The Myth of Schism

[synLeszka]

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

Americans have a greater tolerance for divorce than practising Catholics in Europe. The thing is that divorce in my legal system entails the dissolution of marriage but not always the division and exmission of the divorced partners of marriage. On the other hand, in the past up to 1945 in Poland, the separation of table and bed, as foreseen in Catholic Canon Law, entailed a greater economic separation and division of property but the bond of marriage was upheld. The fact is that even in Europe, in our continental system the definition of marriage, annulment and the dissolution of marriage differs in each national legal system, because of the juridical tradition.
It seems to me that the fact, that the canon law's higher instances are Italian is the reason for this annulment drive. As a test case, Poland and Italy have identical anti-abortion laws yet(!) Poland under this regime has c.500 legal abortions yearly, while Italy has 25.000. Poland has about 36 million people, Italy 60 million. Although, the number of sexual assaulted females in Italy is 0,6% of the population while 0,2% in Poland.

[podkarpatska]

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

Americans have a greater tolerance for divorce than practising Catholics in Europe. The thing is that divorce in my legal system entails the dissolution of marriage but not always the division and exmission of the divorced partners of marriage. On the other hand, in the past up to 1945 in Poland, the separation of table and bed, as foreseen in Catholic Canon Law, entailed a greater economic separation and division of property but the bond of marriage was upheld. The fact is that even in Europe, in our continental system the definition of marriage, annulment and the dissolution of marriage differs in each national legal system, because of the juridical tradition.
It seems to me that the fact, that the canon law's higher instances are Italian is the reason for this annulment drive. As a test case, Poland and Italy have identical anti-abortion laws yet(!) Poland under this regime has c.500 legal abortions yearly, while Italy has 25.000. Poland has about 36 million people, Italy 60 million. Although, the number of sexual assaulted females in Italy is 0,6% of the population while 0,2% in Poland.

It's interesting. I am old enough to remember when a divorce of one of the candidates for a major political party's Presidential nomination was one of the factors which was held against him in 1964.

Twelve years later, in 1976, and in 1980 when he was finally elected, Ronald Reagan's divorce was a non-issue. Things in America changed dramatically in that short period.

[synLeszka]

It's interesting. I am old enough to remember when a divorce of one of the candidates for a major political party's Presidential nomination was one of the factors which was held against him in 1964.

Twelve years later, in 1976, and in 1980 when he was finally elected, Ronald Reagan's divorce was a non-issue. Things in America changed dramatically in that short period.

Hmm, I once read a brochure from the 1930's written by a Jesuit that berated the United States for immorality and the promotion of divorce.

[ialmisry]

Christ is ascended!

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

Americans have a greater tolerance for divorce than practising Catholics in Europe. The thing is that divorce in my legal system entails the dissolution of marriage but not always the division and exmission of the divorced partners of marriage. On the other hand, in the past up to 1945 in Poland, the separation of table and bed, as foreseen in Catholic Canon Law, entailed a greater economic separation and division of property but the bond of marriage was upheld. The fact is that even in Europe, in our continental system the definition of marriage, annulment and the dissolution of marriage differs in each national legal system, because of the juridical tradition.
It seems to me that the fact, that the canon law's higher instances are Italian is the reason for this annulment drive. As a test case, Poland and Italy have identical anti-abortion laws yet(!) Poland under this regime has c.500 legal abortions yearly, while Italy has 25.000. Poland has about 36 million people, Italy 60 million. Although, the number of sexual assaulted females in Italy is 0,6% of the population while 0,2% in Poland.

It's interesting. I am old enough to remember when a divorce of one of the candidates for a major political party's Presidential nomination was one of the factors which was held against him in 1964.

Twelve years later, in 1976, and in 1980 when he was finally elected, Ronald Reagan's divorce was a non-issue. Things in America changed dramatically in that short period.

Actually, we have the present occupant because of divorce: both in the democrat primary and the general elections, Hussain's opponents were done in when their divorce records were publicized.  During the last Republic primary, the comment was made that the Mormon (Romney) was the only one with one wife, and McCain's divorce came up in the general election.

It helped that by 1976 Reagan and Nancy had been married forever, and so publicly (the GE Family theatre or some such thing), and the fact that all of Ms. Wyman's marriages before and after Ronnie didn't add up to the amount of time she remained married to him.

[ialmisry]

Christ is ascended!

It's interesting. I am old enough to remember when a divorce of one of the candidates for a major political party's Presidential nomination was one of the factors which was held against him in 1964.

Twelve years later, in 1976, and in 1980 when he was finally elected, Ronald Reagan's divorce was a non-issue. Things in America changed dramatically in that short period.

Hmm, I once read a brochure from the 1930's written by a Jesuit that berated the United States for immorality and the promotion of divorce.

maybe he didn't like the Duchess of Windsor

[synLeszka]

Christ is ascended!

It's interesting. I am old enough to remember when a divorce of one of the candidates for a major political party's Presidential nomination was one of the factors which was held against him in 1964.

Twelve years later, in 1976, and in 1980 when he was finally elected, Ronald Reagan's divorce was a non-issue. Things in America changed dramatically in that short period.

Hmm, I once read a brochure from the 1930's written by a Jesuit that berated the United States for immorality and the promotion of divorce.

maybe he didn't like the Duchess of Windsor

Before the War, Jesuits seemed to not like the British. I once read a tract in an old-book store, by a French Jesuit from the 20th century, in which he called for Catholics to pray against the imminent Russian-English Orthodox-Anglican world empire, which with the laicite France, would destroy Catholicism. Somehow, Catholicism is.

[elijahmaria]

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.

Either your reading comprehension is lacking something or you simply do not read what I write, but you could not be more off base with your comment here.

M.

[Papist]

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.

Either your reading comprehension is lacking something or you simply do not read what I write, but you could not be more off base with your comment here.

M.

I think Izzy is purposely misrepresenting your views.

[ialmisry]

Christ is ascended!

It's interesting. I am old enough to remember when a divorce of one of the candidates for a major political party's Presidential nomination was one of the factors which was held against him in 1964.

Twelve years later, in 1976, and in 1980 when he was finally elected, Ronald Reagan's divorce was a non-issue. Things in America changed dramatically in that short period.

Hmm, I once read a brochure from the 1930's written by a Jesuit that berated the United States for immorality and the promotion of divorce.

maybe he didn't like the Duchess of Windsor

Before the War, Jesuits seemed to not like the British. I once read a tract in an old-book store, by a French Jesuit from the 20th century, in which he called for Catholics to pray against the imminent Russian-English Orthodox-Anglican world empire, which with the laicite France, would destroy Catholicism. Somehow, Catholicism is.

Somehow Catholicism is what?

[Peter J]

Christ is ascended!

It's interesting. I am old enough to remember when a divorce of one of the candidates for a major political party's Presidential nomination was one of the factors which was held against him in 1964.

Twelve years later, in 1976, and in 1980 when he was finally elected, Ronald Reagan's divorce was a non-issue. Things in America changed dramatically in that short period.

Hmm, I once read a brochure from the 1930's written by a Jesuit that berated the United States for immorality and the promotion of divorce.

maybe he didn't like the Duchess of Windsor

Before the War, Jesuits seemed to not like the British. I once read a tract in an old-book store, by a French Jesuit from the 20th century, in which he called for Catholics to pray against the imminent Russian-English Orthodox-Anglican world empire, which with the laicite France, would destroy Catholicism. Somehow, Catholicism is.

Somehow Catholicism is what?

I think he means, continues to exist.

[ialmisry]

Christ is ascended!

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.

Either your reading comprehension is lacking something or you simply do not read what I write, but you could not be more off base with your comment here.

I read what you writ quite fine, which is what infuriates you so (only on occasion is your posts incomprehensible and indecipherable, in which case I ask for clarification).  And I am spot on. 

I'm sure the Vatican wouldn't want me to speak to their catechumens, but that's not a bar to stating what the Vatican believes-even when that is contradictory-by using its own words. I'm not seeking the Vatican's imprematur, and since even if your supreme pontiff spoke to me personally ex cathedra would mean nothing to me, its imprematur means nothing as to its veracity, just to its authority to represent your "magisterium."

[ialmisry]

Christ is ascended!

It's interesting. I am old enough to remember when a divorce of one of the candidates for a major political party's Presidential nomination was one of the factors which was held against him in 1964.

Twelve years later, in 1976, and in 1980 when he was finally elected, Ronald Reagan's divorce was a non-issue. Things in America changed dramatically in that short period.

Hmm, I once read a brochure from the 1930's written by a Jesuit that berated the United States for immorality and the promotion of divorce.

maybe he didn't like the Duchess of Windsor

Before the War, Jesuits seemed to not like the British. I once read a tract in an old-book store, by a French Jesuit from the 20th century, in which he called for Catholics to pray against the imminent Russian-English Orthodox-Anglican world empire, which with the laicite France, would destroy Catholicism. Somehow, Catholicism is.

Somehow Catholicism is what?

I think he means, continues to exist.

Ah, so the Vatican survived the ravings of some Jesuit. How mighty.

[ialmisry]

Christ is ascended!

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.

Either your reading comprehension is lacking something or you simply do not read what I write, but you could not be more off base with your comment here.

M.

I think Izzy is purposely misrepresenting your views.

Who?

I'm purposely representing her statements.  Whether her statements misrepresent her views only she can tell.

[elijahmaria]

Christ is ascended!

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.

Either your reading comprehension is lacking something or you simply do not read what I write, but you could not be more off base with your comment here.

I read what you writ quite fine, which is what infuriates you so (only on occasion is your posts incomprehensible and indecipherable, in which case I ask for clarification).  And I am spot on. 

I'm sure the Vatican wouldn't want me to speak to their catechumens, but that's not a bar to stating what the Vatican believes-even when that is contradictory-by using its own words. I'm not seeking the Vatican's imprematur, and since even if your supreme pontiff spoke to me personally ex cathedra would mean nothing to me, its imprematur means nothing as to its veracity, just to its authority to represent your "magisterium."

   Not even your own co-religionists will get behind you on this one.   And frankly I could care less what your spot is on...It is not on me   

[Peter J]

Christ is ascended!

It's interesting. I am old enough to remember when a divorce of one of the candidates for a major political party's Presidential nomination was one of the factors which was held against him in 1964.

Twelve years later, in 1976, and in 1980 when he was finally elected, Ronald Reagan's divorce was a non-issue. Things in America changed dramatically in that short period.

Hmm, I once read a brochure from the 1930's written by a Jesuit that berated the United States for immorality and the promotion of divorce.

maybe he didn't like the Duchess of Windsor

Before the War, Jesuits seemed to not like the British. I once read a tract in an old-book store, by a French Jesuit from the 20th century, in which he called for Catholics to pray against the imminent Russian-English Orthodox-Anglican world empire, which with the laicite France, would destroy Catholicism. Somehow, Catholicism is.

Somehow Catholicism is what?

I think he means, continues to exist.

Ah, so the Vatican survived the ravings of some Jesuit. How mighty.

Well, that too I guess. I was thinking of it more like, the ravings about a conspiracy that was going to destroy the Church (including the Vatican of course) didn't come true.

[ialmisry]

Christ is ascended!

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.

Either your reading comprehension is lacking something or you simply do not read what I write, but you could not be more off base with your comment here.

I read what you writ quite fine, which is what infuriates you so (only on occasion is your posts incomprehensible and indecipherable, in which case I ask for clarification).  And I am spot on. 

I'm sure the Vatican wouldn't want me to speak to their catechumens, but that's not a bar to stating what the Vatican believes-even when that is contradictory-by using its own words. I'm not seeking the Vatican's imprematur, and since even if your supreme pontiff spoke to me personally ex cathedra would mean nothing to me, its imprematur means nothing as to its veracity, just to its authority to represent your "magisterium."

   Not even your own co-religionists will get behind you on this one.

oh? you consulted those myriads of unnamed Orthodox experts on this, have you?

And frankly I could care less what your spot is on...It is not on me   

Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.

[Alpo]

The aforementioned John Romanides, for instance, has produced expositions of the thought of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas that are almost miraculously devoid of one single correct statement

 

Thank you for recommendation, Sleeper. Sounds interesting.

[WetCatechumen]

Christ is ascended!

It's interesting. I am old enough to remember when a divorce of one of the candidates for a major political party's Presidential nomination was one of the factors which was held against him in 1964.

Twelve years later, in 1976, and in 1980 when he was finally elected, Ronald Reagan's divorce was a non-issue. Things in America changed dramatically in that short period.

Hmm, I once read a brochure from the 1930's written by a Jesuit that berated the United States for immorality and the promotion of divorce.

maybe he didn't like the Duchess of Windsor

Before the War, Jesuits seemed to not like the British. I once read a tract in an old-book store, by a French Jesuit from the 20th century, in which he called for Catholics to pray against the imminent Russian-English Orthodox-Anglican world empire, which with the laicite France, would destroy Catholicism. Somehow, Catholicism is.

Obviously it worked.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: The Myth of Schism