OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 24, 2014, 04:50:45 PM *
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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Conversation with a Catholic Priest  (Read 6148 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #90 on: June 26, 2011, 03:49:39 AM »

Fr Kung may have been striped of his authority to teach theology, but he seems to still be an RC priest in good standing.  Catholicism is going through a difficult reevaluation of many of her (Once assumed) beliefs and, although it may be taking time the process is still a continuing one.   This has always been the case with the RCC.  Doctrines, dogma's and theological/moral propositions have changed and evolved down through the centuries.  In the past though it occurred at a much slower rate and the laity were mostly too uneducated or uninformed about these to take part (Assuming that they would have been allowed to do so).  Vatican II changed all that.  Now the Vatican has thrown open the windows to the modern world and actually asked the laity to take an active part in the development of the faith.  This is a revolutionary concept in the Roman rite (Which previously held to a more  "pray, pay, and obey" statues for laymen).  Things have got kind of confusing since everything we once thought was "settled" has come under scrutiny and either has been kept in place or discarded (Limbo for instance).

I think this is an exciting time to be a Catholic.  Others obviously do not and are disappointed that things aren't so black and white as they used to be.  Some just want to hide their heads in the sand and shout "heresy" at every idea and innovation which once was considered suspect and might now be approved or, at least not outrightly discouraged by Rome.  Those of us who choose to listen to the Pope  as St Peters successor and the bishops he has put in place to Shepperd us (Whether they be perceived as "good" or "bad") Need not worry about the future.  

I don't have time to point out all the errors of fact and interpretation in this paragraph, so a comment shall have to suffice.

And this is why laity are not involved in "developing [read: altering] the faith". Or groups of priests or bishops for that matter. Or even the Pope himself.

The funny thing about the heresy of Modernism is that it doesn't claim to restore the "true" ancient teaching like the old heresies all claimed. Instead it proclaims a "brave new world" where the apostolic teaching has "evolved" or been "updated" to meet "modern needs". It's remarkable when you think of the massive revolution in the West and in Catholicism in the 20th century that the Modernists may have brought on crisis and catastrophe, but they didn't prevail, and their influence is steadily on the wane in the Catholic Church even as the are triumphant in outside society. This increasing contrast between the culture and the church can only be good for the church, as only the most committed members, those most hungry for real holiness, will remain.
BTW, hasn't the RC teaching on marriage annulments evolved and been updated to meet the modern needs of a cover for Church approved divorce? How else do you explain the fact that in the USA, about 80 years ago, there were about 10 marriage annulments per year, but in some recent years, it has run higher than 50,000 per year in the USA?  

Come on now. You're looking at the practice in one country and claiming that the universal Catholic teaching has been changed? You've got to be kidding me. Roll Eyes

Of course the teaching hasn't changed at all.

How do I explain it? Either abuses at the tribunal level, or people's massive ignorance or rejection of the requirements for a valid Catholic, sacramental marriage. Both may very well be true, and even the Pope said as much in his interview published in book form last fall.

The divorce culture in which we live and the massive failure of catechesis, especially in the United States, have taken their toll. And if there were EVER a time to give up the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, it would be now. But it hasn't been and won't.
For the Catholic Church to tell someone after twenty years of marriage, and four children,  that they really were not married at all, because at the time of the wedding ceremony twenty years ago,  there was some small defect of consent, is really an extremely serious change in Catholic teaching.  The annulment fiasco is basically a coverup to hide the fact that the Catholic Church in the USA is handing out  Church approved divorces.  Consider this: There never would have been any question of the marriage being invalid if the husband had not gained a few extra pounds of weight (basically due to the wife’s cooking anyway) and the wife had not found herself a new slimmer and younger boyfriend who was able to satisfy her insatiable and lustful appetite for sex.  So the whole annulment fiasco is one big charade to cover the fact that the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on the acceptability of divorce.  The teaching on what are the valid grounds for annulling a marriage has changed severely. Eighty years ago, marriage annulments were allowed when it was found and proven  that the other partner had been previously married or in the case of  a medically substantiated claim of total male impotence. And basically, that was it. Today, almost any Catholic can get  a marriage annulment for the most trivial of reasons. You can always find some small difficulty in any marriage and blow it up way out of proportion so that in the end,  the Catholic marriage tribunal will find for the annulment.
And BTW, when a marriage annulment is granted, it is recognised throughout the entire Catholic world, and its validity is not restricted to the USA or the locality in which it was granted.

Since I'm a big fan of the Orthodox concept of economia, I have no problem with this.  Jesus told Peter and his successors that whatever they bind on Earth would be bound in Heaven whatever they loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.  This would include, I assume things like annulments and divorce (Which was accepted by the entire Christian world in the first millennium).  It was only when the RCC tried to muscle in on marriage in the 11Th century (Which had previously been  civil affair) That the whole idea of the indissolubility of marriage came into play.  The Orthodox rightly preserve the idea that divorce is permittable under certain circumstances while the RCC went another route and ended up causing a lot of people misery in unhappy marriages over the centuries.  

Also, if we can't even trust the RCC to grant valid annulments, then who can we trust?  This whole concept of the Catholic Faith xisting as some type of philosophy which the Church just interprets and can get wrong sounds way to Protestant to me.  Its the Vatican which is not just the interpreter of the faith, but is the voice of the faith.  If they mess up then that means the Church was never true in the first place because the RCC can neither deceive or be deceived.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 03:50:37 AM by Robb » Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #91 on: June 26, 2011, 03:59:18 AM »

Fr Kung may have been striped of his authority to teach theology, but he seems to still be an RC priest in good standing.  Catholicism is going through a difficult reevaluation of many of her (Once assumed) beliefs and, although it may be taking time the process is still a continuing one.   This has always been the case with the RCC.  Doctrines, dogma's and theological/moral propositions have changed and evolved down through the centuries.  In the past though it occurred at a much slower rate and the laity were mostly too uneducated or uninformed about these to take part (Assuming that they would have been allowed to do so).  Vatican II changed all that.  Now the Vatican has thrown open the windows to the modern world and actually asked the laity to take an active part in the development of the faith.  This is a revolutionary concept in the Roman rite (Which previously held to a more  "pray, pay, and obey" statues for laymen).  Things have got kind of confusing since everything we once thought was "settled" has come under scrutiny and either has been kept in place or discarded (Limbo for instance).

I think this is an exciting time to be a Catholic.  Others obviously do not and are disappointed that things aren't so black and white as they used to be.  Some just want to hide their heads in the sand and shout "heresy" at every idea and innovation which once was considered suspect and might now be approved or, at least not outrightly discouraged by Rome.  Those of us who choose to listen to the Pope  as St Peters successor and the bishops he has put in place to Shepperd us (Whether they be perceived as "good" or "bad") Need not worry about the future.  

I don't have time to point out all the errors of fact and interpretation in this paragraph, so a comment shall have to suffice.

And this is why laity are not involved in "developing [read: altering] the faith". Or groups of priests or bishops for that matter. Or even the Pope himself.

The funny thing about the heresy of Modernism is that it doesn't claim to restore the "true" ancient teaching like the old heresies all claimed. Instead it proclaims a "brave new world" where the apostolic teaching has "evolved" or been "updated" to meet "modern needs". It's remarkable when you think of the massive revolution in the West and in Catholicism in the 20th century that the Modernists may have brought on crisis and catastrophe, but they didn't prevail, and their influence is steadily on the wane in the Catholic Church even as the are triumphant in outside society. This increasing contrast between the culture and the church can only be good for the church, as only the most committed members, those most hungry for real holiness, will remain.
BTW, hasn't the RC teaching on marriage annulments evolved and been updated to meet the modern needs of a cover for Church approved divorce? How else do you explain the fact that in the USA, about 80 years ago, there were about 10 marriage annulments per year, but in some recent years, it has run higher than 50,000 per year in the USA?  

Come on now. You're looking at the practice in one country and claiming that the universal Catholic teaching has been changed? You've got to be kidding me. Roll Eyes

Of course the teaching hasn't changed at all.

How do I explain it? Either abuses at the tribunal level, or people's massive ignorance or rejection of the requirements for a valid Catholic, sacramental marriage. Both may very well be true, and even the Pope said as much in his interview published in book form last fall.

The divorce culture in which we live and the massive failure of catechesis, especially in the United States, have taken their toll. And if there were EVER a time to give up the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, it would be now. But it hasn't been and won't.
For the Catholic Church to tell someone after twenty years of marriage, and four children,  that they really were not married at all, because at the time of the wedding ceremony twenty years ago,  there was some small defect of consent, is really an extremely serious change in Catholic teaching.  The annulment fiasco is basically a coverup to hide the fact that the Catholic Church in the USA is handing out  Church approved divorces.  Consider this: There never would have been any question of the marriage being invalid if the husband had not gained a few extra pounds of weight (basically due to the wife’s cooking anyway) and the wife had not found herself a new slimmer and younger boyfriend who was able to satisfy her insatiable and lustful appetite for sex.  So the whole annulment fiasco is one big charade to cover the fact that the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on the acceptability of divorce.  The teaching on what are the valid grounds for annulling a marriage has changed severely. Eighty years ago, marriage annulments were allowed when it was found and proven  that the other partner had been previously married or in the case of  a medically substantiated claim of total male impotence. And basically, that was it. Today, almost any Catholic can get  a marriage annulment for the most trivial of reasons. You can always find some small difficulty in any marriage and blow it up way out of proportion so that in the end,  the Catholic marriage tribunal will find for the annulment.
And BTW, when a marriage annulment is granted, it is recognised throughout the entire Catholic world, and its validity is not restricted to the USA or the locality in which it was granted.

Since I'm a big fan of the Orthodox concept of economia, I have no problem with this.  Jesus told Peter and his successors that whatever they bind on Earth would be bound in Heaven whatever they loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.  This would include, I assume things like annulments and divorce (Which was accepted by the entire Christian world in the first millennium).  It was only when the RCC tried to muscle in on marriage in the 11Th century (Which had previously been  civil affair) That the whole idea of the indissolubility of marriage came into play.  The Orthodox rightly preserve the idea that divorce is permittable under certain circumstances while the RCC went another route and ended up causing a lot of people misery in unhappy marriages over the centuries.  

Also, if we can't even trust the RCC to grant valid annulments, then who can we trust?  This whole concept of the Catholic Faith xisting as some type of philosophy which the Church just interprets and can get wrong sounds way to Protestant to me.  Its the Vatican which is not just the interpreter of the faith, but is the voice of the faith.  If they mess up then that means the Church was never true in the first place because the RCC can neither deceive or be deceived.
Does the Catholic Church have the authority to bind and loose even when she makes bad pastoral and administrative decisions?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #92 on: June 26, 2011, 09:07:15 AM »

Fr Kung may have been striped of his authority to teach theology, but he seems to still be an RC priest in good standing.  Catholicism is going through a difficult reevaluation of many of her (Once assumed) beliefs and, although it may be taking time the process is still a continuing one.   This has always been the case with the RCC.  Doctrines, dogma's and theological/moral propositions have changed and evolved down through the centuries.  In the past though it occurred at a much slower rate and the laity were mostly too uneducated or uninformed about these to take part (Assuming that they would have been allowed to do so).  Vatican II changed all that.  Now the Vatican has thrown open the windows to the modern world and actually asked the laity to take an active part in the development of the faith.  This is a revolutionary concept in the Roman rite (Which previously held to a more  "pray, pay, and obey" statues for laymen).  Things have got kind of confusing since everything we once thought was "settled" has come under scrutiny and either has been kept in place or discarded (Limbo for instance).

I think this is an exciting time to be a Catholic.  Others obviously do not and are disappointed that things aren't so black and white as they used to be.  Some just want to hide their heads in the sand and shout "heresy" at every idea and innovation which once was considered suspect and might now be approved or, at least not outrightly discouraged by Rome.  Those of us who choose to listen to the Pope  as St Peters successor and the bishops he has put in place to Shepperd us (Whether they be perceived as "good" or "bad") Need not worry about the future. 

I see you take a rather dim view of traditional Catholics. I can somewhat relate, because I did too, once upon a time.

But that's not what I want to get into at the moment. Rather, I'd like to take this opportunity to tell you something about your neo-conservative buddies: one of their all-time favorite arguments to use against traditional Catholics is If we were to let you have your say, we would have to also let people like Hans Kung have their say.

Something to think about, wouldn't you say?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #93 on: June 26, 2011, 10:51:55 AM »

This annulment situation, the reconcilling of those who were outside the Church through her powers of economia is just such a great thing.  Yet the traditionalist would seem to have us stop this process and declare all post Vatican II annulments invalid.  I don't think that would go over too well with many people (My family included).

So you think declarations of nullity are just Catholic divorce? Well, there we are. You are dissenting from perennial Catholic teaching.
 
The tribunals granting these declarations of nullity are not saying, "Oh, well, I know your last marriage was really difficult, and we want to help you get a fresh start. We'll take care of it for you." They are saying, "For this or that reason, your last union was not a validly contracted marriage. It was void." Thus the teaching has not changed. There are certainly a lot more granted in the United States than there used to be. But like the Pope said, perhaps so many people over the last generation or two are not formed/prepared for the sacrament of marriage. Perhaps some of these tribunals have your heterodox views on marriage and are paying lip service to the teaching while circumventing it. That's bad, and those people will be accountable to God for it, but it doesn't change the teaching.

Lots of things don't go over too well with many people. Let's allow birth control too, how about abortion? Oh, and premarital sex and homosex, too.  After all, these teachings are too haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaard!  
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 10:53:27 AM by lubeltri » Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #94 on: June 26, 2011, 11:01:41 AM »


Since I'm a big fan of the Orthodox concept of economia, I have no problem with this.  Jesus told Peter and his successors that whatever they bind on Earth would be bound in Heaven whatever they loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.  This would include, I assume things like annulments and divorce (Which was accepted by the entire Christian world in the first millennium).  It was only when the RCC tried to muscle in on marriage in the 11Th century (Which had previously been  civil affair) That the whole idea of the indissolubility of marriage came into play.  The Orthodox rightly preserve the idea that divorce is permittable under certain circumstances while the RCC went another route and ended up causing a lot of people misery in unhappy marriages over the centuries.  

Also, if we can't even trust the RCC to grant valid annulments, then who can we trust?  This whole concept of the Catholic Faith xisting as some type of philosophy which the Church just interprets and can get wrong sounds way to Protestant to me.  Its the Vatican which is not just the interpreter of the faith, but is the voice of the faith.  If they mess up then that means the Church was never true in the first place because the RCC can neither deceive or be deceived.

Then I guess the Catholic Church isn't true since, as you say in the first paragraph, it got its teaching on Christian marriage wrong!



Or maybe you're like Sr. Joan, and you believe in a fallible, man-made Church whose teachings can be changed at will by the whim of the Pope (as you've stated before) or by the "laity" (as you've stated before; I guess through voting on doctrine, or perhaps by way of polling results?).
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: 37,963



« Reply #95 on: June 26, 2011, 11:14:21 AM »

This annulment situation, the reconcilling of those who were outside the Church through her powers of economia is just such a great thing.  Yet the traditionalist would seem to have us stop this process and declare all post Vatican II annulments invalid.  I don't think that would go over too well with many people (My family included).

So you think declarations of nullity are just Catholic divorce? Well, there we are. You are dissenting from perennial Catholic teaching.
 
The tribunals granting these declarations of nullity are not saying, "Oh, well, I know your last marriage was really difficult, and we want to help you get a fresh start. We'll take care of it for you." They are saying, "For this or that reason, your last union was not a validly contracted marriage. It was void." Thus the teaching has not changed. There are certainly a lot more granted in the United States than there used to be. But like the Pope said, perhaps so many people over the last generation or two are not formed/prepared for the sacrament of marriage. Perhaps some of these tribunals have your heterodox views on marriage and are paying lip service to the teaching while circumventing it. That's bad, and those people will be accountable to God for it, but it doesn't change the teaching.

Lots of things don't go over too well with many people. Let's allow birth control too, how about abortion? Oh, and premarital sex and homosex, too.  After all, these teachings are too haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaard!  
Evidently for the Vatican, staying away from the Corban is way too haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaard!

Any evidence of the Corban factories a/k/a marriage tribunals operating before 1054?

Btw, I recall something about all marriages being presumed valid unless proved otherwise, and even those annulled the children are not illegitimate (nice trick). but I just came across some canon passed in the Vatican drive to stamp out clerical marriage, in which it declared all such marriages void, and even went as so far to declare the children vassals of the church and forbidding them to live with their parents, especially their father.

Btw, yes, illegitimacy is an ecclesiastlical matter: at one point the Vatican had a canon banning bastards from ordination.
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
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #96 on: June 26, 2011, 11:17:13 AM »

Robb,

Council of Trent, session 24:

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that the Church has erred, in that she hath taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot contract another marriage, during the life-time of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband; let him be anathema.
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: 37,963



« Reply #97 on: June 26, 2011, 04:30:28 PM »

Robb,

Council of Trent, session 24:

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that the Church has erred, in that she hath taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot contract another marriage, during the life-time of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband; let him be anathema.
Let Trent be anathema.

Some history of anullments put it best "the canonists left it to the theologians to figure out how one instance of sexual intercourse made the marriage alone immune to St. Peter's otherewise absolute power to bind and loose."

I found the exact quote:
Quote
The popes and canonists left it up to theologians to explain how an indissoluble union could be dissolved before consummation and why sexual intercourse produced an indissolubility that was impervious to the power of the keys.
Catholic Divorce: The Deception of Annulments By Pierre Hégy, Joseph Martos
http://books.google.com/books?id=QDsMG2U3IZwC&pg=PA136&dq=theologians+keys+sex+annulment&hl=en&ei=h5cHTpuLHcj40gHXzpjZCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 04:37:31 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #98 on: June 26, 2011, 08:53:50 PM »

I still trust the decisions of the Vatican and the bishops appointed by them on these matters.  If they RCC can error by allowing millions of people to be damned by giving out phony annulments then she has obviously defected from the truth.  These hair brained idea espoused by many traditionalist on the supposed invalidity of annulments sound just as strange as their other ideas about all Novus Ordo masses being invalid because of bad translations, or all priestly ordinations in the new rite being invalid dot to incorrect formula.  The list of traditionalsit paranoia and conspiracy theories regarding the post Vatican II Church is an endless sea of muck.

I don't take such a legalistic view of things.  I can't fathom that God would be so cruel as allow his Church to error about such important issues and thus damn millions of people to Hell on account of it.  I see the RCC as being Gods voice on Earth and not just the keepers of some long ago traditions.  This is the reason why I abandoned the trad Catholic movement and embraced the modern Church.  I just couldn't buy into the cold, calculating cruelty that the traditionalist would have me believe was God.  He wouldn't damn people for listening to his Church.
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #99 on: June 26, 2011, 08:53:50 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_marriage#History_of_marriage_in_the_Catholic_Church

History of marriage in the Catholic ChurchConcern about the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God as supported by Jesus and early followers such as Saint Paul, and the need to avoid 'earthly ties', meant inevitably that first-century Christians placed less value on the family but rather saw celibacy (not marrying) and freedom from family ties as a preferable state. Paul had suggested that marriage be used only as a last resort by those Christians that found it too difficult to remain chaste.[2]

Augustine believed that marriage was a sacrament, because it was a symbol used by Paul to express Christ's love of the Church. Despite this, for the Fathers of the Church with their profound hostility to sex, marriage could not be a true and valuable Christian vocation. Jerome wrote: "It is not disparaging wedlock to prefer virginity. No one can make a comparison between two things if one is good and the other evil" (Letter 22). Tertullian argued that marriage "consists essentially in fornication" (An Exhortation to Chastity") Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage said that the first commandment given to men was to increase and multiply, but now that the earth was full there was no need to continue this process of multiplication. Augustine was clear that if everybody stopped marrying and having children that would be an admirable thing; it would mean that the Kingdom of God would return all the sooner and the world would come to an end.

This negative view of marriage was reflected in the lack of interest shown by the Church authorities. Although the Church quickly produced liturgies to celebrate Baptism and the Eucharist, no special ceremonial was devised to celebrate Christian marriage, nor was it considered important for couples to have their nuptials blessed by a priest. People could marry by mutual agreement in the presence of witnesses. This system, known as Spousals, persisted after the Reformation. At first the old Roman pagan rite was used by Christians, although modified superficially. The first detailed account of a Christian wedding in the West dates from the 9th century and was identical to the old nuptial service of Ancient Rome.[3]


Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #100 on: June 26, 2011, 10:52:49 PM »

I still trust the decisions of the Vatican and the bishops appointed by them on these matters.  If they RCC can error by allowing millions of people to be damned by giving out phony annulments then she has obviously defected from the truth.  These hair brained idea espoused by many traditionalist on the supposed invalidity of annulments sound just as strange as their other ideas about all Novus Ordo masses being invalid because of bad translations, or all priestly ordinations in the new rite being invalid dot to incorrect formula.  The list of traditionalsit paranoia and conspiracy theories regarding the post Vatican II Church is an endless sea of muck.

I don't take such a legalistic view of things.  I can't fathom that God would be so cruel as allow his Church to error about such important issues and thus damn millions of people to Hell on account of it.  I see the RCC as being Gods voice on Earth and not just the keepers of some long ago traditions.  This is the reason why I abandoned the trad Catholic movement and embraced the modern Church.  I just couldn't buy into the cold, calculating cruelty that the traditionalist would have me believe was God.  He wouldn't damn people for listening to his Church.

Robb, I have to say that this is not one of your best posts. Far from it. Your argument apparently involves the assumption that the end result of a phony annulment (followed by a phony remarriage of course) is damnation. But this assumption is absurd, since then any phony marriage would lead to damnation.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #101 on: June 27, 2011, 12:17:16 AM »

I still trust the decisions of the Vatican and the bishops appointed by them on these matters.  If they RCC can error by allowing millions of people to be damned by giving out phony annulments then she has obviously defected from the truth.  These hair brained idea espoused by many traditionalist on the supposed invalidity of annulments sound just as strange as their other ideas about all Novus Ordo masses being invalid because of bad translations, or all priestly ordinations in the new rite being invalid dot to incorrect formula.  The list of traditionalsit paranoia and conspiracy theories regarding the post Vatican II Church is an endless sea of muck.

I don't take such a legalistic view of things.  I can't fathom that God would be so cruel as allow his Church to error about such important issues and thus damn millions of people to Hell on account of it.  I see the RCC as being Gods voice on Earth and not just the keepers of some long ago traditions.  This is the reason why I abandoned the trad Catholic movement and embraced the modern Church.  I just couldn't buy into the cold, calculating cruelty that the traditionalist would have me believe was God.  He wouldn't damn people for listening to his Church.
You might want to take a look at the book: “Shattered Faith,” by the Sheila Rauch Kennedy. Here’s how her Catholic husband, Joseph Kennedy explains the Catholic theory of annulments to his non-Catholic wife: “Of course I think we had a true marriage. But that doesn’t matter now. I don’t believe this stuff. Nobody actually believes it. It’s just Catholic gobbledygook.”
Now what happened in this case is that the annulment was granted and the tribunal declared that there never was any marriage. OK. So that’s the way it is. But wait, what if you dispute this, which is what Sheila Rauch Kennedy did. Then what. Then after ten years, the RCC decided that they were wrong,and reversed themselves, saying that the marriage was valid in the first place.
Now what about all those annulments which were not disputed. How do you know which ones would and which ones would not be overturned if you never try to overturn them?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/07/19/the_loose_canon_in_the_catholic_church/

Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #102 on: June 27, 2011, 12:27:40 AM »

That's the rub. Most American declarations of nullity which are appealed to Rome are overturned!

And since I'm not a canonist and am just a lay slob, I am not qualified to speculate about the ones which are not appealed to Rome. The practice of the Faith can be quite messy in a pagan, habitually polygamous culture like America's. We have to do our best and trust God to sort it all out. I do know that were I on a marriage tribunal, I would TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY MY RESPONSIBILITY, as if my own soul were at stake.

Alas, it's always been like this when Christianity is present in a culture with very different values. People of weak faith tend to compromise. There have been messy compromises by individual Christians ever since the Edict of Milan. And really even before that, if you look at the pages of the New Testament.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2011, 12:29:49 AM by lubeltri » Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #103 on: June 27, 2011, 12:47:18 AM »

If a couple applies for an annulment and are granted a decree of nullity by a marriage tribunal, but the tribunal was wrong and they were, in fact, actually married and yet both members remarry, is the couple's souls at stake or the ones at the tribunal that messed up?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #104 on: June 27, 2011, 01:00:08 AM »

If a couple applies for an annulment and are granted a decree of nullity by a marriage tribunal, but the tribunal was wrong and they were, in fact, actually married and yet both members remarry, is the couple's souls at stake or the ones at the tribunal that messed up?
Right.
Suppose that the marriage tribunal says that the marriage was invalid and so based on that decision, a woman gets married and raises a family of six children with her new (second) husband. Now, ten years later, the Vatican comes out and says that the tribunal had made a mistake, and the first marriage was actually the valid one, even though, the lady did not have any children from the first marriage. Now is she supposed to abandon her new (second)  husband and her six children by her second marriage, since the Vatican has now said that the tribunal made a mistake? But her first husband has gone off and married someone else. Now what?
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #105 on: June 27, 2011, 01:07:52 AM »

If a couple applies for an annulment and are granted a decree of nullity by a marriage tribunal, but the tribunal was wrong and they were, in fact, actually married and yet both members remarry, is the couple's souls at stake or the ones at the tribunal that messed up?
Right.
Suppose that the marriage tribunal says that the marriage was invalid and so based on that decision, a woman gets married and raises a family of six children with her new (second) husband. Now, ten years later, the Vatican comes out and says that the tribunal had made a mistake, and the first marriage was actually the valid one, even though, the lady did not have any children from the first marriage. Now is she supposed to abandon her new (second)  husband and her six children by her second marriage, since the Vatican has now said that the tribunal made a mistake? But her first husband has gone off and married someone else. Now what?

That's a pretty odd hypothetical. Can you give me an example of an actual case that was overturned?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #106 on: June 27, 2011, 01:48:47 AM »

Can you give me an example of an actual case that was overturned?
Joseph Kennedy and Sheila Rauch Kennedy.
It took ten years to ovberturn the annulment decision of the Boston tribunal.
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: 37,963



« Reply #107 on: June 27, 2011, 01:55:04 AM »

If a couple applies for an annulment and are granted a decree of nullity by a marriage tribunal, but the tribunal was wrong and they were, in fact, actually married and yet both members remarry, is the couple's souls at stake or the ones at the tribunal that messed up?
Right.
Suppose that the marriage tribunal says that the marriage was invalid and so based on that decision, a woman gets married and raises a family of six children with her new (second) husband. Now, ten years later, the Vatican comes out and says that the tribunal had made a mistake, and the first marriage was actually the valid one, even though, the lady did not have any children from the first marriage. Now is she supposed to abandon her new (second)  husband and her six children by her second marriage, since the Vatican has now said that the tribunal made a mistake? But her first husband has gone off and married someone else. Now what?

That's a pretty odd hypothetical. Can you give me an example of an actual case that was overturned?
Come now. You're in Boston: you know it is not that hypothetical:
Quote
On February 3, 1979, Kennedy and Sheila Brewster Rauch (born March 22, 1949)[45] were married in Gladwyne, Pennsylvania. She is a daughter of Rudolph Stewart Rauch and Frances Stuart Brewster. (Both the Brewster and Rauch families were socially prominent with a tradition in coachbuilding; the Brewsters had owned Brewster & Co., an American coachbuilder.) The couple had twin sons, Matthew Rauch Kennedy and Joseph Patrick Kennedy III (born 1980, in Boston); and were divorced in 1991.

Two years later, Kennedy asked the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston for an annulment of the marriage on the grounds of "lack of due discretion of judgment", meaning that he was mentally incapable of entering into marriage at the time of his wedding. An annulment would give the marriage the status of never having existed, and allow Kennedy to marry Anne Elizabeth "Beth" Kelly — his former staff member — in a Roman Catholic ceremony, as well as allow him to participate in other sacraments of the church, such as Holy Communion, not available to a divorced person who remarries.[46][47] Rauch refused to agree to the annulment,[48] and Kennedy married Kelly (born April 3, 1957)[45] in a non-Catholic civil ceremony on October 23, 1993.

The Boston Archdiocese did grant Kennedy the annulment, a fact discovered by Rauch when it was granted in 1996.[46] Rauch, who is an Episcopalian, wrote a book Shattered Faith: A Woman's Struggle to Stop the Catholic Church from Annulling Her Marriage[48] explaining that she was opposed to the concept of annulment, because it meant in Roman Catholic theology that the marriage had never actually existed, and claiming that the Kennedy family influence made it possible to unilaterally "cancel" a twelve-year marriage. She appealed to the Vatican to overturn the annulment.[49]

The annulment was overturned by the highest appellate tribunal of the Roman Catholic Church, the Roman Rota, in 2005. Rauch was informed of the decision by the Boston Archdiocese in 2007.[50] Because the Rota was sitting as a second-instance appellate court,[51] Kennedy could appeal the decision to another Rotal panel.[49][51]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Patrick_Kennedy_II
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
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #108 on: June 27, 2011, 02:11:42 AM »

In this case, where is the part where Kennedy had no kids with his first marriage and and six kids with his second (sham) marriage?

Oh, none? I didn't think so.

-

It's pretty simple, on appeal Rome ruled that the tribunal erred. Roma locuta est.

And anyway, it was pretty obvious that the Kennedys pressured the Boston tribunal to give them it, over the wife's objections. Good for her for exposing the tribunal.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2011, 02:14:54 AM by lubeltri » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #109 on: June 27, 2011, 02:24:55 AM »

In this case, where is the part where Kennedy had no kids with his first marriage and and six kids with his second (sham) marriage?

Oh, none? I didn't think so.

-

It's pretty simple, on appeal Rome ruled that the tribunal erred. Roma locuta est.

And anyway, it was pretty obvious that the Kennedys pressured the Boston tribunal to give them it, over the wife's objections. Good for her for exposing the tribunal.
No. But the Kennedy case was overturned in Rome ten years after the Boston decision.
 And as well, 92% of those cases which are appealed to Rome are overturned. So then what.
The scenario that I have described is not impossible to have happened or to happen in the future, and what then? It illustrates  an extremely serious flaw in the process, does it not?
How many other tribunal decisions are totally wrong, and we will never know about it, because
they were not appealed to Rome?
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #110 on: June 27, 2011, 04:50:20 AM »

In this case, where is the part where Kennedy had no kids with his first marriage and and six kids with his second (sham) marriage?

Oh, none? I didn't think so.

-

It's pretty simple, on appeal Rome ruled that the tribunal erred. Roma locuta est.

And anyway, it was pretty obvious that the Kennedys pressured the Boston tribunal to give them it, over the wife's objections. Good for her for exposing the tribunal.
No. But the Kennedy case was overturned in Rome ten years after the Boston decision.
 And as well, 92% of those cases which are appealed to Rome are overturned. So then what.
The scenario that I have described is not impossible to have happened or to happen in the future, and what then? It illustrates  an extremely serious flaw in the process, does it not?
How many other tribunal decisions are totally wrong, and we will never know about it, because
they were not appealed to Rome?


My question is, Stanley, why does it concern you? If you're God or actually a person in responsibility (tribunal judge, bishop), I can see why. But otherwise, just forget about it and let God sort it out whether a tribunal's particular decisions are "true" or not.

As for the overturning of decisions, well, that happens. It's called the wheels of justice.
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #111 on: June 27, 2011, 05:26:47 AM »

I still trust the decisions of the Vatican and the bishops appointed by them on these matters.  If they RCC can error by allowing millions of people to be damned by giving out phony annulments then she has obviously defected from the truth.  These hair brained idea espoused by many traditionalist on the supposed invalidity of annulments sound just as strange as their other ideas about all Novus Ordo masses being invalid because of bad translations, or all priestly ordinations in the new rite being invalid dot to incorrect formula.  The list of traditionalsit paranoia and conspiracy theories regarding the post Vatican II Church is an endless sea of muck.

I don't take such a legalistic view of things.  I can't fathom that God would be so cruel as allow his Church to error about such important issues and thus damn millions of people to Hell on account of it.  I see the RCC as being Gods voice on Earth and not just the keepers of some long ago traditions.  This is the reason why I abandoned the trad Catholic movement and embraced the modern Church.  I just couldn't buy into the cold, calculating cruelty that the traditionalist would have me believe was God.  He wouldn't damn people for listening to his Church.
You might want to take a look at the book: “Shattered Faith,” by the Sheila Rauch Kennedy. Here’s how her Catholic husband, Joseph Kennedy explains the Catholic theory of annulments to his non-Catholic wife: “Of course I think we had a true marriage. But that doesn’t matter now. I don't believe this stuff. Nobody actually believes it. It’s just Catholic gobbledygook.”
Now what happened in this case is that the annulment was granted and the tribunal declared that there never was any marriage. OK. So that’s the way it is. But wait, what if you dispute this, which is what Sheila Rauch Kennedy did. Then what. Then after ten years, the RCC decided that they were wrong,and reversed themselves, saying that the marriage was valid in the first place.
Now what about all those annulments which were not disputed. How do you know which ones would and which ones would not be overturned if you never try to overturn them?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/07/19/the_loose_canon_in_the_catholic_church/



That sounds like a case of scandalous use of annulment process, but you can't just generalize with one broad stroke that ALL annulments granted in the U.S. are uncanonical  based on one mishap.  If the Vatican is allowing such big mistakes of this nature to go either unchecked or unpunished then they are just as guilty (If not even more so) Then the messed u marriage tribunal system here in the states.

I still just couldn't fathom that God would allow such a thing to occur in his own Church or damn those souls who placed their trust in that Church for a proper verdict. 
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #112 on: June 27, 2011, 09:28:46 AM »

You have such an incredible bias against the Catholic Church in general and against the annulment process in particular that your witness is not credible at all in this particular area of Catholic teaching.


Robb,

Council of Trent, session 24:

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that the Church has erred, in that she hath taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot contract another marriage, during the life-time of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband; let him be anathema.
Let Trent be anathema.

Some history of anullments put it best "the canonists left it to the theologians to figure out how one instance of sexual intercourse made the marriage alone immune to St. Peter's otherewise absolute power to bind and loose."

I found the exact quote:
Quote
The popes and canonists left it up to theologians to explain how an indissoluble union could be dissolved before consummation and why sexual intercourse produced an indissolubility that was impervious to the power of the keys.
Catholic Divorce: The Deception of Annulments By Pierre Hégy, Joseph Martos
http://books.google.com/books?id=QDsMG2U3IZwC&pg=PA136&dq=theologians+keys+sex+annulment&hl=en&ei=h5cHTpuLHcj40gHXzpjZCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #113 on: June 27, 2011, 09:55:35 AM »

I still trust the decisions of the Vatican and the bishops appointed by them on these matters.  If they RCC can error by allowing millions of people to be damned by giving out phony annulments then she has obviously defected from the truth.  These hair brained idea espoused by many traditionalist on the supposed invalidity of annulments sound just as strange as their other ideas about all Novus Ordo masses being invalid because of bad translations, or all priestly ordinations in the new rite being invalid dot to incorrect formula.  The list of traditionalsit paranoia and conspiracy theories regarding the post Vatican II Church is an endless sea of muck.

I don't take such a legalistic view of things.  I can't fathom that God would be so cruel as allow his Church to error about such important issues and thus damn millions of people to Hell on account of it.  I see the RCC as being Gods voice on Earth and not just the keepers of some long ago traditions.  This is the reason why I abandoned the trad Catholic movement and embraced the modern Church.  I just couldn't buy into the cold, calculating cruelty that the traditionalist would have me believe was God.  He wouldn't damn people for listening to his Church.
You might want to take a look at the book: “Shattered Faith,” by the Sheila Rauch Kennedy. Here’s how her Catholic husband, Joseph Kennedy explains the Catholic theory of annulments to his non-Catholic wife: “Of course I think we had a true marriage. But that doesn’t matter now. I don't believe this stuff. Nobody actually believes it. It’s just Catholic gobbledygook.”
Now what happened in this case is that the annulment was granted and the tribunal declared that there never was any marriage. OK. So that’s the way it is. But wait, what if you dispute this, which is what Sheila Rauch Kennedy did. Then what. Then after ten years, the RCC decided that they were wrong,and reversed themselves, saying that the marriage was valid in the first place.
Now what about all those annulments which were not disputed. How do you know which ones would and which ones would not be overturned if you never try to overturn them?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/07/19/the_loose_canon_in_the_catholic_church/



That sounds like a case of scandalous use of annulment process, but you can't just generalize with one broad stroke that ALL annulments granted in the U.S. are uncanonical  based on one mishap.  If the Vatican is allowing such big mistakes of this nature to go either unchecked or unpunished then they are just as guilty (If not even more so) Then the messed u marriage tribunal system here in the states.

I still just couldn't fathom that God would allow such a thing to occur in his own Church or damn those souls who placed their trust in that Church for a proper verdict. 

Please read:

I still trust the decisions of the Vatican and the bishops appointed by them on these matters.  If they RCC can error by allowing millions of people to be damned by giving out phony annulments then she has obviously defected from the truth.  These hair brained idea espoused by many traditionalist on the supposed invalidity of annulments sound just as strange as their other ideas about all Novus Ordo masses being invalid because of bad translations, or all priestly ordinations in the new rite being invalid dot to incorrect formula.  The list of traditionalsit paranoia and conspiracy theories regarding the post Vatican II Church is an endless sea of muck.

I don't take such a legalistic view of things.  I can't fathom that God would be so cruel as allow his Church to error about such important issues and thus damn millions of people to Hell on account of it.  I see the RCC as being Gods voice on Earth and not just the keepers of some long ago traditions.  This is the reason why I abandoned the trad Catholic movement and embraced the modern Church.  I just couldn't buy into the cold, calculating cruelty that the traditionalist would have me believe was God.  He wouldn't damn people for listening to his Church.

Robb, I have to say that this is not one of your best posts. Far from it. Your argument apparently involves the assumption that the end result of a phony annulment (followed by a phony remarriage of course) is damnation. But this assumption is absurd, since then any phony marriage would lead to damnation.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,481


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #114 on: June 27, 2011, 10:05:45 AM »

I still trust the decisions of the Vatican and the bishops appointed by them on these matters.  If they RCC can error by allowing millions of people to be damned by giving out phony annulments then she has obviously defected from the truth.  These hair brained idea espoused by many traditionalist on the supposed invalidity of annulments sound just as strange as their other ideas about all Novus Ordo masses being invalid because of bad translations, or all priestly ordinations in the new rite being invalid dot to incorrect formula.  The list of traditionalsit paranoia and conspiracy theories regarding the post Vatican II Church is an endless sea of muck.

I don't take such a legalistic view of things.  I can't fathom that God would be so cruel as allow his Church to error about such important issues and thus damn millions of people to Hell on account of it.  I see the RCC as being Gods voice on Earth and not just the keepers of some long ago traditions.  This is the reason why I abandoned the trad Catholic movement and embraced the modern Church.  I just couldn't buy into the cold, calculating cruelty that the traditionalist would have me believe was God.  He wouldn't damn people for listening to his Church.
You might want to take a look at the book: “Shattered Faith,” by the Sheila Rauch Kennedy. Here’s how her Catholic husband, Joseph Kennedy explains the Catholic theory of annulments to his non-Catholic wife: “Of course I think we had a true marriage. But that doesn’t matter now. I don't believe this stuff. Nobody actually believes it. It’s just Catholic gobbledygook.”
Now what happened in this case is that the annulment was granted and the tribunal declared that there never was any marriage. OK. So that’s the way it is. But wait, what if you dispute this, which is what Sheila Rauch Kennedy did. Then what. Then after ten years, the RCC decided that they were wrong,and reversed themselves, saying that the marriage was valid in the first place.
Now what about all those annulments which were not disputed. How do you know which ones would and which ones would not be overturned if you never try to overturn them?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/07/19/the_loose_canon_in_the_catholic_church/



That sounds like a case of scandalous use of annulment process, but you can't just generalize with one broad stroke that ALL annulments granted in the U.S. are uncanonical  based on one mishap.  If the Vatican is allowing such big mistakes of this nature to go either unchecked or unpunished then they are just as guilty (If not even more so) Then the messed u marriage tribunal system here in the states.

I still just couldn't fathom that God would allow such a thing to occur in his own Church or damn those souls who placed their trust in that Church for a proper verdict. 

Why not?  You generalize things with one broad stroke all the time.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
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: 37,963



« Reply #115 on: June 27, 2011, 11:35:09 AM »

In this case, where is the part where Kennedy had no kids with his first marriage and and six kids with his second (sham) marriage?

Oh, none? I didn't think so.

-

It's pretty simple, on appeal Rome ruled that the tribunal erred. Roma locuta est.

And anyway, it was pretty obvious that the Kennedys pressured the Boston tribunal to give them it, over the wife's objections. Good for her for exposing the tribunal.
Good for her that she had the resources to fight it all the way back to the Vatican.

And that's what is operative.  How many do not have such resources, and get stuck with a "faulty" judgement (in quotation marks because what is a faulty judgement in a foolish system?)?

As for your scholastic answer, the fact that his new wife is of child bearing age and could easily have been even younger exposes the jesuitry for what it is.  I know couples who had kids in their second marriage, after an "annulment." I'll bet you do too.  Since you have to get divorced before you seek an annulment, many (most?) have no interest in contesting an annulment, not matter how bogus, and of those who would, very few have the resources to run off to the Vatican (literally) to do so.  But we are told by the Corban masters that mutual consent doesn't count in their factories, people can't agree to dissolve a "valid" marriage.

I could no doubt do a search of publically known annulments (most are not, I understand), but that hardly seems worth the trouble, as the "theoretical" example is quite firmly based on reality.  Far more than the Vatican's Corban, and the faith in 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: 37,963



« Reply #116 on: June 27, 2011, 11:57:59 AM »

You have such an incredible bias against the Catholic Church in general
I have such a credible bias towards the Catholic Church in general and in particular.

As for the Vatican, I make no apologies for my bias towards Truth and the Catholic Church (basically the same thing, or the same Person).  If the Vatican is weighed in the scales of Truth and found wanting, oh well.
and against the annulment process in particular that your witness is not credible at all in this particular area of Catholic teaching.
Why? Because I've been invited to Corban and crumpettes, and have declined, while you wash it all down with magisterial Kool-Aid?

Annulments are not Catholic teaching: they are a post schism invention of the Vatican.
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 #117 on: June 27, 2011, 12:15:23 PM »

You have such an incredible bias against the Catholic Church in general
I have such a credible bias towards the Catholic Church in general and in particular.

As for the Vatican, I make no apologies for my bias towards Truth and the Catholic Church (basically the same thing, or the same Person).  If the Vatican is weighed in the scales of Truth and found wanting, oh well.
and against the annulment process in particular that your witness is not credible at all in this particular area of Catholic teaching.
Why? Because I've been invited to Corban and crumpettes, and have declined, while you wash it all down with magisterial Kool-Aid?

Annulments are not Catholic teaching: they are a post schism invention of the Vatican.

Your personal life is clouding your judgment
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: 37,963



« Reply #118 on: June 27, 2011, 01:51:35 PM »

You have such an incredible bias against the Catholic Church in general
I have such a credible bias towards the Catholic Church in general and in particular.

As for the Vatican, I make no apologies for my bias towards Truth and the Catholic Church (basically the same thing, or the same Person).  If the Vatican is weighed in the scales of Truth and found wanting, oh well.
and against the annulment process in particular that your witness is not credible at all in this particular area of Catholic teaching.
Why? Because I've been invited to Corban and crumpettes, and have declined, while you wash it all down with magisterial Kool-Aid?

Annulments are not Catholic teaching: they are a post schism invention of the Vatican.

Your personal life is clouding your judgment
Oh? do tell, how so? Do give details.
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 #119 on: June 27, 2011, 01:54:07 PM »

You have such an incredible bias against the Catholic Church in general
I have such a credible bias towards the Catholic Church in general and in particular.

As for the Vatican, I make no apologies for my bias towards Truth and the Catholic Church (basically the same thing, or the same Person).  If the Vatican is weighed in the scales of Truth and found wanting, oh well.
and against the annulment process in particular that your witness is not credible at all in this particular area of Catholic teaching.
Why? Because I've been invited to Corban and crumpettes, and have declined, while you wash it all down with magisterial Kool-Aid?

Annulments are not Catholic teaching: they are a post schism invention of the Vatican.

Your personal life is clouding your judgment
Oh? do tell, how so? Do give details.

I don't need to...You broadcast on a very broad spectrum. 
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: 37,963



« Reply #120 on: June 27, 2011, 03:10:06 PM »

You have such an incredible bias against the Catholic Church in general
I have such a credible bias towards the Catholic Church in general and in particular.

As for the Vatican, I make no apologies for my bias towards Truth and the Catholic Church (basically the same thing, or the same Person).  If the Vatican is weighed in the scales of Truth and found wanting, oh well.
and against the annulment process in particular that your witness is not credible at all in this particular area of Catholic teaching.
Why? Because I've been invited to Corban and crumpettes, and have declined, while you wash it all down with magisterial Kool-Aid?

Annulments are not Catholic teaching: they are a post schism invention of the Vatican.

Your personal life is clouding your judgment
Oh? do tell, how so? Do give details.

I don't need to...You broadcast on a very broad spectrum.  
so it was yet another broad assertion not backed up.  so our readers should just add it to your pile.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2011, 03:10:37 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,481


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #121 on: June 27, 2011, 03:28:19 PM »


Both of you cool it.

Now.  
« Last Edit: June 27, 2011, 03:28:37 PM by Schultz » Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #122 on: June 27, 2011, 03:30:48 PM »

so it was yet another broad assertion not backed up.  so our readers should just add it to your pile.

No.  By your own admission and periodic reference, you have had an unhappy divorce and an even unhappier annulment.  In that light you judge the Catholic Church.  I am not persuaded by those who have a bone to pick that is quite as personal and sore as the one you display here.
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: 37,963



« Reply #123 on: June 27, 2011, 04:00:22 PM »

so it was yet another broad assertion not backed up.  so our readers should just add it to your pile.

No.  By your own admission and periodic reference, you have had an unhappy divorce and an even unhappier annulment.  In that light you judge the Catholic Church.  I am not persuaded by those who have a bone to pick that is quite as personal and sore as the one you display here.
What annulment?

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 #124 on: June 27, 2011, 04:32:53 PM »

so it was yet another broad assertion not backed up.  so our readers should just add it to your pile.

No.  By your own admission and periodic reference, you have had an unhappy divorce and an even unhappier annulment.  In that light you judge the Catholic Church.  I am not persuaded by those who have a bone to pick that is quite as personal and sore as the one you display here.
What annulment?



The way you've spoken about it, it seemed as though you've gone through an annulment process.  Perhaps not.  Perhaps you are not even divorced yet.  Perhaps there never was a marriage.  I can only speak about what it seems that you've been indicating over time.  It's ugly whatever it is.
Logged

stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #125 on: June 27, 2011, 04:52:06 PM »

The funny thing about the heresy of Modernism is that it doesn't claim to restore the "true" ancient teaching like the old heresies all claimed. Instead it proclaims a "brave new world" where the apostolic teaching has "evolved" or been "updated" to meet "modern needs". It's remarkable when you think of the massive revolution in the West and in Catholicism in the 20th century that the Modernists may have brought on crisis and catastrophe, but they didn't prevail, and their influence is steadily on the wane in the Catholic Church even as the are triumphant in outside society.
The question i am addressing is whether or not the teaching of the Catholic Church has been updated to meet modern needs. According to what you say here, modernism is steadily on the wane in the RCC.
However, I don't think that is true. And the example, that I give is the example of the teaching of the RCC on what constitutes a valid marriage. Before Vatican II, annulments were given for only the most extremely serious of solid reasons. After Vatican II, in the USA, almost anyone can get a marriage annulment for very trivial reasons. For example, consider the book: Judging Invalidity ©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn. This book is "Designed as a practical companion to the author's previous volume, The Invalid Marriage, this resource for tribunals, students and pastoral ministers contains 15 fictional marriage cases. These reflect the basic grounds for marital nullity established in the 1983 Code of Canon Law."

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.

Obviously, these are things that can come up in any marriage.
So it is clear that contrary to what was written by the poster quoted, modernism has entered the Catholic Church since, for example,  the annulment process has been watered down to the extent that almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment .
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #126 on: June 27, 2011, 05:09:31 PM »

so it was yet another broad assertion not backed up.  so our readers should just add it to your pile.

No.  By your own admission and periodic reference, you have had an unhappy divorce and an even unhappier annulment.  In that light you judge the Catholic Church.  I am not persuaded by those who have a bone to pick that is quite as personal and sore as the one you display here.
What annulment?



The way you've spoken about it, it seemed as though you've gone through an annulment process.  Perhaps not.  Perhaps you are not even divorced yet.  Perhaps there never was a marriage.  I can only speak about what it seems that you've been indicating over time.  It's ugly whatever it is.
Oh, you got the last part right.  However, my views on marriage, divorce and annulments, the Orthodox ones, are the same I held long before I was married, let alone divorced.

According to the State of IL and Orthodox Church there was a marriage, no matter what the Vatican thinks.

If someone had a happy divorce, would that disqualify them from speaking?  I mean, they have a vested interest in supporting the annulmnet scheme.  As for me
Jah - the only thing i would add is that i think it is true that the marriage bond is eternal. our marriage service has no "till death do us part." i have been taught that the marriage crowns are together on the heavenly altar. although there will obviously not be sexual relations in Heaven, the bond remains i think - ideally that relationship is part of what got you to Heaven in the first place!

What about divorced/remarried couples? I don't think there is a marriage bond in heaven."29But Jesus answered and said to them, 'You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.  For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." (Matthew 22:29-30)
LOL. Yes, I'm in a quandry-do I have to remarry to be rid of my ex-wife? I have a vested interest in there being no marriage in heaven....
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 #127 on: June 27, 2011, 05:17:47 PM »

Oh, you got the last part right.  However, my views on marriage, divorce and annulments, the Orthodox ones, are the same I held long before I was married, let alone divorced.

All right. 
Logged

akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #128 on: June 28, 2011, 06:35:07 PM »

I had a conversation with my Catholic priest today. Here is what he told me:

1) The Catechism is too strict in certain areas.

Without specifics, this claim is meaningless.

Quote
2) The rules of Catholicism need to be interpreted

All rules need to be interpreted.  This applies to Orthodoxy as well as to Catholicism.  But to what rules were the priest referring?

Quote
3) An archbishop issuing an Imprimatur or a Nihil Obstat can be grievously mistaken (and by extension, so can a Censor Librorum)

Yep. 

Quote
4) Any devotion that guarantees saving grace (The First Five Saturdays, the Scapular) don't actually secure saving grace.

How can any devotion guarantee saving grace?  Is faith irrelevant? Is there no difference between the sacraments and sacramentals of the Church?  God's love and mercy are unconditional!  There is nothing, absolutely nothing, we can do, must do, to make God love us more than he does.  That is gospel, the gospel.

Quote
5) It's not necessary for a Catholic to attend the Catholic church every Sunday.

Hmmm, I think your priest needs to explain precisely what he means.

Quote
6) The Catholic Church has applied "mortal sin" to too many categories, and there is a difference between mortal and grave sin.

There is a distinction between mortal and grave sin: clearly murder is objectively a more serious sin than, say, theft or gossip.  I think everyone would agree about that.  But mortal sin also includes what might be described as subjective conditions: e.g., it must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense.  For any given individual, gossip might well be a mortal sin, i.e., fundamental rejection of God and his grace. 
 
Quote
7) The Lutherans and the Anglicans have valid orders and a valid eucharist, even if they don't call it transubstantiation or realize that their Eucharist is actually the body of Christ.

Your priest is expressing his personal opinion, not the position of the Catholic Church.

Quote
8 ) Catholicism is many spiritualities, not just one.


Yep.  Benedictines, Carmelites, Franciscans, etc.--I suppose these can be accurately described as "different" spiritualities.  But that doesn't mean they are "wrong" or contradictory.  Nor does it mean that Orthodoxy can be reduced to one "spirituality," whatever that might mean.

There are reasons, good reasons, why one might choose to be Orthodox rather than Catholic; but it is important to state these reasons accurately and nonpolemically.

Fr Aidan+ 
Logged

biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,058


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #129 on: June 28, 2011, 06:46:08 PM »

Quote from: akimel
Yep.  Benedictines, Carmelites, Franciscans, etc.--I suppose these can be accurately described as "different" spiritualities.  But that doesn't mean they are "wrong" or contradictory.  Nor does it mean that Orthodoxy can be reduced to one "spirituality," whatever that might mean.

There are reasons, good reasons, why one might choose to be Orthodox rather than Catholic; but it is important to state these reasons accurately and nonpolemically.

Fr Aidan+ 

Very well said.  Smiley
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
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: 37,963



« Reply #130 on: July 10, 2011, 10:29:33 AM »

since many (most) don't have the hundreds of dollars to get everything from amazon, some links:
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_INDEX.HTM
Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky.

A textbook of systematic theology, written in Pre-Revolutionary Russia published by ROCOR, 20th century.


volumes 1 & 2[/quote]
http://books.google.com/books?id=-sU80t3ncpgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:VZVsh4VV5OYC&hl=en&ei=orMZTuStLOWNsAL4u5jCBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=VZVsh4VV5OYC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

20th century Romanian experiential/discursive treatment of themes of Orthodox dogma and engagement with the 20th century.

http://books.google.com/books?id=1PwtAAAAYAAJ&q=The+Mystery+of+Faith:+An+Introduction+to+the+Teaching+and+Spirituality+of+the+Orthodox+Church&dq=The+Mystery+of+Faith:+An+Introduction+to+the+Teaching+and+Spirituality+of+the+Orthodox+Church&hl=en&ei=t7QZToXBIOypsALNofnBBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA
http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/5_1

The personal teaching of Met. Hilarion, a leading post-communism Russian bishop with pastoral care of Western Europe, and representing the Russian Church to the non-Orthodox.

to be cont....
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 #131 on: July 10, 2011, 11:00:25 AM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.


I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions.  They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable.  I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here.  I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them.  It has taken me years to see these things.  Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary
7, huh?  that shouldn't be too many and too hard for you to list here, IOW, yes, you are obligated that much.  A few citations of what you allege would be nice as well.  

Indeed.  You have until Monday, June 27 @ 9:30am EDT to, at the very least, list these sources; you don't have to quote them, but it would be nice or you will be placed on post moderation.  

This an official request.


That's not a problem Schultz.  Mother has a broken hip and bowel cancer, generally in that order which is out of order in order of magnitude,  so I am pretty busy right now but I'll do what I can over the weekend to pull them out of my library.

Do I need full citations or will Author/Title do?


Here we are.  This is a short list of books that I know are used in real parishes to catechize real inquirers and real Orthodox faithful.  I have read them all, among others, over the years and use them regularly as reference books.  You will find an essentially similar faith in all of them taken as a whole but each one presents some widely variant details between and among themselves and also when weighed against what I find regularly on the Internet that is claimed to be universal Orthodox teaching and truth.  Enjoy!:

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Dogmatic-Theology-Concise-Exposition/dp/0938635697/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1308941315&sr=1-1-spell

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Dogmatic-Theology-Experience-Revelation/dp/0917651707/ref=pd_sim_b_1

volumes 1 & 2

http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Faith-Introduction-Teaching-Spirituality/dp/0232524726/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308942148&sr=1-4

http://www.amazon.com/Life-World-Sacraments-Orthodoxy/dp/0913836087/ref=pd_sim_b_5

http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Our-Faith-Christian-Foundations/dp/9608677823/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308942993&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Church-New-Timothy-Ware/dp/0140146563/ref=pd_sim_b_2

http://www.amazon.com/Life-Christ-Nicholas-Cabasilas/dp/0913836125/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308943208&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Outline-Orthodox-Patristic-Dogmatics/dp/0974561843/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308943288&sr=1-4

http://www.amazon.com/Byzantine-Theology-Historical-Trends-Doctrinal/dp/0823209679/ref=pd_sim_b_4

http://www.amazon.com/Living-Tradition-Orthodox-Witness-Contemporary/dp/0913836486/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308943651&sr=1-9

http://www.amazon.com/Mystical-Theology-Eastern-Church/dp/0913836311/ref=pd_sim_b_4



I doubt if anyone will spend circa $500 to purchase 12 books so they can go chasing through them harem-scarem in a futile attempt to guess whatever citations Mary has in mind.

Couldn't she simply post here the citations which she wants us to see?

We have been accused of "deviance" in  our teaching and apparently Mary believes that these books provide proof of that.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 11:00:57 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #132 on: July 10, 2011, 11:27:35 AM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.


I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions.  They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable.  I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here.  I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them.  It has taken me years to see these things.  Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary
7, huh?  that shouldn't be too many and too hard for you to list here, IOW, yes, you are obligated that much.  A few citations of what you allege would be nice as well. 

Indeed.  You have until Monday, June 27 @ 9:30am EDT to, at the very least, list these sources; you don't have to quote them, but it would be nice or you will be placed on post moderation. 

This an official request.


That's not a problem Schultz.  Mother has a broken hip and bowel cancer, generally in that order which is out of order in order of magnitude,  so I am pretty busy right now but I'll do what I can over the weekend to pull them out of my library.

Do I need full citations or will Author/Title do?


Here we are.  This is a short list of books that I know are used in real parishes to catechize real inquirers and real Orthodox faithful.  I have read them all, among others, over the years and use them regularly as reference books.  You will find an essentially similar faith in all of them taken as a whole but each one presents some widely variant details between and among themselves and also when weighed against what I find regularly on the Internet that is claimed to be universal Orthodox teaching and truth.  Enjoy!:

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Dogmatic-Theology-Concise-Exposition/dp/0938635697/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1308941315&sr=1-1-spell

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Dogmatic-Theology-Experience-Revelation/dp/0917651707/ref=pd_sim_b_1

volumes 1 & 2

http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Faith-Introduction-Teaching-Spirituality/dp/0232524726/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308942148&sr=1-4

http://www.amazon.com/Life-World-Sacraments-Orthodoxy/dp/0913836087/ref=pd_sim_b_5

http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Our-Faith-Christian-Foundations/dp/9608677823/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308942993&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Church-New-Timothy-Ware/dp/0140146563/ref=pd_sim_b_2

http://www.amazon.com/Life-Christ-Nicholas-Cabasilas/dp/0913836125/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308943208&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Outline-Orthodox-Patristic-Dogmatics/dp/0974561843/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308943288&sr=1-4

http://www.amazon.com/Byzantine-Theology-Historical-Trends-Doctrinal/dp/0823209679/ref=pd_sim_b_4

http://www.amazon.com/Living-Tradition-Orthodox-Witness-Contemporary/dp/0913836486/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308943651&sr=1-9

http://www.amazon.com/Mystical-Theology-Eastern-Church/dp/0913836311/ref=pd_sim_b_4



I doubt if anyone will spend circa $500 to purchase 12 books so they can go chasing through them harem-scarem in a futile attempt to guess whatever citations Mary has in mind.

Couldn't she simply post here the citations which she wants us to see?

We have been accused of "deviance" in  our teaching and apparently Mary believes that these books provide proof of that.


They do.  And I've read each one and never spent anywhere NEAR 500 dollars to have them in my library.  Interlibrary Loan and old dogeared copies from used book stores are fine with me.

You forget that I made serious strides toward transferring to Orthodoxy.  Along the way I did some serious study and investigating, so I you can poke fun at me all you like but you are the loser there, not me.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 11:28:18 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

LBK
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,174


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #133 on: July 10, 2011, 11:29:09 AM »

All hat and no cattle is our Mary ....
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #134 on: July 10, 2011, 06:27:16 PM »

continued
http://books.google.com/books?id=47ncMCfOj58C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

A modern (some would perhaps say 'modernist') collection of essays on reform and restatement of liturgical theology, by Fr. Schmemann of the emigre Russian turned OCA of the later 20th century.

http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Our-Faith-Christian-Foundations/dp/9608677823/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308942993&sr=1-2[/quote]
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec_bookinfo.aspx
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec_prologue.aspx
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec_holy_scripture.aspx
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec_holy_tradition.aspx
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec_salvation.aspx
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec_secondcoming.aspx
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec_thousandyearreign.aspx
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec_glossalalia.aspx
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec_magic_occultism.aspx

A series of questions and answers with the renowed 20th century Romanian spiritual elder Cleopa. The link Mary has is on the Holy Mysteries, which I could not find online (in English).  The above are from the same serial work, so it represents the same viewpoint, i.e. Elder Cleopa's (and Orthodoxy, which he represents).

http://books.google.com/books?id=f7D-5Q-Q19MC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=bks&q=editions:f7D-5Q-Q19MC&biw=1259&bih=623

What was a classic description of Orthodoxy, its history and beliefs, by the convert Metropolitan Timothy/Kallistos Ware of Britain (whose monastery is in Greece).  It has gone through several editions, the later ones IMHO less satisfactory than the previous ones.  In fact, the differences Mary alludes to could be shown perhaps between editions of this same work, done by one author. Is Met. Kallistos in dissention from himself?

http://books.google.com/books?id=iE45LzrfZuwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=nicholas+cabasilas&hl=en&ei=TR4aTvSSNLCosALlu_3BBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=nicholas%20cabasilas&f=false
A patristic work of the 14th century Roman Empire by one of the original Hesychists, commenting on the Holy Mysteries of Baptism, Chrismation and Eucharist as the basis of Christian life and experience.

http://books.google.com/books?id=U50KAAAACAAJ&dq=An+Outline+of+Orthodox+Patristic+Dogmatics&hl=en&ei=hh8aTre_LtSrsAKhmsTBBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA
Unfortunately, no preview. Other works of Fr. Rominides, a Greek priest theologian, educated in 20th century America and Greece, who taught in both places and in Lebanon, with an emphasis on hesychasm and the heritage of the East Roman Empire, can be seen here.:
http://www.romanity.org/
http://www.romanity.org/cont.htm#roman

http://books.google.com/books?id=GoVeDXMvY-8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Byzantine+Theology:+Historical+Trends+and+Doctrinal+Themes&hl=en&ei=PCQaToWDLOqosAK59OXBBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
A collection of historical essays essays by Fr. Meyendorff (whose hand I kissed in gratitude for bringing me to Orthodoxy, a month before he went to his reward) on "historical trends and dogmatic themes" in the history of Orthodoxy.


http://books.google.com/books?id=72QXSflRMqcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Living+Tradition:+Orthodox+Witness+in+the+Contemporary+World&hl=en&ei=ZSIaTq79A6OnsALoztXCBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
A collection of essays by Fr. Meyendorff on the relevance of the Tradition Orthodoxy preserves in issues of the contemporary world and the present state of the Church and its relationship to the world and other confessions (including the Vatican).

http://books.google.com/books?id=dxqvWwPSCSwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
A exposition of the mystical thread that runs through Orthodox dogmas and their relevance to personal piety, by Vladimir Lossky of the second generation of Russian emigrees in France.  A personal favorite of mine, from when I first discovered Orthodoxy, but not so sure how good it would serve as a catechesis for new comers.
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
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  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 0.233 seconds with 72 queries.