H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
She has done nothg wrong until she “finds another man” then oops, she has sinned.
- Status
E
Ender
Guest
Different levels of authority in the teaching require different levels of assent from ‘this absolutely must be believed’ to 'no, I’m not buying that.'Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles)
Ender
M
muffindell
Guest
Yeah, it sucks!
P
PRmerger
Guest
Applealing to Tu Quoque isn’t going to get you out of addressing the problem with your logic, weller.
You address your inconsistency, and then I will address the above.
Again, to re-state the problem with your assertion: if you are taking Paul’s message to mean: all bishops must be married…
then what do you say about Jesus and Paul, who were not married? Would they not be permitted to be Shepherds in your church?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Absolutely not.
If all the bishops met and concluded: God is not a Trinity. He is a Quadrinity and Mary is the 4th person of the Godhead…
they would not be permitted to do so. The Church would not be required to give her religious assent to this gravely erroneous proclamation.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yep.
“Cafeteria Catholics: Creating a god after their own image, rather than conforming to what has been given, once for all, to the saints, since 30 AD!”
P
phil19034
Guest
Question - does the woman try to receive an annulment? If she doesn’t, then that her own fault. The United States gives out more annulments that any place in the world (half or more of the world wide annulments). But only approx 7% of divorced Catholics even attempt to receive an annulment.
I would feel bad for a victim if he/she was denied an annulment, but not if he/she doesn’t try.
But I would not feel bad because of Church teaching, I would feel bad because the spouse was selfish and broke their vows.
E
Ender
Guest
I looked at the Council of Trullo and either I didn’t find what you say is in there or I read it differently than you. How about being a bit more specific? Which Canon are you referring to? The only one I found that addressed this subject was Canon 3 and it was discussing the marriage to widows by the clergy (presbyters, deacons, bishops). I found no general prohibition against marrying a widow, which, since that section was all about invalid marriages, seems to imply that there was no such ban.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
This is easy to assert but so far I’ve not seen any argument presented that purports to show why this is discipline and not doctrine. Would you care to offer such an explanation?
Ender
P
PRmerger
Guest
Oh…dear. Wow. Just wow.
There is a subset of posters here that I do not dialogue with:
- 6000 year old earthers
- Those who view the landing on the moon as feigned
- Holocaust deniers
- Those who claim the government is intentionally poisoning our youth through immunizations
…and those who think Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a thing.
I don’t dialogue with those who espouse these types of ga-ga, la-la nonsense.
E
Ender
Guest
I see that I addressed the question of widows out of context since that issue was not raised in the post to which I responded. I’ll address here the question of doing penance for a second marriage. That council addressed it in this context: it was contracted out of ignorance of the law and those involved have regularized their condition (“or who have turned to repentance of their own accord, having learned continence”). In those cases, inasmuch as the sin is not ongoing but has ceased, it is proper for them to be forgiven and to receive communion. I don’t think the Council of Trullo supports your position.
Ender
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Well you guys are the ones starting threads on votes and what cardinals think.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
No because he is restricted by canons the bishops themselves approved. Bishops can’t be married at all.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Of course. Here you go.
They that marry a second time, used to be under penance a year or two. They that marry a third time, three or four years. But we have a custom, that he who marries a third time be under penance five years, not by canon, but tradition. Half of this time they are to be hearers, afterwards Co-standers; but to abstain from the communion of the Good Thing, when they have shewed some fruit of repentance. - Canons of St Basil, Canon IV
Our Lord is equal, to the man and woman forbidding divorce, save in case of fornication; but custom requires women to retain their husbands, though they be guilty of fornication. The man deserted by his wife may take another, and though he were deserted for adultery, yet St. Basil will be positive, that the other woman who afterward takes him is guilty of adultery; but the wife is not allowed this liberty. And the man who deserts an innocent wife is not allowed to marry. - Canons of St Basil, Canon IX
She who has left her husband is an adulteress if she has come to another, according to the holy and divine Basil, who has gathered this most excellently from the prophet Jeremiah: “If a woman has become another man’s, her husband shall not return to her, but being defiled she shall remain defiled;” and again, “He who has an adulteress is senseless and impious.” If therefore she appears to have departed from her husband without reason, he is deserving of pardon and she of punishment. And pardon shall be given to him that he may be in communion with the Church. But he who leaves the wife lawfully given him, and shall take another is guilty of adultery by the sentence of the Lord. And it has been decreed by our Fathers that they who are such must be “weepers” for a year, “hearers” for two years, “prostrators” for three years, and in the seventh year to stand with the faithful and thus be counted worthy of the Oblation - Canon LXXXVII Trullo
P
PRmerger
Guest
Of course. No one ought to be ostracizing anyone.
In fact, the Catholic position is even the adulterer, the guilty party, ought not be ostracized. That’s contrary to the gospel.
Because she’s still married. And is not free to marry a second time.
E
Ender
Guest
Your version of Canon 87 can be read as you have suggested: people in second marriages can be readmitted to communion after a period of penance and purification.But he who leaves the wife lawfully given him, and shall take another is guilty of adultery by the sentence of the Lord. And it has been decreed by our Fathers that they who are such must be “weepers” for a year, “hearers” for two years, “prostrators” for three years, and in the seventh year to stand with the faithful and thus be counted worthy of the Oblation - Canon LXXXVII Trullo
Your version however differs in a rather significant way from the ones I’ve seen which end this way: …in the seventh year to stand with the faithful and thus be counted worthy of the Oblation* [if with tears they do penance.] ***
Penance includes the intent not to continue the sin. Since, as Canon 87 specified, people in second marriages are guilty of adultery, penance would have to include the intent to stop committing adultery.
Canon 54 addresses invalid unions (to close relations) and specifies that people in these situations:…fall under the canon of seven years, provided they openly separate from this unlawful union.
That is no different than what was promulgated in Canon 87, and the same idea is contained in Canon 3: there is no return to communion with the church until the irregular situation is ended.but that they who are involved in this disorder of a second marriage, but before our decree have acknowledged what is fitting, and have cut off their sin, and have put far from them this strange and illegitimate connection, or they whose wives by second marriage are already dead, or who have turned to repentance of their own accord, having learned continence…
It is only after the irregularity of the marriage has been ended that the individual can ask pardon for his sins.
Ender
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Your interpretation doesn’t stand up to scrutiny when compared to St Basil who says a man deserted by his wife may take another. You are reading it through the lens of 20th century Catholic teaching and practice.
E
Ender
Guest
I didn’t address what St. Basil said. I commented on the canons of the Council of Trullo, and there is nothing in my argument, or in those canons, that applies differently to the 20th century than it did in the seventh.
Ender
S
Seraphim73
Guest
That’s what you say it means now. You have to show that’s what it was understood to mean then. The Canons of St Basil were formally received at Trullo along with the canon you are talking about so they have to be understood together. Couple that with civil law at the time and it seems clear separation or celibacy was not required.
W
weller2
Guest
The fact is however is that Paul preached non-circumcision without prior authorization to do so, and the Council of Jerusalem had to be called to deal with this “heresy”. Yes, at Paul accepted Peter’s primacy, but also Peter et.al. accepted Paul’s fait accompli. Something like that is completely unthinkable in later Church – see e.g. Cyril and Methodius.
I then pressume that former Archbishop Wesolowski (and a couple of other similar personas) is a figment of my imagination? I find Jesus’ label for such people (“whitewashed tombs”) to be strangely fitting. And most importantly – Wesolowski would never gotten the job if Paul’s advice to Timothy was still being followed. The Church has ignored Apostle’s advice on episcopal qualifications, and is now paying for it. Dearly.
Can it afford to ignore scriptural advice on the nature of marriage?
But as you know, Sanhedrin was basically throwing various charges at Jesus in hope that something would stick. So I’d logically expect what exactly is your relationship with this woman during the trial. Not to mention that we are talking about a political show trial and the crowd loves such stuff. So either Sanhedrin judges did not want to sink so low, or they knew upfront that the charge would not fly. We will probably never know. Anyway, I don’t think the nature of Jesus’ relationship with Mary of Magdala actually matters, so I will drop that before we wander too far off topic.
- Status