OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 22, 2014, 08:16:58 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 13882 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 8,414


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: 8,414


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: 37,659



« 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: 37,659



« 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: 37,659



« 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: 8,414


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: 37,659



« 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: 8,414


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: 8,414


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: 6,123



« 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: 37,659



« 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: 37,659



« 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: 8,414


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: 37,659



« 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: 6,123



« 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 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."

Correction ... not really the Church.

And how is that different from what you guys say about us?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #169 on: June 10, 2011, 10:53:53 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.
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.

My experience on this forum indicates that when an imprimatur is cited, it is almost always in reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Coincidence?
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: 37,659



« Reply #170 on: June 10, 2011, 11:17:23 AM »

Christ is ascended!
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."

Correction ... not really the Church.
A correction would be "really the Church."

As to the mistake that we are not really a Church.

Quote
Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, has recently spoken of the difficulties of the Vatican in ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox Church, stating: 'We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist'. He went on to explain his words, saying that the Vatican had expected that the Patriarchate of Constantinople played a similar role in the Orthodox world to that played by the Papacy in the Roman Catholic world. He had realised that it does not. Hence his personal revelation.

Our reply is that the Orthodox Church does really exist, but, it is true, not at all in the Roman Catholic form imagined by the Cardinal. The latter had conceived of the Orthodox Church as a monolithic and basically secular organisation headed by an Eastern Pope, apparently the Patriarch of Constantinople. This statement by a senior Vatican official once more goes to prove how little the Orthodox Church even today is understood in Rome. The very basics of Orthodox ecclesiology, the Orthodox understanding of the Church, and beyond that, the Orthodox teachings on the Holy Trinity and the Holy Spirit, are still novelties to the mind of the Vatican.
http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/cardinal.htm

Quote
18. Is there any sure repository of holy tradition?

All true believers united by the holy tradition of the faith, collectively and successively, by the will of God, compose the Church; and she is the sure repository of holy tradition, or, as St. Paul expresses it, The Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 1 Tim. iii. 15.

St. Irenæus writes thus:

We ought not to seek among others the truth, which we may have for asking from the Church; for in her, as in a rich treasure-house, the Apostles have laid up in its fullness all that pertains to the truth, so that whosoever seeketh may receive from her the food of life. She is the door of life. (Adv. Hæres. lib. iii. c. 4.)

256.  How are we assured that the grace of God abides in the true Church?

First, by this: that her Head is Jesus Christ, God and man in one person, full of grace and truth, who fills his body also, that is, the Church, with like grace and truth. John i. 14, 17.

Secondly, by this: that he has promised his disciples the Holy Ghost to abide with them forever, and that, according to this promise, the Holy Ghost appoints the pastors of the Church. John xiv. 16.

The Apostle Paul says of Jesus Christ, that God the Father gave him to be head over all things to the Church, which is his body. Eph. i. 22, 23. The same Apostle says to the pastors of the Church: Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops, to feed the Church of our Lord and God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Acts xx. 28.

257.  How are we further assured that the grace of God abides in the Church even till now, and shall abide in it to the end of the world?

Of this we are assured by the following sayings of Jesus Christ himself and his Apostle: I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matt. xvi. 18. I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matt. xxviii. 20. Unto him, God the Father, be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. Eph. iii. 21.

258.  Why is the Church one?

Because she is one spiritual Body, has one Head, Christ, and is animated by one Spirit of God. There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. Eph. iv. 4-6.

259.  Are we still more expressly assured that Jesus Christ is the one only Head of the one Church?

The Apostle Paul writes, that for the Church, as the building of God, other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 1 Cor. iii. 10, 11. Wherefore the Church, as the Body of Christ, can have no other Head than Jesus Christ.

The Church, being to abide through all generations of time, needs also an ever-abiding head; and such is Jesus Christ alone.

Wherefore, also, the Apostles take no higher title than that of ministers of the Church. Col. i. 24, 25.

260.  What duty does the unity of the Church lay on us?

That of endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph. iv. 3.

261.  How does it agree with the unity of the Church, that there are many separate and independent churches, as those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Russia?

These are particular churches, or parts of the one Catholic Church: the separateness of their visible organization does not hinder them from being all spiritually great members of the one body of the Universal Church, from having one Head, Christ, and one spirit of faith and grace. This unity is expressed outwardly by unity of Creed, and by communion in prayer and Sacraments.

262.  Is there likewise unity between the Church on earth and the Church in heaven?

Doubtless there is, both by their common relation to one Head, our Lord Jesus Christ, and by mutual communion with one another.

263.  What means of communion has the Church on earth with the Church in heaven?

The prayer of faith and love. The faithful who belong to the Church militant upon earth, in offering their prayers to God, call at the same time to their aid the saints who belong to the Church in heaven; and these, standing on the highest steps of approach to God, by their prayers and intercessions purify, strengthen, and offer before God the prayers of the faithful living upon earth, and by the will of God work graciously and beneficently upon them, either by invisible virtue, or by distinct apparitions, and in divers other ways.

264.  On what is grounded the rule of the Church upon earth to invoke in prayer the saints of the Church in heaven?

On a holy tradition, the principle of which is to be seen also in holy Scripture. For instance, when the Prophet David cries out in prayer, O Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel our fathers, he makes mention of saints in aid of his prayer, exactly as now the Orthodox Church calls upon Christ our true God, by the prayers of his most pure Mother and all his saints. See 1 Chron. xxix. 18.

Cyril of Jerusalem, in his explanation of the divine Liturgy, says: We make mention also of those who are before departed, first, of the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs, that by their entreaties and intercession God may receive our prayers. (Cat. Myst. v. c. 9.)

Basil the Great, in his sermon on the day of the Forty Holy Martyrs, says: Whoever is afflicted has recourse to the Forty, and whoever is joyful runs to the same; the one that he may find relief from his sorrows, the other that he may keep his happiness. Here the pious wife is to be seen praying for her children; another asks the return of her absent husband; another the restoration of health to the sick. Yes; let your petitions be with the Martyrs.

265.  Is there any testimony of holy Scripture to the mediatory prayer of the saints in heaven?

The Evangelist John, in the Revelation, saw in heaven an angel, to whom was given much incense, that he should offer it, by the prayers of all saints, upon the golden altar which was before the throne; and the smoke of the incense ascended up by the prayers of the saints out of the hands of the angel before God. Rev. viii. 3, 4.

266.  Is there any testimony of holy Scripture to beneficent apparitions of saints from heaven?

The Evangelist St. Matthew relates that after the death of our Lord Jesus Christ upon the cross, many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves, after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Matt. xxvii. 52, 53. And since a miracle so great could not be without some adequate end, we must suppose that the saints which then arose appeared for this, that they might announce the descent of Jesus Christ into hell, and his triumphal resurrection; and so move men born in the Church of the Old Testament to pass over the more readily into that of the New, then opened.

267.  What testimonies are there to confirm us in the belief that the saints, after their departure, work miracles through certain earthly means?

The second (fourth in the Greek) book of Kings testifies that by touching the bones of the Prophet Elisha a dead man was raised to life. 2 (4) Kings xiii. 21.

The Apostle Paul not only in his own immediate person wrought healings and miracles, but the same was done also in his absence by handkerchiefs and aprons taken from his body. Acts xix. 12. By this example we may understand that the saints, even after their deaths, may in like manner work beneficently through earthly means, which have received from them holy virtue.

Gregory the Divine, in his first discourse against Julian, says: Thou wast not abashed by the sacrifices offered for Christ, nor didst fear the great athletes, John, Peter, Paul, James, Stephen, Luke, Andrew, Thecla, and the rest, who before and after these suffered for the truth; who withstood both fire and sword, the torturers, and all sufferings present or threatened, as if their bodies were not their own, or they had had no bodies at all. For what? That they might not, so much as by a word, betray their religion. To whom also great honors and triumphs are with just reason awarded: by whom devils are expelled and diseases healed: who appear in visions, and prophecy: whose very bodies, though separate, when touched or reverenced, have like power with their holy souls; and drops of whose blood, those least tokens of their suffering, like power with their bodies.

John Damascene writes thus: The relics of the saints have been given us by our Lord Jesus Christ as salutary springs, from which manifold blessings flow. And as if in explanation of this, he remarks, that through the mind their bodies also were inhabited of God. (Theol. lib. iv. cap. 15, 3, 4.)

270.  Why is the Church called Catholic, or, which is the same thing, Universal?

Because she is not limited to any place, nor time, nor people, but contains true believers of all places, times, and peoples.

The Apostle Paul says that the Word of the Gospel is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit (Coloss. i. 5, 6), and that in the Christian Church there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. Coloss. iii. 11. They which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham. Gal. iii. 9.

271.  What great privilege has the Catholic Church?

She alone has the sublime promises that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her; that the Lord shall be with her even to the end of the world; that in her shall abide the glory of God in Christ Jesus throughout all generations forever; and consequently that she shall never apostatize from the faith, nor sin against the truth of the faith, or fall into error.

We undoubtingly confess, as sure truth, that the Catholic Church can not sin, nor err, nor utter falsehood in place of truth; for the Holy Ghost, ever working through his faithful ministers the fathers and doctors of the Church, preserves her from all error. (Missive of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 12.)

272.  If the Catholic Church contains all true believers in the world, must we not acknowledge it to be necessary for salvation that every believer should belong to her?

Exactly so. Since Jesus Christ, in the words of St. Paul, is the Head of the Church, and he is the Saviour of the Body, it follows that, to have part in his salvation, we must necessarily be members of his body, that is, of the Catholic Church. Eph. v. 23.

The Apostle Peter writes that baptism saveth us after the figure of the ark of Noah. All who were saved from the general deluge were saved only in the ark; so all who obtain everlasting salvation obtain it only in the one Catholic Church.
http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm
 
And how is that different from what you guys say about us?
We admit that you are one ecclesiastical community.  Indeed, now with the sui juris propaganda, perhaps we admit it more than the Vatican does.
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: 37,659



« Reply #171 on: June 10, 2011, 11:22:27 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.

My experience on this forum indicates that when an imprimatur is cited, it is almost always in reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Coincidence?
Not really.  It's covenient (as opposed to google books, which can't be copied and pasted often).  "Catholic Answers" and articles on the Vatican website are equally easy and are equally cited.  Do papal bulls and such have imprematurs?  I've never seen one, but if I did, I'd cite it with the text. Ditto the CCC, which we get all sorts of arguments over its status.
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: 6,123



« Reply #172 on: June 10, 2011, 11:52:12 AM »

Well, although I don't know the precise number of imprimaturs that have been issued, I'm sure it is a huge number. Hence, the frequency with which the Catholic Encyclopedia is cited on this forum is suspiciously disproportionate.
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: 37,659



« Reply #173 on: June 10, 2011, 12:53:04 PM »

Christ is ascended!
Well, although I don't know the precise number of imprimaturs that have been issued, I'm sure it is a huge number. Hence, the frequency with which the Catholic Encyclopedia is cited on this forum is suspiciously disproportionate.
LOL. Why? You think it is an Orthodox plot?  Ever read any of its articles on Orthodoxy?
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: 8,414


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #174 on: June 10, 2011, 12:53:15 PM »

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.

In terms of real meaning or the ideas of the offering party?
« Last Edit: June 10, 2011, 12:55:35 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: 37,659



« Reply #175 on: June 10, 2011, 12:54:50 PM »

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.

In terms of real meaning or the ideas of the offerning party?
What's offerning?
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: 8,414


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #176 on: June 10, 2011, 12:55:16 PM »

Re: My reply @ 156. I rest my case.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,414


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #177 on: June 10, 2011, 12:56:09 PM »

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.

In terms of real meaning or the ideas of the offerning party?
What's offerning?

poor proofing...  offering party
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: 37,659



« Reply #178 on: June 10, 2011, 01:11:09 PM »

Christ is ascended!
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.

In terms of real meaning or the ideas of the offerning party?
What's offerning?

poor proofing...  offering party

Well, Mary often insists that, since we are not in submission to the Vatican (or, as it phrases it, "in full communion with the see of St. Peter"), we have nothing to offer, yet we offer her (and others) what the agents of their "magisterium" stamp as real, I guess in terms of both.

If I had the time or mind, I could dredge up medieval documents etc. that show divorces occuring, and then around the 12th century annullments being all the rage, and offer those. However, as we are dealing with an authority which holds itself judgeable by no one, such proof can be easily dismissed as not bearing the magisterium's seal of approval, although such documents often have clerics as signatories.
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: 8,414


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #179 on: June 10, 2011, 01:26:28 PM »

Christ is ascended!
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.

In terms of real meaning or the ideas of the offerning party?
What's offerning?

poor proofing...  offering party

Well, Mary often insists that, since we are not in submission to the Vatican (or, as it phrases it, "in full communion with the see of St. Peter"), we have nothing to offer, yet we offer her (and others) what the agents of their "magisterium" stamp as real, I guess in terms of both.

If I had the time or mind, I could dredge up medieval documents etc. that show divorces occuring, and then around the 12th century annullments being all the rage, and offer those. However, as we are dealing with an authority which holds itself judgeable by no one, such proof can be easily dismissed as not bearing the magisterium's seal of approval, although such documents often have clerics as signatories.

That is indeed the problem when one's system of theology requires one to find a logical proof or a rule to explain every vagary of human existence. (A general observation directed at Roman Catholic apologists, not at any one person or persons in particular!)

A good example of this is the reality that Archbishop Ireland no doubt, in good faith, believed in his heart of hearts that priestly celibacy was part of the magesterium of the Church. Hence, when confronted with Father Alexis Toth, he could not comprehend how to deal with him and his status as a widowed, married Catholic priest in good standing with the Holy See. That unraveled a relatively small house of cards in the big picture of Rome, but as the twentieth century progressed the same thinking process led to the type of individualistic chaos that the traditionalists in that communion so despise. Thus since divorce was contrary to the magesterium, then the only way to accommodate the reality of civilly divorced Catholics was to redefine anullment and essentially decree that there shall be no more cows, henceforth they are all to be called birds.

When words cease to have meaning, Orwell's pessimistic vision is realized.  
« Last Edit: June 10, 2011, 01:34:19 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.235 seconds with 72 queries.