procedure is necessary, and ecclesiastical process of nullification must be introduced. In the case of impediments which refer exclusively to the rights of the husband and wife, and which can be removed by their consent, only the one of the supposed spouses whose right is in question is permitted to impugn the marriage by complaint before the ecclesiastical court, provided it is desired to maintain this right. Such cases are the impediments of fear or violence, of essential error of impotence on the part of the other not fully established, and failure to comply with some fixed condition. In cases of the other possible impediments, every Catholic, even a stranger, may enter a complaint of nullity if he can bring proofs of such nullity. The only plaintiffs excluded are those who, on account of private advantage, were unwilling to declare the invalidity of the marriage before its dissolution by death, or who knew the impediment when the banns or marriage were proclaimed and culpably kept silence. Of course it is allowed to the married parties to disprove the reasons alleged by strangers against their marriage (Wernz, "Jus decretalium", IV, n. 743).

That separation and remarriage of the separated parties may not take place merely on account of private convictions of the invalidity of a supposed marriage, but only in consequence of an ecclesiastical judgement was taught by Alexander III and Innocent III in IV Decretal., xix, 3 and II Decretal., xiii, 13. In earlier centuries the summary decision of the bishops sufficed; at present the Constitution of Benedict XIV, "Dei miseratione", 3 November, 1741, must be followed. This prescribes that in matrimonial cases a "defender of the matrimonial tie" (defensor matrimonii) must be appointed. If the decision is for the validity of the marriage, there need be no appeal in the second instance. The parties can be satisfied with the first decision and continued in married life. If the decision is for the invalidity of the marriage, an appeal must be entered, and sometimes even a second appeal to the court of third instance, so that it is only after two concordant decisions on the invalidity of marriage in question that it can be regarded as invalid, and the parties are allowed to proceed to another marriage. (Cf. III Conc. plen. Baltim., App. 262 sqq.; Conc. Americ. latin., II, n. 16; Laurentius, "Instit. iuris eccl.", 2nd ed., n. 696 sqq.; Wernz, "Jusdecretal.", IV, n. 744 sqq.) Sometimes, however, in missionary countries, Apostolic prefects are permitted to give summary decision of cases in which two concordant opinions of approved theologians or canonists pronounce the invalidity of the marriage to be beyond doubt. Moreover, in cases of evident nullity, because of a manifest impediment of blood-relationship or affinity, of previous marriage, of the absence of form, of lack of baptism on the part of one party, a second sentence of nullity is no longer demanded (Decr. of the Holy Office, 5 June, 1889, and 16 June, 1894. Cf. Acta S. Sedis, XXVII, 141; also Decr. of the Holy Office, 27 March, 1901, Acta S. Sedis, XXXIII, 765). The court of first instance in the process of nullification is the episcopal court of the diocese, of second instance the metropolitan court, of third instance the Roman See. Sometimes, however, Rome designates for the third instance a metropolitan see of the country in question (Laurentius, above, 697, not. 6). No one, however, is prohibited from immediate application in the first instance to the Holy See. Custom reserves to the Holy See matrimonial cases of reigning princes.

In the Decretals the declaration of nullity is treated under the title "De Divortiis". But it is important that these matters should be carefully distinguished from one another. The lack of exact distinction between the expressions "declaration of invalidity" and "divorce", and the different treatment of invalid marriages at different periods, may lead to incorrect judgements of ecclesiastical decisions. Decisions of particular Churches are too easily regarded as dissolutions of valid marriages, where in fact they were only declarations of nullity; and even papal decisions, like those of Gregory II communicated to St. Boniface and of Alexander III to Bishop of Amiens, are looked on by some writers as permissions granted by the popes to Frankish Churches to dissolve a valid marriage in certain cases. The decision of Gregory II, in the year 726, was embodied in the collection of Gratian (C. xxxii, Q. vii, c. xviii), and is printed in "Mon. Germ. Hist.", III: Epist. (Epist. Merovingici et Karolini ævi I), p. 276; the decision of Alexander III is given in the Decretals as pars decisa, i.e., a part of the papal letter (IV Decretal., xv, 2) left out in the Decretal itself. In both cases there was question of a declaration of the invalidity of a marriage which was invalid from the very beginning because of antecedent impotence. A certain concession to Frankish Churches was, however, made in these cases. According to Roman custom such supposed husband and wife were not separated, but were bound to live together as brother and sister. In Frankish Churches, however, a separation was pronounced and permission to contract another marriage was allowed to the one not afflicted with absolute impotence. This custom Alexander III granted to the Frankish Churches for the future. If therefore, the union in question is spoken of a legitima conjunctio, or even as a legitimum matrimonium, this is done only on account of the external form of the marriage contract. That in such cases a diriment impediment according to the natural law was present, and an actual marriage was impossible, was well understood by the pope. He says this expressly in the part of his letter that has been embodied in the Decretals (IV Decretal., xv, 2. Cf. Sägmüller, "Die Ehe Heinrichs II" in the Tübingen "Theol. Quartalschr.", LXXXVII, 1905, 84 sqq.). That in similar cases decision has been given sometimes for separation and sometimes against it, need excite no surprise, for even at the present day the ecclesiastical idea of impotence on the part of the woman is not fully settled (cf. controversy in "The American Eccl. Review", XXVIII, 51 sqq.).
 
Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #149 on: June 10, 2011, 06:21:53 AM »


Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

No guarantees here.  Some assurances to the best of one's ability.  But there's much too much emphasis on this as some sort of hard and fast guarantee of something.  Quoting them is actually rather pompous.

M.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #150 on: June 10, 2011, 06:29:49 AM »


Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

No guarantees here.  Some assurances to the best of one's ability.  But there's much too much emphasis on this as some sort of hard and fast guarantee of something.  Quoting them is actually rather pompous.

M.

Including the Imprimatur is evidence that a member of the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church certifies that the book or article is free from doctrinal error.   That is a not unimportant guarantee.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2011, 06:32:01 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #151 on: June 10, 2011, 06:34:29 AM »


Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

No guarantees here.  Some assurances to the best of one's ability.  But there's much too much emphasis on this as some sort of hard and fast guarantee of something.  Quoting them is actually rather pompous.

M.

Including the Imprimatur is evidence that a member of the Magisteriumn of the Roman Catholic Church certifies that the book or article is free from doctrinal error.   That is a not unimportant guarantee.


I said that.  Some assurances to the best of one or two bishop's ability [that is hardly "the magisterium"]...Sometimes the bishops read the texts and sometimes the task is delegated to a trusted representative.  You might say it is free from serious breaches of doctrine or theology, but to expect it to be guaranteed against all argument or to hold up under very strict scrutiny over all details is going a bit too far...and that is precisely what happens when people get into arguments and try to proof-text.

M.

« Last Edit: June 10, 2011, 06:38:18 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #152 on: June 10, 2011, 06:47:24 AM »


I said that. 


You didn't say that.  What you said gave the impression that Cardinal John Farley of New York was not trustworthy in the matter of issuing Imprimaturs. 
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #153 on: June 10, 2011, 07:30:05 AM »


I said that. 


You didn't say that.  What you said gave the impression that Cardinal John Farley of New York was not trustworthy in the matter of issuing Imprimaturs. 

In a very strict sense, he may not be.  He may not even have read the work.  He, as a single bishop, is NOT the magisterium, since the magisterium is not an "it" nor one bishop nor a dozen bishops in a room, though he has the authority to teach...as the Church teaches.

You want to deal with reality or some nice tidy image you have in your mind that you can interact with from both sides of the dialogue?
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #154 on: June 10, 2011, 07:52:52 AM »

[
You want to deal with reality or some nice tidy image you have in your mind that you can interact with from both sides of the dialogue?


Speaking of reality............ How does the Magisterium operate?  Does it issue statements to guide the faithful on matters?

I think it could be just a fantasy.  I have never actually seen anything like a "Magisterium" issue statements.   I think there is just the Pope and he makes all the decisions.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #155 on: June 10, 2011, 08:15:46 AM »

[
You want to deal with reality or some nice tidy image you have in your mind that you can interact with from both sides of the dialogue?


Speaking of reality............ How does the Magisterium operate?  Does it issue statements to guide the faithful on matters?

I think it could be just a fantasy.  I have never actually seen anything like a "Magisterium" issue statements.   I think there is just the Pope and he makes all the decisions.

This is nice mockery, Father.  Why would I continue a discussion on these grounds?
Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #156 on: June 10, 2011, 08:30:06 AM »

[
You want to deal with reality or some nice tidy image you have in your mind that you can interact with from both sides of the dialogue?


Speaking of reality............ How does the Magisterium operate?  Does it issue statements to guide the faithful on matters?

I think it could be just a fantasy.  I have never actually seen anything like a "Magisterium" issue statements.   I think there is just the Pope and he makes all the decisions.

This is nice mockery, Father.  Why would I continue a discussion on these grounds?

I hate to weigh in with common sense when the rhetoric starts piling up, but we Orthodox like to emphasize the notion of the Roman Church being some sort of monolithic machine, operated by the Pope, with all of its parts dancing to the same tune in unison, and the Pope sitting in Rome having the ability to push a trap door button at any time on any one. That is as simplistic a representation as is the common mythology about Orthodoxy that many Roman Catholics like to spread, which is that we are an always unruly, undisicplined mish mash of conflicting policies and inconsistent theological applications.

I have observed over the years that an Imprimatur in a Catholic publication is no greater a guarantee of the orthodoxy (small 'o') of the book's teaching in relation to the greater Catholic tradition than the writing forward to a book (or even its authorship) by an Orthodox Bishop or Hegumen is a guarantee of the Orthodoxy (Big 'O') of its content.

Such makes the book quotable as a source, but it hardly makes it authoritative.

I suppose this makes the three of you right on this one, in a sense. (Now that strikes me as an 'Orthodox' answer - you all are sort of correct.....maybe..... Wink  )
« Last Edit: June 10, 2011, 08:30:25 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #157 on: June 10, 2011, 08:33:45 AM »

[
You want to deal with reality or some nice tidy image you have in your mind that you can interact with from both sides of the dialogue?


Speaking of reality............ How does the Magisterium operate?  Does it issue statements to guide the faithful on matters?

I think it could be just a fantasy.  I have never actually seen anything like a "Magisterium" issue statements.   I think there is just the Pope and he makes all the decisions.

This is nice mockery, Father.  Why would I continue a discussion on these grounds?

I hate to weigh in with common sense when the rhetoric starts piling up, but we Orthodox like to emphasize the notion of the Roman Church being some sort of monolithic machine, operated by the Pope, with all of its parts dancing to the same tune in unison, and the Pope sitting in Rome having the ability to push a trap door button at any time on any one. That is as simplistic a representation as is the common mythology about Orthodoxy that many Roman Catholics like to spread, which is that we are an always unruly, undisicplined mish mash of conflicting policies and inconsistent theological applications.

I have observed over the years that an Imprimatur in a Catholic publication is no greater a guarantee of the orthodoxy (small 'o') of the book's teaching in relation to the greater Catholic tradition than the writing forward to a book (or even its authorship) by an Orthodox Bishop or Hegumen is a guarantee of the Orthodoxy (Big 'O') of its content.

Such makes the book quotable as a source, but it hardly makes it authoritative.

I suppose this makes the three of you right on this one, in a sense. (Now that strikes me as an 'Orthodox' answer - you all are sort of correct.....maybe..... Wink  )

well...that is a worthy weigh-in...more or less...'bout right.

 Smiley
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #158 on: June 10, 2011, 08:39:14 AM »

Magisterium is first and foremost Jesus Christ.  The magisterial charge is to go and make disciples.  We are all charged with a portion of that mandate, according to our state in life.  The entire Body of Christ becomes, through our Baptism into Christ, a part of that magisterial charge, or the magisterium.

That is the bed rock of any further distinctions such as the ordinary magisterium, the college of bishops, local synods,  the papacy, the Church...and other designations, including curial offices and other organizational locations where the truths of the faith are protected and promulgated.

M.
Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #159 on: June 10, 2011, 08:42:18 AM »

Magisterium is first and foremost Jesus Christ.  The magisterial charge is to go and make disciples.  We are all charged with a portion of that mandate, according to our state in life.  The entire Body of Christ becomes, through our Baptism into Christ, a part of that magisterial charge, or the magisterium.

That is the bed rock of any further distinctions such as the ordinary magisterium, the college of bishops, local synods,  the papacy, the Church...and other designations, including curial offices and other organizational locations where the truths of the faith are protected and promulgated.

M.

To use a sports analogy, you can't go to your ballpark without buying a program to identify the players.  Wink
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #160 on: June 10, 2011, 09:20:05 AM »

Magisterium is first and foremost Jesus Christ.  The magisterial charge is to go and make disciples.  We are all charged with a portion of that mandate, according to our state in life.  The entire Body of Christ becomes, through our Baptism into Christ, a part of that magisterial charge, or the magisterium.

That is the bed rock of any further distinctions such as the ordinary magisterium, the college of bishops, local synods,  the papacy, the Church...and other designations, including curial offices and other organizational locations where the truths of the faith are protected and promulgated.

M.

To use a sports analogy, you can't go to your ballpark without buying a program to identify the players.  Wink

Always helps to read the roster.  laugh
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,118



« Reply #161 on: June 10, 2011, 09:28:46 AM »


Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

No guarantees here.  Some assurances to the best of one's ability.  But there's much too much emphasis on this as some sort of hard and fast guarantee of something.  Quoting them is actually rather pompous.

M.

Including the Imprimatur is evidence that a member of the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church certifies that the book or article is free from doctrinal error.   That is a not unimportant guarantee.

You're right in saying that it is not unimportant; but it certainly doesn't give the Catholic Encyclopedia the kind of superstar status that is has in the eyes of many -- see for example oce.catholic.com
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #162 on: June 10, 2011, 09:37:02 AM »


Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

No guarantees here.  Some assurances to the best of one's ability.  But there's much too much emphasis on this as some sort of hard and fast guarantee of something.  Quoting them is actually rather pompous.

M.

Including the Imprimatur is evidence that a member of the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church certifies that the book or article is free from doctrinal error.   That is a not unimportant guarantee.

You're right in saying that it is not unimportant; but it certainly doesn't give the Catholic Encyclopedia the kind of superstar status that is has in the eyes of many -- see for example oce.catholic.com

This is something of a side-bar here so I don't know if we should stretch it out much further, but you are right here, and I don't mean to diminish the fact that there are ways of noting that a text has been examined by someone with teaching authority and has not been found terribly wanting.  But the idea that it can hold up with any error at all to historical, theological, or doctrinal scrutiny is just not reasonable.  Also these are texts bound by time, and not to be confused as even a rough equivalent of the timeless Truths of Revelation.

M.
Logged

MLPB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 68


« Reply #163 on: June 10, 2011, 09:53:24 AM »

Am I correct that under Canon Law the legal legitimacy of any children born of the voided marriage is not called into question?
Yes, that's right. According to this Orwellian logic, there was no marriage but the children are legitimate!
I had thought the rationale for this was pretty straightforward: The church decision has no civil law implications today in most if not all countries.  You still need a civil law divorce; if you get a civil law divorce, the children are not declared illegitimate.  Legitimacy is a civil law decision.  Hence, the church court decision has no effect on legitimacy.  At the time of Henry VIII, the church courts deci3d issues and had civil law implications - hence at that time an annulment (divorce as such was not allowed) affected legitimacy.  At least that's how it was explained to me, and it makes sense. 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #164 on: June 10, 2011, 10:02:31 AM »


Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

No guarantees here.  Some assurances to the best of one's ability.  But there's much too much emphasis on this as some sort of hard and fast guarantee of something.  Quoting them is actually rather pompous.
I understand you problems with actually naming authorities, citation, etc.  It's much more fun when one can make up statements out of one's imagination and have them accepted at face value.  But I prefer to deal with the fact of the matter, and issuing imprematurs wasn't above the good cardinal's pay grade.  If an outsider can respect his authority, it is rather odd that someone in submission to the Vatican cannot.

You belong to a hierarchal ecclesiastical community, and I belong to a hiearchal Church.  Both claim authority, but yours has arrogated its authority to something it calls "the magisterium," of which the good cardinal was/is a member (the diachronological problems the magisterium has with its teaching is not my problem), and you are not.  His "+" bears the guarentee of the "magisterium's" approval.  Claiming such authority for a post on a internet forum is rather pompous.

So I'll go with those whom your ecclesiastical community has vested as speaking for it.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #165 on: June 10, 2011, 10:09:54 AM »

Christ is ascended!
[
You want to deal with reality or some nice tidy image you have in your mind that you can interact with from both sides of the dialogue?


Speaking of reality............ How does the Magisterium operate?  Does it issue statements to guide the faithful on matters?

I think it could be just a fantasy.  I have never actually seen anything like a "Magisterium" issue statements.   I think there is just the Pope and he makes all the decisions.

This is nice mockery, Father.  Why would I continue a discussion on these grounds?

I hate to weigh in with common sense when the rhetoric starts piling up, but we Orthodox like to emphasize the notion of the Roman Church being some sort of monolithic machine, operated by the Pope, with all of its parts dancing to the same tune in unison, and the Pope sitting in Rome having the ability to push a trap door button at any time on any one. That is as simplistic a representation as is the common mythology about Orthodoxy that many Roman Catholics like to spread, which is that we are an always unruly, undisicplined mish mash of conflicting policies and inconsistent theological applications.

I have observed over the years that an Imprimatur in a Catholic publication is no greater a guarantee of the orthodoxy (small 'o') of the book's teaching in relation to the greater Catholic tradition than the writing forward to a book (or even its authorship) by an Orthodox Bishop or Hegumen is a guarantee of the Orthodoxy (Big 'O') of its content.

Such makes the book quotable as a source, but it hardly makes it authoritative.

I suppose this makes the three of you right on this one, in a sense. (Now that strikes me as an 'Orthodox' answer - you all are sort of correct.....maybe..... Wink  )
You would be completely correct, were it not that the Vatican claims monolith status, particulary when it makes statements that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church is "not really a Church."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #166 on: June 10, 2011, 10:22:50 AM »


Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

No guarantees here.  Some assurances to the best of one's ability.  But there's much too much emphasis on this as some sort of hard and fast guarantee of something.  Quoting them is actually rather pompous.
I understand you problems with actually naming authorities, citation, etc.  It's much more fun when one can make up statements out of one's imagination and have them accepted at face value.  But I prefer to deal with the fact of the matter, and issuing imprematurs wasn't above the good cardinal's pay grade.  If an outsider can respect his authority, it is rather odd that someone in submission to the Vatican cannot.

You belong to a hierarchal ecclesiastical community, and I belong to a hiearchal Church.  Both claim authority, but yours has arrogated its authority to something it calls "the magisterium," of which the good cardinal was/is a member (the diachronological problems the magisterium has with its teaching is not my problem), and you are not.  His "+" bears the guarentee of the "magisterium's" approval.  Claiming such authority for a post on a internet forum is rather pompous.

So I'll go with those whom your ecclesiastical community has vested as speaking for it.



Perhaps analogous to the 'Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval'? or a Better Business Bureau membership sticker on a garage's Yellow Page ad?  They were there, but did anyone really think that they meant anything substantive in terms of the quality of the product or the business?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #167 on: June 10, 2011, 10:49:05 AM »

Christ is ascended!

Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

No guarantees here.  Some assurances to the best of one's ability.  But there's much too much emphasis on this as some sort of hard and fast guarantee of something.  Quoting them is actually rather pompous.
I understand you problems with actually naming authorities, citation, etc.  It's much more fun when one can make up statements out of one's imagination and have them accepted at face value.  But I prefer to deal with the fact of the matter, and issuing imprematurs wasn't above the good cardinal's pay grade.  If an outsider can respect his authority, it is rather odd that someone in submission to the Vatican cannot.

You belong to a hierarchal ecclesiastical community, and I belong to a hiearchal Church.  Both claim authority, but yours has arrogated its authority to something it calls "the magisterium," of which the good cardinal was/is a member (the diachronological problems the magisterium has with its teaching is not my problem), and you are not.  His "+" bears the guarentee of the "magisterium's" approval.  Claiming such authority for a post on a internet forum is rather pompous.

So I'll go with those whom your ecclesiastical community has vested as speaking for it.



Perhaps analogous to the 'Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval'? or a Better Business Bureau membership sticker on a garage's Yellow Page ad?  They were there, but did anyone really think that they meant anything substantive in terms of the quality of the product or the business?
More like the state licensing authority, or the FDA seal, given the Vatican's idea of authority.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2011, 10:49:35 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,118



« Reply #168 on: June 10, 2011, 10:49:47 AM »

Christ is ascended!
[
You want to deal with reality or some nice tidy image you have in your mind that you can interact with from both sides of the dialogue?


Speaking of reality............ How does the Magisterium operate?  Does it issue statements to guide the faithful on matters?

I think it could be just a fantasy.  I have never actually seen anything like a "Magisterium" issue statements.   I think there is just the Pope and he makes all the decisions.

This is nice mockery, Father.  Why would I continue a discussion on these grounds?

I hate to weigh in with common sense