Author Topic: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith  (Read 16776 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Charles Martel

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,805
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #270 on: May 06, 2017, 08:00:34 AM »
Quote
The Latin text, which I've translated into English, is available on a well-respected and academically rigorous website, known as the Monumenta Germaniae Historica. You are taking issue with one of the best primary source editors and publishers in the world.
That is your opinion. However, I have tried reading through your link and I couldn't find a way to translate the entire  Latin text which you quoted from, therefore I'm unable to clarify the whole text in context of what the pope was stating.

From what I'm reading is that the pope was stating that a man may quit his wife in the case of fornication and give himself to another (adultery?) with the exception that the transgressor should be united again in the bond of the former marriage.(  no "divorce?) I'll admit, the whole statement is quite confusing and again, I'm not sure in what context the statement was made.

At any rate, no popes can change Church Doctrines as they are the deposit of faith revealed by the Lord Jesus Christ, taught by the apostles and handed down in their entirety by the apostles to their successors. Revealed Truth can never be changed or abrogated. I don't care what pope or provincial synod or theologian wants or loudly proclaims it so. The second they do, they are in heresy.



Again, I find no examples of any popes granting absolute divorces from Catholic marriages after the fact and in which they were consumated. Only the declaration of the nulllity of the marriage to begin with.

Quote
By the way, Church canons always trump church catechisms. Read it and weep son.
Listen, no need to get disrespectful, I'm  probably a lot older than you kiddo, so don't flatter yourself so much. Anyway. Canon Law relates to the rules of the Church and Divine Truth that has been divinely revealed as the Catechisms are an aid in knowing what the Dvivine Truth is as pertains to the Canons.

I'm not sure what your trying to establish here other than to obfuscate the two with some obscure German website and their  opinion on papal matters or Church history. either way, you haven't proved that any popes have changed Church doctrine on the  indissolubility of marriage . Nice try though.


Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,027
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #271 on: May 08, 2017, 01:30:35 AM »
Currently found some really good stuff on divorce and remarriage in the Latin West. That is to say, more popes, more councils, and more penitentials. Stay tuned as I sort it all out and translate. Hopefully I get it done within the next day or so.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline ErmyCath

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 239
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #272 on: May 08, 2017, 09:11:58 AM »
Currently found some really good stuff on divorce and remarriage in the Latin West. That is to say, more popes, more councils, and more penitentials. Stay tuned as I sort it all out and translate. Hopefully I get it done within the next day or so.

Thank you for your work on this subject. It has proven very helpful to me personally, as I'm sure it has to many others as well. I intend to share it with my Roman Catholic friends who are struggling with the latest innovations.
"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,027
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #273 on: May 09, 2017, 06:28:04 PM »
Currently found some really good stuff on divorce and remarriage in the Latin West. That is to say, more popes, more councils, and more penitentials. Stay tuned as I sort it all out and translate. Hopefully I get it done within the next day or so.

Thank you for your work on this subject. It has proven very helpful to me personally, as I'm sure it has to many others as well. I intend to share it with my Roman Catholic friends who are struggling with the latest innovations.

I'm glad people are finding it useful. This is why I do this sort of stuff.

Well, everyone, this write-up/addendum turned out to be twice as long as my original post. I will try to shorten it here and post what I think is the most relevant. For further details, you will have to check out the full post: https://shamelessorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2017/05/09/divorce-remarriage-in-the-latin-west-an-addendum/

This is the First Post in a Series of Posts:

Council of Elvira (c. 300 AD)

To claim the Council of Elvira as permitting divorce and remarriage might appear as highly perplexing to some. After all, it is commonly used in Catholic apologetics to assert the indissolubility of marriage. I first encountered the argument that Elvira was modest in McNamara & Wemple’s article (McNamara & Wemple, 97-98). I did not think it was modest, so I initially did not place it in the pool of my evidence. However, I later encountered a more interesting argument put forth by Reynolds, who says that Elvira accepted divorce and remarriage but only for men who could prove their wife’s infidelity. In short, it only forbids divorce and remarriage for women (Reynolds, 181). To us modern people, this double standard sounds absolutely ridiculous (and rightfully so). Let it be recalled however that Ambrosiaster explicitly promotes this double standard. Nevertheless, evidence for divorce & remarriage is still evidence, regardless of its sexist imperfections. Now let us look at the series of canons:

Quote
VIII: Item feminae, quae nulla praecedente causa, relinquerint viros suos, & se copulaverint alteris, nec in fine accipiant communionem.

IX: Item femina fidelis, quae adulterum maritum reliquerit fidelem & alterum ducit, prohibeatur ne ducat; si duxerit, non prius accipiat communionem, nisi quem reliquerit, prius de saeculo exierit; nisi forte necessitas infirmitatis dare compulerit.

X: Si ea; quam catechumenus reliquit, duxerit maritum, potest ad fontem lavacri admitti. Hoc & circa feminas catechumenas erit observandum. Quod fuerit fidelis, quae ducitur, ab eo qui uxorem inculpatam reliquit, & cum scierit illum habere uxorem, quam sine causa reliquit; placuit, huic nec in finem dandam esse communionem.

8: Again, women who, having no prior cause, leave their husband and marry another, shall not receive communion unto death.

9: Again, a faithful woman, who divorces [her] adulterous, faithful husband and marries another, is prohibited from marrying lest she marry. If she marries, she may not receive communion as before, unless he that she divorces has departed from [this] world; or unless perhaps a force of weakness compels [one] to give [her communion].

10: If she, whom a male catechumen has relinquished, and she has married a husband, she is able to be admitted to the fountain of baptism. And this ought to be observed concerning female catechumens. But if a faithful woman is married by he who divorces an inculpable wife, and she knows that he has a wife that he has divorced without cause, then it is suitable for her that she ought not be given communion unto death.


Concilium Eliberitanum, canons 8-10, Mansi 2: 7.

LXV: Si cujus clerici uxor fuerit moechata, & scierit eam maritus suus moechari, & non eam statim projecerit, nec in fine accipiat communionem: ne ab his, qui exemplum bonae conversationis esse debent, ab eis videantur scelerum magisteria procedere.

65: If a cleric’s wife has committed adultery, and he knows that his wife has committed adultery, and he does not immediately reject her, he shall not receive communion unto death: lest from these things, those men who ought to be an example of good association, are seen by some to take part in a wicked magisterium.

Concilium Elberitanum, canon 65, Mansi 2: 16

LXIX: Si quis forte habens uxorem semel fuerit lapsus, placuit, eum quinquennium agere de ea re poenitentiam; & sic reconciliari; nisi necessitas infirmitatis coegerit ante tempus dare communionem. Hoc & circa feminas observandum.

LXX: Si cum conscientia mariti uxor fuerit moechata, placuit, nec in fine dandam esse communionem; si vero eam reliquerit, post decem annos accipiat communionem.

69: If perhaps there is any man having a wife has once lapsed [into adultery], then it is suitable that he perform a five year penance about it and thus be reconciled; unless [of course] the necessity of infirmity compels one to give him communion before the time [of penance is up]. This also ought to be observed by women.

70: If with the joint knowledge a husband’s wife commits adultery, it is suitable that the husband not be given communion unto death. But if he divorces her, he may receive communion after ten years.


Concilium Elberitanum, canons 69-70, Mansi 2: 17

Alright, so now to break it all down. First, I want to bring attention to some striking details present throughout many of these canons regarding those based on sex. Canons 10 and 69 both have the explicit addition that their prescripts apply to men and women. Meanwhile, the other canons do not have this qualifier. Therefore, none of the other canons should be construed as applying to both sexes unless they otherwise explicitly say so.

Canon 8 penalizes only women for leaving their husbands and marrying another without prior cause. Canon 9 further elaborates on women stating that no woman can divorce her husband and marry another even in cases of adultery (by “faithful husband” it should be understood as “Christian husband”). If she does marry, she is barred from communion until the death of her first husband or if she nears her deathbed. Notice the fact that this canon does NOT prescribe that she leave her second husband, thus leaving a certain amount of ambiguity.

Canon 10 says that if male Christian catechumen leaves their non-Christian spouse and marries another woman, he is not to be penalized. In fact, he is still to be received into baptism. It then explicitly states that this portion of the canon applies equally to both men and women (Hoc & circa feminas catechumenas erit observandum). But the canon continues with a further stipulation that ONLY applies to women. It goes on to say that a Christian woman (which I’ve translated as “faithful woman,” but is better understood as “woman of the faith”), and only a Christian woman, should be penalized for marrying a man who has dismissed his first wife without cause. The man’s faith in this case, does not matter. Here is where things get interesting. Canon 8 has specified that no woman can leave their husbands without prior cause. Canon 9 then makes it more narrow insofar that a woman cannot even remarry, even if her Christian husband has committed adultery. But again, none of these apply to men. So if a man, regardless of faith, dismisses his first wife with legitimate cause, then the Christian woman is NOT guilty of adultery. In short, men can divorce and remarry under some circumstances, but not women. Now, some Catholics and Protestants will attempt to say this this matter only applies because the marriage between an unbaptized individual and a Christian individual is not a sacramental marriage. While this idea might very well be behind part of the reasoning for these canons, it still does not explain the gap that is left for men. Men can still divorce and remarry, even if he and his first wife had a Christian marriage.

Canon 70 strengthens the above interpretation. It states that if a man knows that his wife has committed adultery and he continues to tolerate it, he is to be barred from communion until the end of his life. If, however, he tolerates it for only a little while and then divorces her, he is to be barred from communion for only ten years. The requirements are much harsher for married priests in Canon 65. If a priest’s wife commits adultery even once, then the priest is required to immediately divorce her. He can under no circumstances attempt to work things out with her, because he ought to avoid even the mere appearance of scandal. Meanwhile for the rest of the populace, if the adultery of a spouse occurs not regularly, but only once, then according to Canon 69, the guilty party is permitted to try to work things out with their spouse whom they have harmed. The guilty party is also barred from communion for five years. Yet, it should be noted that neither the guilty party nor the infringed are under obligation to try to work things out, since it is not demanded, but rather only pleasing or suitable (placuit) that they do so. The infringed can initiate a divorce. However, as already stipulated, if the infringed party is the husband, then he can remarry since he has prior cause.

In short, what I have demonstrated thus far about the Council of Elvira (c. 300 AD) is that it does not in any sense uphold the indissolubility of marriage, sacramental or not. Rather it only restricts the circumstances in which divorce and remarriage occur. Women can only remarry if their first husband is either dead or if he was not a Christian when she divorced him with the further provision that her second husband is not a divorcee, who dismissed his first wife on illegitimate grounds. Meanwhile, a Christian man could divorce a Christian woman and then marry another Christian woman, so long as he had prior cause to divorce his first wife. By all means, this council is sexist, but it also stipulates that a sacramental marriage is not indissoluble.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2017, 06:34:30 PM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,027
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #274 on: May 09, 2017, 06:33:53 PM »
Second Post in a Series

For links to the primary sources, see my link in my first post of this series.

Council of Agde (506 AD)

The Council of Agde was a Visigothic council that occurred in Southern France on September 10, 506 AD, and was overseen by Saint Caesarius of Arles, a Church Father. It stipulated the following:

Quote
XXV: Hi vero saeculares, qui coniugale consortium culpa graviore dimittunt vel etiam dimiserunt et nullas causas discidii probabiliter proponentes, propterea sua matrimonia dimittunt, ut aut illicita aut aliena praesumant, si antequam apud episcopos comprovinciales discidii causas dixerint et prius uxores quam iudicio damnenter abiecerint, a communion ecclesiae et sancto populi coetu, pro eo quod fidem et coniugia maculant, excludantur.

25: But these laymen, who end their marriage on account of a grave fault or even if they have already divorced and proffer no probable cause of discord for the sake of ending their marriage so that they might presume to enter into either an illicit marriage or another marriage, let them be excluded from the communion of the church and the holy company of  the people because they defile the faith and marriage; [but only] if they have divorced rather than cast aside their former wives in a tribunal before the provincial bishops.

Concilium Agathense, canon 25, Mansi 8: 329

Concilium Agathense, canon 25, CCSL 148: 204

This canon here is relatively straight forward. If a man wishes to divorce his wife on account of some unspecified grave fault, then he must bring the case before an ecclesiastical tribunal and present his case. If he does not follow this procedure, then he is to be excommunicated. It is implied that the man is permitted to remarry if he is able to prove his case. Furthermore, as Reynolds points out, the canon forbids divorce if the initiate does so in order to contract a new marriage (Reynolds, 184-185). That is to say, the motive for divorce was impure rather than on account of a truly grave fault.

Council of Compiègne Revisited (757 AD)

I have previously offered elsewhere as evidence Canon 11 of this council which stipulated that if a man’s wife commits adultery with her brother-in-law, then the husband if free to divorce her and marry another. The adulteress and the brother-in-law, however, may not marry. Now I would like to introduce more canons from this council, specifically Canons 16 and 19.

Quote
XVI: Si quis vir dimiserit uxorem suam et dederit comiatum pro religionis causa infra monasterium Deo servire aut foras monasterium dederit licentiam velare, sicut diximus propter Deum, vir illius accipiat mulierem legittimam. Similiter et mulier faciat. Georgius consensit.

16: If any man has divorced his wife and has given her permission to serve God in a monastery for the sake of religion or has given her license to veil herself outside the monastery, [then] just as we have said according to God, that man may receive [another] legal wife. And similarly, let it be so for a woman [in the reverse circumstances]. George has agreed [to this stipulation].

Capitularia regum francorum, canon 16, MGH 1: 38

XIX: Si quis leprosus mulierem habeat sanam, si vult ei donare comiatum ut accipiat virum, ipsa femina, si vult, accipiat. Similiter et vir.

19: If any leper has a health wife, [and] if he wishes to give her permission so that she may marry [another] many, that woman, if she so wishes, may marry [another man]. And similarly, [let it be so] for a man [in the reverse circumstances].

Capitularia regum francorum, canon 19, MGH 1: 39

These canons are quite stunning. In neither of these cases has either party in the marriage committed a wrong. In both canons, the couple can dissolve the marriage by mutual agreement. The egalitarian nature of these canons is rare in the Latin West, unlike it was in the Greek East (Reynolds, 176). But here divorce and remarriage is only permissible for either the case of the extreme disease of leprosy or for the sake of entering a monastery. In the case of Canon 19, it must be understood that medieval people thought leprosy was highly contagious (which it is not) and that they had no means of adequate treatment. The canon emphasizes the healthiness of the unaffected spouse. In short, the underlying principle of the canon was the concern that the healthy spouse would become ill with leprosy as well. As a means to avoid that, they granted the couple the option to terminate the marriage and for the healthy spouse to marry another, if both parties agreed. What is further implied is that if both parties are lepers, then they cannot divorce and remarry. In the case of Canon 16, it presumes that the spouse who enters the monastery actually wants to enter the monastery. In short, one member of the marriage cannot force their spouse into the monastery and then presume to enter into another marriage. Their has to be a clear religious desire (pro religionis causa). It is also reasonable to assume that the council participants considered sexual activity to be a very important part not only for the consummation of the marriage, but throughout the marriage. This assumption is bolstered by the fact that divorce and remarriage is permitted if the spouse merely takes a vow of chastity (assumes the veil) but does not enter a monastery.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2017, 06:34:17 PM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,027
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #275 on: May 09, 2017, 06:38:49 PM »
Third Post in this series, for links to primary sources, please see my first post.

Now, let us look at some of the canons of pseudo-Theodore's penitential. I’ve listed the chapter and canon numbers for the CCSL edition first and in parentheses I have provided the canon numbers for Wasserschleben’s edition, which is available on Google Books:

Quote
XIII.7 (6): Qui dimiserit uxorem propriam alienamque in coniugio duxerit, non tamen uxorem alterius sed vacantem quempiam vel virginem, vii annos peniteat.

XIII.13 (12): Si quis legitimam uxorem habens dimiserit et aliam duxerit, vii annos peniteat. Illa vero quam duxit non est illius, ideo non manducet, neque bibat, neque omnino in sermone sit cum illa quam male accepit, neque cum parentibus illius. Ipsi tamen, si consenserint, sint excommunicati. Illa vero excommunicatio talis fiat, ut neque manducent neque bibant cum aliis christianis, neque in sacra oblatione participes existant et a mensa Domini separentur quousque fructum penitentie dignum per confessionem et lacrimas ostendant.

XIII.19 (18): Mulier si adulterata est et vir eius non vult habitare cum ea, dimittere eam potest iuxta sententiam Domini, et aliam ducere. Illa vero, si vult in monasterio intrare, quartam partem suae hereditatis obtineat. Si non vult, nihil habeat.

XIII.24 (23): Si mulier discesserit a vira suo, dispiciens eum, nolens revertere et reconciliari viro, post v annos cum consensu episcopi aliam accipiat uxorem si continens esse non poterit et iii annos peniteat quia iuxta sententiam Domini moechus comprobatur.

XIII.25 (24): Si cuius uxor in captivitatem per vim ducta fuerit et eam redimi non potuerit, post annum potest alteram accipere. Item si in captivitate ducta fuerit et sperans quod debet revertere vir eius, v annos expectet. Similiter autem et mulier si viro talia contingerint. Si igitur vir interim alteram duxit uxorem et prior iterum mulier de captivitate reversa fuerit, eam accipiat posterioremque dimittat. Similiter autem et illa, sicut superius diximus, si viro talia contingerint, faciat.

13.7 (6): He who would dismiss his wife and marry another in union, [that is to say] not the wife of another, but any single maiden, let him make penance for seven years.

13.13 (12): If any living man having a legal wife divorces her and marries another, let him make penance for seven years. But that [first] woman whom he has married is no longer his, therefore let her not eat, drink, nor be anywhere within speaking distance with that [second] woman whom he has married wrongly nor with his parents. But those parents, if they consent [to be with the ex-wife], let them be excommunicated. But that excommunication shall be so great, that they shall not eat nor drink with any other Christians, nor be  participants in holy oblation and be separated from the table of the Lord until they show worthy fruit with penance through confession and tears.

13.19 (18): A woman, if she is an adulteress, and her husband does not wish to live with her, he is able to divorce her in accordance with the prescription of the Lord, and marry another. That woman, however, if she wishes to enter into a monastery, let her retain a fourth of her dowry. If she does not wish [to do so], let her have none of it.

13.24 (23): If a woman has divorced her husband, despising him, not wishing to return and be reconciled to the husband, after five years with the consent of the bishop, he may marry another wife if he is unable to be continent. And let him make three years penance because in accordance with the prescription of the Lord, he is known as an adulterer.

13.25 (24): If a man’s wife has been led into captivity through force and he has been unable to redeem her, after one year he is able to marry another. Again, if a woman is led into captivity and her husband hopes that she ought to return, then he should wait for five years. And similarly for a woman if they have seized her husband. If therefore a man has married another wife and the first wife has returned from captivity, let him receive her and divorce the second. And similarly, just as we have said above, in the case of if her husband is seized and he returns, let her do likewise.


“Poenitentiale pseudo-Theodori,” in Die Bussordnungen der abendländischen Kirche, edited by F. W. H. Wasserschleben (Halle, Germany: Graeger, 1851), 581-583 (canons 6, 12, 18, 23-24)

Paenitentiale pseudo-Theodori, Chapter 13 De adulterio, CCSL 156B, 26-29 (canons 7, 13, 19, 24-25)

Canon 7 (I’m using CCSL numbers here) says that a man who divorces his wife and marries another must make penance for seven years. Given that the penance is not lifelong until he divorces the second wife or is shortened if he does divorce his second wife, it is clear that remarriage is permitted. It is surprising, however, that no circumstances are outlined that restrict the reasons for divorce. Meanwhile, Canon 13 repeats this injunction on the man, but then concerns itself with the behavior of the first wife. She is explicitly forbidden from being around the second wife or her former in-laws. If the in-laws allow their beloved ex-daughter-in-law to remain with them, those parents are excommunicated. Canon 13 seems to be intent of making the life of the second marriage as least awkward as possible by forcing the ex-wife entirely out of the picture. In other words, although the man is frowned upon for divorcing and remarrying, his second marriage is viewed as completely legitimate and worth the protection of the church and community.

Canon 19 is fairly straight forward in permitting divorce and remarriage of the husband, if his wife has committed adultery. It also issues stipulations for dividing her dowry. If she chooses to make penance by entering into a monastery, then she may keep a fourth of her dowry, presumably for her to give to her monastery when she enters it. But if she chooses not to make this penance and instead either make no penance or the seven year penance outlined in Canon 18 (17), which I did not translate here, then she is to keep none of her dowry. The loss of a dowry for a medieval woman after divorce was an incredibly harsh sentence.

Canon 24 very much resembles Canon 122 of pseudo-Egbert’s penitential, which I proffered in my previous post, but restricts the penance to only three years. The ambiguity of lifelong penance, outlined in pseudo-Egbert (which I've discussed elsewhere), is removed. However, the condemnation of the husband for not ideally staying single remains. Likewise Canon 25 is also similar to Canon 123 in the previously discussed pseudo-Egbert. However, the waiting periods differ drastically. In pseudo-Theodore, if the husband is clearly unable to redeem his wife, then he only has to wait a single year before remarrying. If, however, he expects, presumably through prior arrangements, that she be returned, then he must wait at least five year. If she has not returned after five years, then he can remarry. Pseudo-Egbert does not provide this nuance. Rather is says regardless of whether the husband expects to get his wife back after trying to do so, he must wait a full seven years before remarrying. Nevertheless, both penitentials agree that these stipulations apply to both men and women equally. Therefore, a woman could remarry if she is unable to redeem her captured husband. Furthermore, if the captured spouse somehow returns after the other has already remarried, the remarried party must divorce their second spouse and return to the other. It does not seem that the desires of either party matter in such circumstances. They must return to the first marriage regardless.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,027
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #276 on: May 09, 2017, 06:44:32 PM »
Fourth and Final Post of this Series, again, see link in first post for directions to the primary sources.

Pope Innocent I: The Case of Fortunius & Ursa (410 AD)

The following historical background for this case is detailed in Reynolds’ work, but Migne also presents some notes in the Patrologia Latina (Reynolds, 131-134). This particular case came before Pope Innocent I in 410 AD, brought to him by a woman named Ursa. We know of this case through a letter from Innocent addressed to a Roman civil official by the name of Probus. The circumstance of Ursa are that she was captured by the Visigoths who sacked Rome in 410. Eventually, however, she was able to return to Rome and to her husband. However, her husband, Fortunius, had already remarried another woman by the name of Restituta (Reynolds, 132). Under secular Roman law, if someone is captured by a foreign enemy and taken to territory outside Roman control, then their citizenship was suspended and their estate could be assumed by another. Furthermore, their marriage was automatically dissolved (Reynolds, 131). That is to say, even if they wanted to wait for the return of their spouse, under Roman law, the marriage had already been terminated automatically. Below is Innocent’s letter, which contains the particulars of this case:

Quote
Epistola XXXVI. Si maritus cujus uxor in captivitatem fuerat abducta, alteram acceperit, revertente prima, secunda mulier debet excludi.
Innocentius Probo

[Col.0602B] Conturbatio procellae barbaricae facultati legum intulit casum. Nam bene constituto matrimonio inter Fortunium et Ursam captivitatis incursus fecerat naevum, nisi sancta religionis statuta providerent. Cum enim in captivitate praedicta Ursa mulier teneretur; aliud conjugium cum Restituta Fortunius memoratus inisse cognoscitur (34, q. 1 et 2, c. 2; Ivo p. 8, c. 245). Sed favore Domini reversa Ursa nos adiit, et nullo diffitente, uxorem se memorati perdocuit. Quare, domine fili merito illustris, statuimus, fide catholica suffragante, illud esse conjugium, quod erat primitus gratia divina fundatum; [Col.0603A] conventumque secundae mulieris, priore superstite, nec divortio ejecta, nullo pacto posse esse legitimum.

Letter 36. Whether a husband whose wife has been led into captivity and has married another woman should, with the first wife having returned, divorce the second wife.
Innocent to Probus

The confusion of the violent barbarian has brought a legal case before my power. For their attack has wrought a blight upon the good marriage between Fortanius and the captive Ursa, unless they have provided a holy statue of religion. Indeed, the woman Ursa was taken into the aforementioned captivity, Fortunius is known to have entered into another marriage with Restituta. But with the favor of the Lord, the returned Ursa came before us, and with no denial, proclaimed convincingly that she was the wife of times past. By which means, young illustrious lord with merit,  we have ruled, having favored the universal faith, that [first] marriage to stand, because it was formerly founded with divine grace, and that covenant with the second woman, as long as the first wife lives or is not divorced, cannot by any agreement be legitimate.


Pope Innocent I to Probus, Epistula 36, Patrologia Latina 20: 602A – 603A

There is a lot to go through here. Since it is only fair, a previous scholar by the name of G. H. Joyce said that this case was a legal case, not an ecclesiastical case, thereby meaning Innocent was operating as a secular legal judge and was bound by secular law. This argument can be seen in Christian Marriage: An Historical and Doctrinal Study printed in 1933. Reynolds, however, rebuts this position insisting that the case was seen before an ecclesiastical court. The reason for this is because Emperor Honorius had ruled in 399 AD that bishops could only hear religious cases and that civil cases must be held before civil courts. Furthermore, under civil law, Ursa would have most certainly lost her case against Fortunius, because Roman law automatically dissolved their marriage once she was captured and taken into foreign territory (Reynolds, 133). This argument is further bolstered by the fact that Innocent makes mention of religious statutes (sancta religionis statuta) and the favoring of the universal faith (fide catholica suffragante) (Reynolds, 133). These statutes would have no standing in this case if it was a secular legal one. In short, this was most certainly a religious case adjudicated by Pope Innocent I.

Now, it is worthy to note that Pope Innocent makes the interesting point of some exceptions in cases of divorce and remarriage. If the first wife died, then of course Fortunius could remarry. Additionally, if Fortunius had divorced his wife in an ecclesiastical court, then he could remarry. In short, Innocent here is saying that he permits divorce and remarriage. The question quickly arises as to under which circumstances would Innocent have granted an ecclesiastical divorce. To this point I will later return.

Now some readers will object to this interpretation based upon Innocent’s Letter to Bishop Victricius of Rouen in 408 AD. In it, he prohibits an adulteress woman from remarrying again while her husband still live. Catholic Answers has this quote proudly posted on their website concerning the issue of marriage. However, it should be noted that this woman is clearly the guilty party in the marriage. Furthermore, the letter says nothing about forbidding that husband from remarrying. Nevertheless, Innocent does forbid remarriage after divorce, even in cases of adultery, for both parties in Letter 6, Chapter 6 (PL 20: 0500B – 0501A) dating from 405 AD. So either Innocent changed his position five years later in the case of Ursa, or he was always extraordinarily strict in giving permission for ecclesiastical divorce. Reynolds speculates that the extraordinary circumstances might have been related to many years of captivity (Reynolds, 134). Again, we cannot know the specifics. What is certain however is that Pope Innocent believed divorce and remarriage was possible, but on what grounds remains uncertain.

Pope Leo I: On the Return of Captive Spouses (458 AD)

Nearly four decades later, Pope Leo I, like Innocent, faced the daunting challenge of barbarian invaders – this time the Huns under the command of Attila. Around 452 AD, the Huns had invaded Northern Italy, and took many captives. The remaining women whose husbands had been taken into captivity eventually remarried. However, many of the men were able to return some years later. Bishop Nicetas of Aquileia is unsure of what to do in these difficult cases. Therefore, he asks Leo for his opinion on the matter. Listed below is a portion of Leo’s reply in a rescript (Reynolds, 134-135). It is important to note that rescripts were not binding judgments. Nicetas was under no obligation to listen to Leo’s advice.

Quote
Epistola CLIX. Ad Nicetam episcopum Aquileiensem

Caput I. De feminis quae occasione captivitatis virorum suorum, aliis nupserunt.

Cum ergo per bellicam cladem et per gravissimos hostilitatis incursus, ita quaedam dicatis divisa esse conjugia, ut abductis in [Col.1136B] captivitatem viris feminae eorum remanserint destitutae, quae cum viros proprios aut interemptos putarent, aut numquam a dominatione crederent liberandos, ad aliorum conjugium, solitudine cogente, transierint. Cumque nunc statu rerum, auxiliante Domino, in meliora converso, nonnulli eorum qui putabantur periisse, remeaverint, merito charitas tua videtur ambigere quid de mulieribus, quae aliis junctae sunt viris, a nobis debeat ordinari. Sed quia novimus scriptum, quod a Deo jungitur mulier viro(Prov. XIX, 14), et iterum praeceptum agnovimus ut quod Deus junxit homo non separet(Matth. XIX, 6), necesse est ut legitimarum foedera nuptiarum redintegranda credamus, et remotis malis quae hostilitas intulit, unicuique hoc quod legitime habuit reformetur, [Col.1136C] omnique studio procurandum est ut recipiat unusquisque quod proprium est.

Caput II. An culpabilis sit qui locum captivi mariti assumpsit.

Nec tamen culpabilis judicetur, et tamquam alieni juris pervasor habeatur, qui personam ejus mariti, qui jam non esse existimabatur, assumpsit. [Col.1137A] Sic enim multa quae ad eos qui in captivitatem ducti sunt pertinebant in jus alienum transire potuerunt, et tamen plenum justitiae est ut eisdem reversis propria reformentur. Quod si in mancipiis vel in agris, aut etiam in domibus ac possessionibus rite servatur, quanto magis in conjugiorum redintegratione faciendum est, ut quod bellica necessitate turbatum est pacis remedio reformetur?

Caput III. Restituendam esse uxorem primo marito.

Et ideo, si viri post longam captivitatem reversi ita in dilectione suarum conjugum perseverent, ut eas cupiant in suum redire consortium, omittendum est et inculpabile judicandum quod necessitas intulit, et restituendum quod fides poscit.

Letter 159. To Bishop Nicetas of Aquileia.

Chapter 1. Concerning women who on the occasion of the capture of their husbands have married another man.

Therefore, when through the destruction of war and through the onset of the most grave hostilities, that, as you say, some marriages are dissolved, so that the women, whose husbands have been led into captivity, remain destitute and think that when their husbands have been slain or believe that they will never be freed from domination, therefore on account of being driven into loneliness enter into another marriage. Now whenever the state of things, with the help of the Lord, changes for the better, and some of them, who were thought to have perished, have returned, your charity is seen with deserved ambiguity with respect to the women who are joined to another man. Let [this case] be ruled by us. Because we have known the scriptures, which [say] that “a woman is joined to a man by God” (Proverbs 19:14), and again because we have known the prescription as “what God has joined let no man separate” (Matthew 19:6), [then] it is necessary that we believe the union of the legitimate marriage ought to be reintegrated, and once the evil enemy who attacked has withdrawn, what had lawfully been shall be reformed, and with every desire ought to be procured so that everyone will receive what is theirs.

Chapter 2. Whether there is culpability for he who assumed that the [first] husband was captured.

Nevertheless, the man who took the place of her husband, reckoning that the latter did not exist, should not be judged as culpable or as the invader of another’s right. For in this way many things which belonged to those who were taken into captivity may have passed into the rights of others. But it is altogether just that when they return, their property should be restored to them. Now if this is rightly observed in the matter of slaves or of land, or even of homes and possessions, how more more should this be done when it comes to the re-establishment of a marriage, so that what the adversities of war have disrupted should be restored by the remedy of peace.

Chapter 3. Whether the wife ought to be restored to her first husband.

And therefore, if men who have returned after long captivity so persevere in the love of their wives that they want them to come back to their partnership, then that which misfortune brought about should be set aside and what fidelity demands should be restored.

Note: Chapters 2 and 3 are translations found in Reynolds, Marriage in the Western Church, 135-137.


Pope Leo I to Bishop Nicetas of Aquileia, Epistula 159, Patrologia Latina 54: 1136A – 1137A

Here Pope Leo advises that if the first husband returns from captivity AND desires that he be reunited with his wife, who has since married another man, that the wife therefore leave her second husband and return to her first husband. Furthermore, no one party is held culpable for this situation. In fact, the second husband is explicitly excused from the matter. Also noteworthy is that if the husband returns AND does NOT desire to reclaim his wife, then the wife is under NO obligation to leave her second husband. One last thing worth pointing out here is that Leo did believed the woman’s second marriage was okay based upon two qualifications in the case of her first husband’s capture and enslavement. These two qualifications were either she believed her first husband to be dead OR she believed that, although he was still alive, he would never be able to return. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that Pope Leo I did not hold marriage to be indissoluble, as many Catholics and Protestants do today.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Charles Martel

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,805
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #277 on: May 18, 2017, 07:27:52 PM »
At the risk of reading through your posts ad nasuem, I still find no example of any pope speaking ex cathedra of the Church allowing divorce.

It simply is not possible. and never has been,

But you continue on with your anti-Catholic rhetoric and blogs.

Have fun with that.
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,321
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #278 on: May 18, 2017, 07:30:58 PM »
LOL Hear no evil, see no evil.
This profile is defunct as of 11/8/2017. I created it before Orthodoxy, and have used it after Orthodoxy.

I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

I will likely lurk on this forum under a different name.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,027
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #279 on: May 18, 2017, 10:12:35 PM »
But you continue on with your anti-Catholic rhetoric and blogs.

Have fun with that.

Gladly, although I will probably be posting on non-Catholic stuff for a while now.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline ErmyCath

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 239
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #280 on: May 19, 2017, 09:52:20 AM »
At the risk of reading through your posts ad nasuem, I still find no example of any pope speaking ex cathedra of the Church allowing divorce.

It simply is not possible. and never has been,

But you continue on with your anti-Catholic rhetoric and blogs.

Have fun with that.

Consider that the definition of "ex cathedra" was made in the late 19th century so that those who set the limits were aware of all the things the popes had done and said up to the point and how they had done and said those things. The definition was made in such a way as to be sure that none of those previous inconvenient teachings met it.

Now the definition is a tautology, which is essentially what you're arguing. You're insisting that a pope cannot teach error ex cathedra because, if a pope did so, he wouldn't be the pope. That's an incredible escape clause considering the entire purpose of the ex cathedra idea is that the pope has the final say on disputed issues.

The result of your logic is that, if the pope defines something with which you disagree (however good your reasons for disagreement), you are able to make the final judgment about whether the pope's definition is sufficiently accurate as to meet the requirement that the pope making the definition is actually a true pope. You cannot escape the fact that your logic always comes back to your subjective judgment about the accuracy of the pope's definition. And that is contrary to the idea of the Church teaching through the office of the papacy, as the Catholic Church has defined it.
"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,475
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #281 on: May 19, 2017, 09:58:25 AM »
At the risk of reading through your posts ad nasuem, I still find no example of any pope speaking ex cathedra of the Church allowing divorce.

It simply is not possible. and never has been,

But you continue on with your anti-Catholic rhetoric and blogs.

Have fun with that.

Consider that the definition of "ex cathedra" was made in the late 19th century so that those who set the limits were aware of all the things the popes had done and said up to the point and how they had done and said those things. The definition was made in such a way as to be sure that none of those previous inconvenient teachings met it.

Now the definition is a tautology, which is essentially what you're arguing. You're insisting that a pope cannot teach error ex cathedra because, if a pope did so, he wouldn't be the pope. That's an incredible escape clause considering the entire purpose of the ex cathedra idea is that the pope has the final say on disputed issues.

The result of your logic is that, if the pope defines something with which you disagree (however good your reasons for disagreement), you are able to make the final judgment about whether the pope's definition is sufficiently accurate as to meet the requirement that the pope making the definition is actually a true pope. You cannot escape the fact that your logic always comes back to your subjective judgment about the accuracy of the pope's definition. And that is contrary to the idea of the Church teaching through the office of the papacy, as the Catholic Church has defined it.

Well said.
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline Charles Martel

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,805
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #282 on: May 21, 2017, 10:27:22 AM »
Quote
Consider that the definition of "ex cathedra" was made in the late 19th century so that those who set the limits were aware of all the things the popes had done and said up to the point and how they had done and said those things. The definition was made in such a way as to be sure that none of those previous inconvenient teachings met it.
Was "made" that way or Divinely revealed?

Quote
Now the definition is a tautology, which is essentially what you're arguing. You're insisting that a pope cannot teach error ex cathedra because, if a pope did so, he wouldn't be the pope.
Yes.

Quote
That's an incredible escape clause considering the entire purpose of the ex cathedra idea is that the pope has the final say on disputed issues.
When he is defining doctrine regarding faith and morals  held by the Universal Church revealed by Divine assistance promised to him through St Peter, yes.

Quote
The result of your logic is that, if the pope defines something with which you disagre
Not me, the Church.

Quote
you are able to make the final judgment about whether the pope's definition is sufficiently accurate as to meet the requirement that the pope making the definition is actually a true pope
Again, not me, but the doctrines and dogmas of the Church.

Quote
. You cannot escape the fact that your logic always comes back to your subjective judgment about the accuracy of the pope's definition.
Again, it's not "my logic" but what the divinely revealed teachings of the Faith through the Universal Church. the pope cannot deviate from this. Lest he not be the pope.

Quote
And that is contrary to the idea of the Church teaching through the office of the papacy, as the Catholic Church has defined it.
I think it is your idea of the papacy, infallability and the Church's definition of it that is fundamentally flawed.
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 579
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #283 on: June 05, 2017, 09:59:29 PM »
In the fist year of his pontificate, I tried hard to give Francis the benefit of the doubt. Whenever the media would say something odd, I'd try to find out the context; sometimes I was relieved, other times I was worried. Whenever the media would translate something oddly, I'd try to find the original Italian or Spanish; sometimes I was relieved, other times I was worried. Until the synod on the family and his apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, when Francis showed to deserve no benefit of the doubt anymore.
Francis does not say things carelessly, there is a pattern that indicate that they represent his thought. His thought is very much in the modernist vein, constantly clashing a thesis, a point of doctrine, with an antithesis, in order to find a synthesis, after which the doctrine is literally compromised. Now, when Francis affirms one point of the Catholic Faith, invariably what he says later is its antithesis. If anything follows, the synthesis, it compromises the Catholic Faith.
Perhaps having grown up with two popes who rarely said questionable things, from a Catholic perspective, it was easy for me believe in papal infallibility.  Not so with Francis.  He was often indefensible and I had to face the reality that his statements did not support this dogma, no matter how subtly, nuanced, selectively or acrobatically it is understood.  In other words, that Francis was contradicting his predecessors, teaching heresy.
I had to understand what Vatican I meant by this dogma and how the council fathers reached this conclusion.  Moreover, I had to find out the history of the papacy in the context of other patriarchates, before and other the Great Schism.  And it goes without saying that Holy Scripture was a guide about the role of the Apostles relative to St. Peter's.  I read many books, whose authors were Catholic, Orthodox and secular historians. 
If I'd summarize my findings, I'd paraphrase Card. Newman thus: "to be deep in history is to cease to be Catholic".  Historically, all of the authors were in agreement, but Catholics wouldn't dare to contradict VI, a scruple that the Orthodox lacked.
As a matter of fact, I'm left with the impression that Francis has been jesuitically jumping through a glaring loophole left by VI when it investigated pope Honorius.  Having intentionally left an ambiguity in his exhortation, and even footnotes are part of it, betraying the very words of the synodal bishops, Francis went on to confirm bishops who interpreted his words contradicting his late predecessors by letter, similar to pope Honorius' letter to patriarch Sergius.  In other words, Francis probably knows what he's doing, carefully treading within legalistic limits to change a Catholic teaching.
Life in communion with the pope of Rome has never been easy for the Eastern Catholic Churches.  Such Churches, all of which suffered great persecution and martyrdom, often alongside the Orthodox Churches, also suffered greatly under Rome, in the suppression of their traditions, theology, customs and even liturgies.  And, in spite of conciliatory words in Vatican II, the heads of Eastern Catholic Churches, even patriarchs who rank equally with the pope, answer to a mere cardinal, trampling any illusion of autonomy. 
As painful as this has been over the centuries through the present, adding heresy to injury is unacceptable.  I cannot answer for my patriarch and my Church, but neither will they answer for me before the Lord's throne.  I will.  Having completed the intellectual homework, I'm now left with the spiritual task of letting my heart be illumined by Truth and follow Him.  I have to painfully consider the prospect of leaving my Church for the Orthodox Church. 
Please, pray for me.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2017, 10:01:44 PM by Sharbel »
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,027
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #284 on: June 05, 2017, 11:55:37 PM »
You're in my prayers and I am sure others' too.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Lepanto

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 321
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #285 on: June 06, 2017, 02:51:57 AM »
All the best for you.
Intellectually, I can only agree with what you wrote.
The other day I was wondering whether it was our job to question hierarchy in such a way.
After all, HE let it happen that Francis became bishop of Rome, like it or not.
I do not presume to know HIS plan, but I am sure there must be one, which we may not be able to understand -
at least as of now.
This is not arguing with church fathers, history or how Vat I did probably not teach what the church always believed.


una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro et Antistite nostro et omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicæ et apostolicæ fidei cultoribus

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 579
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #286 on: June 06, 2017, 09:33:48 AM »
Intellectually, I can only agree with what you wrote.
The other day I was wondering whether it was our job to question hierarchy in such a way.
After all, HE let it happen that Francis became bishop of Rome, like it or not.
There is, of course, the matter of human freedom, which is not abrogated in cardinals in a conclave or in an elected pope. 


Moreover, the Church is as much yours and mine as the clergy's.  Perhaps the Orthodox are in on something when the faithful also have to assent to an ecumenical council for it to be considered canonical.


My desire has always been to follow Christ in His Church.  Until not too long ago, I believed this Church to be the Catholic Churches and the separated Orthodox Churches.  My difficulties with Francis undermine my belief in a foundational trait that separates the West from the East, making me wonder if the Orthodox have been right all along.  And, if so, the estranged Churches, separated from the fuller Churches are not the Orthodox, but the Catholic Churches.


In order to remain Catholic, I'd have to be convinced of having a prophetic role to reform it and approach it to the Orthodox Church.  But I'm afraid that this is not my calling.  Rather, I'm beginning to think that my calling is to reform myself and approach the Orthodox Church.


May the Good Shepherd, Who never abandons His sheep, lead us ever closer to Him in His Church.
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ

Offline Lepanto

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 321
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #287 on: June 06, 2017, 11:23:13 AM »
Intellectually, I can only agree with what you wrote.
The other day I was wondering whether it was our job to question hierarchy in such a way.
After all, HE let it happen that Francis became bishop of Rome, like it or not.
There is, of course, the matter of human freedom, which is not abrogated in cardinals in a conclave or in an elected pope. 


Moreover, the Church is as much yours and mine as the clergy's.  Perhaps the Orthodox are in on something when the faithful also have to assent to an ecumenical council for it to be considered canonical.


My desire has always been to follow Christ in His Church.  Until not too long ago, I believed this Church to be the Catholic Churches and the separated Orthodox Churches.  My difficulties with Francis undermine my belief in a foundational trait that separates the West from the East, making me wonder if the Orthodox have been right all along.  And, if so, the estranged Churches, separated from the fuller Churches are not the Orthodox, but the Catholic Churches.


In order to remain Catholic, I'd have to be convinced of having a prophetic role to reform it and approach it to the Orthodox Church.  But I'm afraid that this is not my calling.  Rather, I'm beginning to think that my calling is to reform myself and approach the Orthodox Church.


May the Good Shepherd, Who never abandons His sheep, lead us ever closer to Him in His Church.

+1. Could not agree more, very much on spot.
What really troubles me is that it seems that all that glitters is not gold when it comes to Orthodoxy.
This lets me hesitate and essentially reminds me of Lessing´s ring parable with the three monotheistic religions,
where the "original" one has been lost.
This cannot be because we have the promise that the church will not perish.
Try not to worry too much about AL, as it has little to no impact on the lives of people - or at least should not.
Remember, it is not binding in any regard.
I find it deeply disturbing that AL has the potential to estrange Eastern Catholics as you,
who have suffered so much and are more important today for the Catholic church than ever.
"Ex oriente lux."
We have neglected the East far too long, playing unity with Protestants and whatnot and it just got ever worse.


una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro et Antistite nostro et omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicæ et apostolicæ fidei cultoribus

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 579
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #288 on: June 07, 2017, 09:41:13 AM »
What really troubles me is that it seems that all that glitters is not gold when it comes to Orthodoxy.
I have no illusions that Orthodox Churches are perfect in living out the life that their Head invites them to.

I find it deeply disturbing that AL has the potential to estrange Eastern Catholics as you,
who have suffered so much and are more important today for the Catholic church than ever.
"Ex oriente lux."

Most Eastern Catholics have to tackle the papacy in their minds and conscience eventually.  But it seems to me that Romans don't have to tackle the East at all.  I've seen even priests surprised that my bishop was not their Roman bishop.  To almost all Romans, their Church is the Catholic Church and the Eastern ones are merely ritual concessions to immigrants.

But, honestly, as I said, I don't think that I'm called to a prophetic role to reform the Catholic Church or even my Church.  Most Eastern Churches concede too much to Rome and often compromise their traditions through sycophant Latinizations, beset as they are with weak leaders in a Church infinitesimally smaller than the Roman Church.

It's not that I'm writing off the Catholic Churches.  Orthodox Churches have their own problems as well.  But I've remained in the Catholic Church for all my life in spite of its many injustices and sins against the faithful because I believed it to be the Church in its fullness.  Yet, I expect to find similar injustices and sins in the Orthodox Church.  For a reason that only the Lord knows, he put men to lead his flock in his Church.  What I am discerning is whether the Orthodox is the one to have the fullness of the Church.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2017, 09:44:04 AM by Sharbel »
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ

Offline PJ26

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 179
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Russian - is there another one? ;)
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #289 on: June 13, 2017, 08:52:30 PM »
Returning to Amoris Laetitia...

Argentinian Bishop Organizes Special Mass to Give Communion to Adulterous Couples, Cites Pope Francis

"This past Sunday at the Parish Church of San Roque, Reconquista, Santa Fe (Argentina), the local bishop, Msgr. Macín, appointed by Pope Francis in 2013, carried out a monumental and sacrilegious scandal that clearly shows what's behind Amoris laetitia.

In this church he organized a solemn Mass, in which he publicly announced that according to the norms sent in a letter more than 6 months ago by Pope Francis, and within the framework of the integration of Christians who are "marginalized" because of their irregular situation of being divorced and remarried or in an irregular situation (the divorced in a new union), after having completed a period of 6 months of meetings on Saturdays called the "path of discernment", it was determined in accordance with what was previously stated (by order of the Pope) TO INCLUDE THEM IN FULL AND SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION, which would happen in the ceremony. At no point was mention made that those people had taken some vow of chastity or of living "as brothers [and sisters]."

In the same way, communion was given to all those mentioned (some 30 couples) accompanied by their relatives who took photos in a festive atmosphere. At no point was reference ever made to the Scriptures which condemn adultery, and again and again the excerpts of Amoris laetitia are mentioned where it is said that the divorced and remarried ought to be included in full communion."

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/06/breaking-argentina-bishop-organizes.html

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,665
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #290 on: June 13, 2017, 10:55:50 PM »
Returning to Amoris Laetitia...

Argentinian Bishop Organizes Special Mass to Give Communion to Adulterous Couples, Cites Pope Francis

"This past Sunday at the Parish Church of San Roque, Reconquista, Santa Fe (Argentina), the local bishop, Msgr. Macín, appointed by Pope Francis in 2013, carried out a monumental and sacrilegious scandal that clearly shows what's behind Amoris laetitia.

In this church he organized a solemn Mass, in which he publicly announced that according to the norms sent in a letter more than 6 months ago by Pope Francis, and within the framework of the integration of Christians who are "marginalized" because of their irregular situation of being divorced and remarried or in an irregular situation (the divorced in a new union), after having completed a period of 6 months of meetings on Saturdays called the "path of discernment", it was determined in accordance with what was previously stated (by order of the Pope) TO INCLUDE THEM IN FULL AND SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION, which would happen in the ceremony. At no point was mention made that those people had taken some vow of chastity or of living "as brothers [and sisters]."

In the same way, communion was given to all those mentioned (some 30 couples) accompanied by their relatives who took photos in a festive atmosphere. At no point was reference ever made to the Scriptures which condemn adultery, and again and again the excerpts of Amoris laetitia are mentioned where it is said that the divorced and remarried ought to be included in full communion."

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/06/breaking-argentina-bishop-organizes.html

The way this is going, before you know it they'll be as wanton as Orthodox.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Charles Martel

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,805
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #291 on: June 24, 2017, 06:33:32 AM »
Returning to Amoris Laetitia...

Argentinian Bishop Organizes Special Mass to Give Communion to Adulterous Couples, Cites Pope Francis

"This past Sunday at the Parish Church of San Roque, Reconquista, Santa Fe (Argentina), the local bishop, Msgr. Macín, appointed by Pope Francis in 2013, carried out a monumental and sacrilegious scandal that clearly shows what's behind Amoris laetitia.

In this church he organized a solemn Mass, in which he publicly announced that according to the norms sent in a letter more than 6 months ago by Pope Francis, and within the framework of the integration of Christians who are "marginalized" because of their irregular situation of being divorced and remarried or in an irregular situation (the divorced in a new union), after having completed a period of 6 months of meetings on Saturdays called the "path of discernment", it was determined in accordance with what was previously stated (by order of the Pope) TO INCLUDE THEM IN FULL AND SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION, which would happen in the ceremony. At no point was mention made that those people had taken some vow of chastity or of living "as brothers [and sisters]."

In the same way, communion was given to all those mentioned (some 30 couples) accompanied by their relatives who took photos in a festive atmosphere. At no point was reference ever made to the Scriptures which condemn adultery, and again and again the excerpts of Amoris laetitia are mentioned where it is said that the divorced and remarried ought to be included in full communion."

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/06/breaking-argentina-bishop-organizes.html
This is because they know damn well what their doing is against Scripture, Gospel Teaching and Church  doctrine.

But they want it both ways and we have a pope that is  indirectly giving it to them.

I would say that we are truly having a Henry the VIII moment in the church these days, but at least back then, even the pope told the King of England  he was wrong and in error and they  didn't cave into political correctness.

Not true today, the POPE is actuallly the one encouraging the violation of the sacraments and heresy.

These a dark times. IF, you're a Catholic.


« Last Edit: June 24, 2017, 06:33:56 AM by Charles Martel »
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.

Offline Charles Martel

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,805
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #292 on: June 24, 2017, 06:40:40 AM »
Is pope francis guilty of the sin of omission with his silence?



Pope Francis’ silence is a bold denial of objective truth: former Vatican Bank chief

Why doesn’t the Pope respond to the Dubia? The former director of the Vatican Bank thinks he knows why. In a biting essay in Italy’s La Verità, translated below, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi suggests that Francis is sending two messages through his silence: that he can contradict himself if he likes and that he wishes to impose a “New Catholic Morality” on the Church. This new morality would be based not on doctrine but on the subjective opinions of the individual conscience. Meanwhile, Amoris Laetitia’s denial of eternal damnation contradicts Jesus’ assertions in the Gospel that sinners are indeed in danger of this fate. Ultimately, Francis’ silence — which allows doubts to continue to flourish — is a denial of objective truth.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/pope-francis-silence-is-a-bold-denial-of-objective-truth-former-vatican-ban
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.

Offline Charles Martel

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,805
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #293 on: June 24, 2017, 06:44:09 AM »
What really troubles me is that it seems that all that glitters is not gold when it comes to Orthodoxy.
I have no illusions that Orthodox Churches are perfect in living out the life that their Head invites them to.

I find it deeply disturbing that AL has the potential to estrange Eastern Catholics as you,
who have suffered so much and are more important today for the Catholic church than ever.
"Ex oriente lux."

Most Eastern Catholics have to tackle the papacy in their minds and conscience eventually.  But it seems to me that Romans don't have to tackle the East at all.  I've seen even priests surprised that my bishop was not their Roman bishop.  To almost all Romans, their Church is the Catholic Church and the Eastern ones are merely ritual concessions to immigrants.

But, honestly, as I said, I don't think that I'm called to a prophetic role to reform the Catholic Church or even my Church.  Most Eastern Churches concede too much to Rome and often compromise their traditions through sycophant Latinizations, beset as they are with weak leaders in a Church infinitesimally smaller than the Roman Church.

It's not that I'm writing off the Catholic Churches.  Orthodox Churches have their own problems as well.  But I've remained in the Catholic Church for all my life in spite of its many injustices and sins against the faithful because I believed it to be the Church in its fullness.  Yet, I expect to find similar injustices and sins in the Orthodox Church.  For a reason that only the Lord knows, he put men to lead his flock in his Church.  What I am discerning is whether the Orthodox is the one to have the fullness of the Church.

I don't think so, in many ways they're a bigger fractured mess than Rome.

Really, all of Christianity is. Has been since the very beginning IMO.
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,238
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #294 on: June 24, 2017, 11:24:15 AM »
  What I am discerning is whether the Orthodox is the one to have the fullness of the Church.[/size][/font]
I don't think so, in many ways they're a bigger fractured mess than Rome.

How? 











How this relates to the coming Antichrist? I don't know...

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,238
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
How this relates to the coming Antichrist? I don't know...

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline tradne13838

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR Western Rite
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #296 on: December 03, 2017, 09:58:40 PM »
And this situation helped me to look at Orthodoxy and see what it has to say for itself. The Roman Church is split at least 4 different ways these days, and each camp is problematic in light of Roman Catholic teachings.

My priest says that Francis is the best missionary he has working for him. Every time Francis says something stupid, Father's phone rings. lol
« Last Edit: December 03, 2017, 09:59:10 PM by tradne13838 »

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 506
  • 404 - Quote not found
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #297 on: December 03, 2017, 10:03:19 PM »
And this situation helped me to look at Orthodoxy and see what it has to say for itself. The Roman Church is split at least 4 different ways these days, and each camp is problematic in light of Roman Catholic teachings.

My priest says that Francis is the best missionary he has working for him. Every time Francis says something stupid, Father's phone rings. lol

Oh hey tradn13838 - welcome to OrthodoxChristianity .net!
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline RaphaCam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,611
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #298 on: December 12, 2017, 11:33:25 PM »
And this situation helped me to look at Orthodoxy and see what it has to say for itself. The Roman Church is split at least 4 different ways these days, and each camp is problematic in light of Roman Catholic teachings.

My priest says that Francis is the best missionary he has working for him. Every time Francis says something stupid, Father's phone rings. lol
lol!
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

Check my blog "Em Espírito e em Verdade" (in Portuguese)

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,034
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #299 on: December 15, 2017, 12:08:27 PM »
Hi Guys I’m back after a year of exile  :) ;) ;D

I had ipso facto excommunicated myself from the forum to refocus myself and attain some necessary spiritual focus and growth. It has been worthwhile but now I’m back briefly for two months.

In my absence let’s see what happened:


- His Holiness Pope Francis has gone into overdrive
- The sad deaths of two dubia cardinals Cafarra and Meisner (Eternal test granted in them O Lord)
- Two formal corrections of the pope by theologians and laity
- A divinely inspired letter by Fr. Weinandy admonishing the Pope and urging him to solve the confusion and crisis in the church.
- Fr Weinandy being sacked swiftly by the liberal bishops in the USCCB
- The Centenary of the miracle of the sun of Fatima and a rumored miracle of the Sun on the centernary in Nigeria as it’s Bishops consecrated Nigeria to the Imacculate heart of Our lady of Fatima
- Christian persecution seems to have intensified throughout the world (Prayers especially for those in the Middle East)
- Some cities have been reclaimed from ISIS and Glory to God that Christians are rebuilding there again!
- The book titled ”The Dictator Pope” was released which has incensed those closest to the Pope in Rome. They are rumored to be doing a man hunt for the author.
- Cardinal Mueller was fired from the Congreagtion of the Doctrine of Faith for his unwillingness to move with heterodox direction currently popular in the church.
- The Bishops and clergy remain silent with only a few brave ones speaking up about the disastrous pontificate of Pope Francis.
- One or two age old prophecies (St Francis) and recent prophecies (Our lady of Fatima and Akita) seem to be coming true under this pontificate
- Funnily enough there has been a growth in traditional Catholicism or traditional leaning catholic due to this pontificate. However it does seem also that the liberal and heterodox have grown more bold during this pontificate.
- Cardinal Daneels and his so called St Gallem “mafia” were openly bragging about how they got Pope Francis elected. Openly hinting at a breach of canonical procedures causing into question Pope Francis’ election (although by de facto acceptance, barring a few, most Catholics and cardinals especially accept the barely valid election of Pope Francis)
- Heretics of all sorts are being elected to positions of power and the orthodox are being fired and excommunicated such as hasn’t been seen in the church since the days of Arius. Many parallels.
- The Church is in de facto schism :(
- Pope Francis made the Argentinian interpretation the official position of his papacy as an act of the Apistolic see this leaving no room for Pope Francis to have an “out” as teaching error only as a private theologian. He can now be tried for heresy in his pontificate by a future pope. It’s rumoured after this act many bishops and some clergy have considered him to have possibly deposed himself as Pope.
- God wins in the end (Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI in the presence of Pope Francis to some clergy)
- Forum debates still follow the same pattern  ;D
- OC.net is still OC.net

I missed this place :)
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today


You are welcome to send me private messages but I don't post publicly anymore

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,238
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #300 on: December 15, 2017, 12:17:31 PM »
Hi Guys I’m back after a year of exile  :) ;) ;D

I had ipso facto excommunicated myself from the forum to refocus myself and attain some necessary spiritual focus and growth. It has been worthwhile but now I’m back briefly for two months.

I had to check the date of your last post and, sure enough, it's been a year.  Welcome back!

Quote
In my absence let’s see what happened:


- His Holiness Pope Francis has gone into overdrive
- The sad deaths of two dubia cardinals Cafarra and Meisner (Eternal test granted in them O Lord)
- Two formal corrections of the pope by theologians and laity
- A divinely inspired letter by Fr. Weinandy admonishing the Pope and urging him to solve the confusion and crisis in the church.
- Fr Weinandy being sacked swiftly by the liberal bishops in the USCCB
- The Centenary of the miracle of the sun of Fatima and a rumored miracle of the Sun on the centernary in Nigeria as it’s Bishops consecrated Nigeria to the Imacculate heart of Our lady of Fatima
- Christian persecution seems to have intensified throughout the world (Prayers especially for those in the Middle East)
- Some cities have been reclaimed from ISIS and Glory to God that Christians are rebuilding there again!
- The book titled ”The Dictator Pope” was released which has incensed those closest to the Pope in Rome. They are rumored to be doing a man hunt for the author.
- Cardinal Mueller was fired from the Congreagtion of the Doctrine of Faith for his unwillingness to move with heterodox direction currently popular in the church.
- The Bishops and clergy remain silent with only a few brave ones speaking up about the disastrous pontificate of Pope Francis.
- One or two age old prophecies (St Francis) and recent prophecies (Our lady of Fatima and Akita) seem to be coming true under this pontificate
- Funnily enough there has been a growth in traditional Catholicism or traditional leaning catholic due to this pontificate. However it does seem also that the liberal and heterodox have grown more bold during this pontificate.
- Cardinal Daneels and his so called St Gallem “mafia” were openly bragging about how they got Pope Francis elected. Openly hinting at a breach of canonical procedures causing into question Pope Francis’ election (although by de facto acceptance, barring a few, most Catholics and cardinals especially accept the barely valid election of Pope Francis)
- Heretics of all sorts are being elected to positions of power and the orthodox are being fired and excommunicated such as hasn’t been seen in the church since the days of Arius. Many parallels.
- The Church is in de facto schism :(
- Pope Francis made the Argentinian interpretation the official position of his papacy as an act of the Apistolic see this leaving no room for Pope Francis to have an “out” as teaching error only as a private theologian. He can now be tried for heresy in his pontificate by a future pope. It’s rumoured after this act many bishops and some clergy have considered him to have possibly deposed himself as Pope.
- God wins in the end (Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI in the presence of Pope Francis to some clergy)
- Forum debates still follow the same pattern  ;D
- OC.net is still OC.net

I missed this place :)

Careful, you might upset Porter with all ^that.  :P
How this relates to the coming Antichrist? I don't know...

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,034
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #301 on: December 15, 2017, 01:16:44 PM »
I had to check the date of your last post and, sure enough, it's been a year.  Welcome back!

Most appreciated Mor :)

Quote
Careful, you might upset Porter with all ^that.  :P

I hope Porter can let that one slide :P ;) it’s been a while after all
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today


You are welcome to send me private messages but I don't post publicly anymore

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,665
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #302 on: December 15, 2017, 02:51:34 PM »
What am I, the Swiss Guard?
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,034
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Amoris Laetitia and My Crisis of Faith
« Reply #303 on: December 15, 2017, 04:22:30 PM »
What am I, the Swiss Guard?

Something like that  :P ;D
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today


You are welcome to send me private messages but I don't post publicly anymore