I understand what you are saying and that you believe it, but I think it is incorrect to say that anullment is “using laws to legally invalidate the grace of a Sacrament”.
The site does not say that Eastern Catholics heretics. You may like to define “reject” or “heresy” however you like, but that has no bearing on the usage by the authors of the cited article. You may find that to be a clever way of arguing with Steve. But the reality is that you are posting information that is untrue to a wide audience. There is no merit in that.
Well I am not objecting to that argument that you have with Steve. My argument is that you are presenting contents of sites inappropriately. I am happy that you admit that Steve is appropriate in his repesentations and do not make that claim for your posts,
I disagree with your characterization of what most Orthodox try to do here. How much of the EO arguments over the “filioque” here hinge on them telling Catholics what Catholics. And purgatory. And …
Apparently you reconsider this remark in your next post.
confused:
I made no claims about the sites I quoted. As you noted, I didn’t misquote, misrepresent, misdirect, misuse, mischarachterize any quote from any site I used. And I posted the site so you didn’t have to hunt for the source.
You’re being cross examined just like you do with Catholics. Did you think this was merely a monologue where you get to accuse without being challenged?
You took a paragraph from an article, rewrote it to say something opposite, and called it a quote. Is that what you call word games? I think an apology is in order.
I do agree with what you say in principle, but if marriages MUST have the approval of the Church then all other Sacrament do likewise as well. Why isn’t there an approved list of popes. Why isn’t there an approved list of Ecumenical Councils? Hardly anything has a list of essentials that have been approved so that these essentials may be gone over with a fine tooth come in order to find some obscure point to be able to call it invalid. I do not doubt that the Church has the authority to set laws & the authority over the Sacramental grace as well as this is the power of the one who holds the Keys; but I look at what the Church is doing very carefully and I conclude that the Church is not exercising it’s authority over the Sacraments, only over the legal authority to perform those sacraments. Great lengths are taken to see if laws the Church set up were perfectly followed but nothing is done to determine if there was grace in the Sacrament, that is unless it is assumed that observance of laws control the grace of the Sacrament. Laws were nailed to the Cross, the Cross was not nailed to the Laws. A law that comes after can not invalidate the grace that has come before. Why do they depose a priest? Could they not just find some point of essential law that was overlooked an his ordination and declare that he never was a priest in the first place? Of course they could, but they don’t! Only in marriage do they us strictness; and there must be a reason why, and I think that reason is one and the same reason the Eastern Churches come to the same end using economy to get there. Simply put, everyone deserves a second chance!
Of course I was presenting sites inappropriately, as was Steve, that was my argument.
Most Orthodox arguments on that topic has been trying to figure out what Catholics actually believe on it, between different responses from different individuals, and language trying to describe it that certainly doesn’t appear that it was designed to be read by laity this is quite impossible, which is why I generally avoid arguments on that subject now.
I’m aware of what neo means, however it wasn’t clear from the context how you were using it. Thank you for answering that.
Reconsider is the wrong word. Found a semantic distinction. It is still semantics, and I had nothing nefarious in mind with the difference in wording.
Do you have particular examples?confused:
The problem I saw in your remark, as I *tentatively *understand it, is not about heresy that they didn’t touch - although that would be an interesting conversation: many EO’s condemn as heresy things that have never been established as such by an ecumenical council.
I was more concerned about truths that were never brought before a council because they were never contested. If you go to Vigil tonight, much of what you hear has never been adjudicated by a council, but it is the teaching of the Church. I don’t think that - outside the internet - there are many who would consider such teachings as a matter of opinion.
My argument is completely against your arguments, you’ll notice he has refused to get behind you on your argument, of course he has also refused to speak against your arguments.
That’s great, but you’re superimposing Catholic definitions on Orthodoxy, since you find it unfair to have non-Catholic definitions placed on Catholicism, you are guilty of having double standards.
You did, you claimed them as a point of authority against Orthodox. You most certainly misrepresented the sites, and mis-characterized Orthodoxy.
Except that’s not entirely true either, and seems to contradict your entire argument here, which is that All Orthodox believe in Toll Houses as dogma because orthodoxinfo says so.
First off, in order for that to be a valid argument you’d have to find a source that speaks for all “RO” (MP is the proper abbreviation). Second you’re creating a strawman, no one has ever claimed it isn’t a teaching in the church. What is denied is that it has official standing.
The Orthodox Church is many Churches which make up the One Church, as it has always been. We have never claimed otherwise. Congrats on figuring that out.
I’m sorry, what? First off what does that have to do with what you quoted, second I have never indicated a belief that this is a monologue, and finally I have not acquiesced to being cross examined, I was under the impression this was to be a civil discussion, of course your dishonesty put an end to that.
zenit.org/article-3885?l=
Why? Have they agreed to be integrated into Constantinople, or is that suddenly not necessary?apparantly there has been much progress with the see of Antioch
No I didn’t, the only quote I gave was exactly what it says. My claim was a paraphrase, but when asked to present a quote I presented an exact quote.
Yents and it was unconvincingly weak because, in marked contrast to Steve, you factually misrepresented the contents of the website cited.
I disagree with your characterization of the Orthodox arguments. There is resistance to clarification, and a pattern of creating meanings that are can then be proclaimed as heretical - just btw what you were doing.
I didn’t think that you did. I just didn’t want to give examples, only to discover that you meant something other than I was reading into your sentence.
I disagree. What the church proclaims in its prayers, its hymns, stichera, irmoi, are matters to be believed. And - apart from what is traditionally heard as metaphor or symbol or analogy etc. - believed without reserve. I have never heard any Eastern priest of bishop - Catholic or Orthodox - suggest anything to the contrary.
Theotokos is enough! It necessarily implies “Mother of God”.
Agreed.
Divine laws determine reception of the grace of a sacrament, the proper disposition must be provided by the faithful, and the proper form observed.
The PofM will soften his view on this real soon. A resolution is at hand.
What is the proper consent for marriage these days? How do you know that there has not been a defect of consent? There have been thousands of marriage annulments, granted years after the ceremony has taken place, where they claim some defect in consent.
I do hope there is some sort of resolution on the Eastern Catholic jurisdiction problems soon.
Marriages are presumed to be valid until show to be otherwise, so one is never completely certain that it could not be anulled (until death that is), or for the baptised, that it is a sacrament. (We cannot read minds.)